How Did the Polynesians Get So Huge?

Polar Bear: Polynesians fascinate me because they have Asian (SEA or Taiwan) roots and big builds. The Austronesian women they descend from must’ve been large and in charge.

Good theory but that’s not what happened. They went on long sea voyages to populate the Polynesian islands, but first, they came from Taiwan all the way to Papua New Guinea, which was also a very long voyage.

These were the Lapita people from Taiwan and later from coastal New Guinea and then on to Polynesia. The Lapitas were the greatest mariners who ever lived! And they were around a very long time ago. They are thought to have navigated by the stars.

I did a lot of work on another group of ancient Indo-European people speaking a now extinct language (Liburnian) on the Croatian islands. They were also thought to be amazing navigators. Some people think they even went to India! They also navigated by the stars. It’s pretty amazing that primitive people could figure something like that out so accurately.

Obviously the big problem at sea is fresh water. There are probably always plenty of fish to catch and eat and you can live off of those.

Scurvy was possibly not yet a problem for whatever reason and only turned up among British mariners later on. It’s amazing how they figured that one out too.

Sailors kept getting scurvy. It was Vitamin C deficiency because they were living off hard tack (a form of hard bread) and water, pretty much. Well, scurvy can make you pretty ill. I suppose some sailor at some point must have had some citrus with him on a ship, and when everyone else got scurvy, he avoided it.

And humans are intelligent enough to put two and two together when something like that happens. “Let’s see. What’s this guy doing that no one else is doing? How’s he not getting it? He’s eating citrus!”

Or they went back into port and those who ate citrus right away got better fastest. Who knows! All we know is back then people didn’t even understand about vitamins and minerals, much less deficiencies and yet somehow they figured out that you needed to bring citrus with you on ship voyages to keep from getting scurvy.

Incidentally this is where the word Limey for British person comes from. British were also the greatest mariners of their own time and at one time, the Union Jack ruled over all the High Seas. Spain was the previous power but the turning point came with the Defeat of the Spanish Armada by the British in the early 1500’s. British sailors had limes aboard their ship to eat to keep from getting scurvy, hence, the slang term.

Anyway somehow or other the Polynesians managed to have enough water with them for these long voyages.

How on Earth did they know that they would find islands out there somewhere? Many of those islands are a long way from anything else.  They could have kept sailing on and on and never found any island anywhere, at which point, they would all die.

Anyway they somehow had enough water and food to survive. But the theory is that things were very difficult on these long voyages, and only those who could best withstand famine and other harsh conditions survived. So by the end of the voyage, only the biggest and strongest were still alive – all the others were dead.

Well, it’s obviously a just-so story like so many evolutionary explanations, but at least it’s a theory. And I ask the detractors of this theory: Fine, do you have a better theory? Of course they never do.

 

Is Cousin Marriage Ok or Not?

James Schipper: You are far too concerned about inbreeding. The problem with inbreeding is that it increases the probability of harmful recessive coming together. However, if those genes are very rare to begin with, then the negative consequences of inbreeding will be quite modest.

Some time ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel had an article about that.

Its conclusion was that the consequences of cousin marriages among Turks weren’t particularly severe. As an example, it mentioned a debilitating disease caused by a recessive gene.

This gene has the same frequency among Turks as among Germans, but 1/10,000 of Germans had the disease while 1/4,000 of Turks had it. So the frequency of the disease among Turks is 2.5 times higher than among Germans. However, 1/4,000 is not a huge problem.

Suppose that x is a recessive gene and that it has a frequency of 1%. If mating is purely random, then 1/10,000 of the population will be xx, (1x + 99X)(1x + 99X) = 1 xx + 198Xx + 9801XX. The more assortative mating becomes, the more it will approach the limiting case of 1xx + 99XX, in which case 1/100 of the population will be xx.

Contrary to widespread belief, inbreeding does not worsen the gene pool. It may lower the quality of population, yes, but that is something different. If anything, inbreeding may lead to an improvement of the gene pool. This can happen if people with xx are sterile or so undesirable that nobody will mate with them. In such a case, the x gene will gradually disappear as more and more people who are xx will be born.

All indications are that the predominantly Muslim populations of Northern Africa, West Asia, and South Asia are on average not as intelligent as Europeans. However, neither are the Hindus.

Ashkenazim Jews, on the other hand, are on average smarter than Gentile Europeans, but consanguineous marriages were common among them as they were among blue-blooded Europeans. European kings or aristocrats who married a cousin were legion. Queen Victoria and William III, for instance, were married to a cousin.

The problem is that something called inbreding depression has been well-documented for IQ. The more inbreeding, the lower the IQ goes on average. You can plot it on a graph. However, if this is true then why is Ashkenazi Jewish IQ so high? And they do have quite a few genetic diseases too.

The high rate of genetic diseases among certain Arab Muslim populations, especially in the Gulf, has been well-documented. And the effect of inbreeding depression on the IQ’s of Muslim groups who practice this has also been documented. I think what James’ comment leaves out is the well-documented inbreeding depression effect that cousin marriage has on the IQ of offspring. He leaves that out of his critique.

Alt Left: The Dangers of Medical Transition for Transsexuals, Especially During Childhood

I hope to do quite a few papers on this subject. In general there is no such thing as transsexualism and there is no such thing as transsexuals. Nobody is born in the wrong body.

~10% of transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen, do have a female-shifted brain, but it is not an actual female brain. Their brain is simply in between a male and female brain, so it is female-shifted if you will. But there is no one who is stuck in the  wrong body. No one has a female brain in a male body or vice versa.

And a recent flood of new cases, mostly in teenage girls, is simply a mental illness being caused by social contagion. In this sense it is quite similar to Anorexia Nervosa and in fact, these girls resemble anorexics in  many ways. All of this is completely fake. None is real at all.

I have to have some sympathy for some transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen. These boys have stubbornly insisted that they were girls from an early age such as two or three. Such cases are intransigent and resistant to treatment. I am just fine with transition for these folks.

The rest are just mostly very effeminate gay men who are so effeminate that they think  they are women, sort of an extreme form of homosexuality.

Many transmen are simply very butch lesbians. Whereas in the past they would simply have identified as lesbians and lived their lives this way (something I am just fine with in these cases as I feel it is biological), now they are insisting that they are really men and transitioning. As might be expected a lot of lesbians are pretty mad about this. They hate men enough anyway, and now many of the recent crop of lesbians are insisting that they are the hated gender. Oh noes!

Puberty blockers are catastrophic and they are being given out en masse to very young children nowadays. The results are disastrous and I think this should be done seldom if ever.

Risks of puberty blockers: Sterility and permanent loss of sexual function. Very high levels of sterility. Impairment of bone mineralization, hence weak bones that easily break. Impairment of proper hip development (females only). Results in a male hip instead of a proper hourglass shaped female hip.

Risks cross-sex hormones for MtF only: 5X rate of throboembolic disease. The estrogen causes blood clots in these men’s veins, how I have no idea. Gynecomastia, rarely reversible. These men develop female-type breasts or moobs that never  go away.

Risks of cross-sex hormones for FtM only: Hirsutism, very difficult to reverse. They will have hairy bodies for the rest of their lives even is they detransition. For instance, even if these women go back to being women, they will still have to shave their faces for the rest of their lives. Deeper voice – this is permanent.

Risks of cross-sex hormones only: Elevated heart attack rate, possibly in both sexes.

Transition unnecessary in childhood – no need for immediate transition to prevent suicide: No evidence that transition with drugs and surgery before adulthood reduces the trans suicide rate.

Fake disorder – transsexualism is not real – they are all just mentally ill: Rates of mental disorder and autism among FtM transsexuals are very high, mostly Borderline Personality Disorder and autism.

Unnecessary – goes away on its own: 80% of childhood onset gender dysphoria resolves, often with puberty.

Man Ate Five-Day Old Pasta Salad and Died

There are a bunch of these videos done by a toxicologist. This is the first one I have watched. It’s mostly idiots, fools, naifs, and people making terrible mistakes.

This man ate a pasta salad that had been sitting out for two whole days. He made all of his food on Sunday and then ate it all through the week. That right there is a bad idea. Food left out for more than two hours can spoil. I have lived with morons who routinely left out food out for that long and more and didn’t care. They got mad when I put the food in the fridge. What can I say? People are retards.

Anything sitting out for two days is very bad. Always smell, look closely at, and even touch your food before you eat it. But it’s rude to touch your food! Ridiculous – the fingers touching the food are your own. You aren’t going to give yourself a disease you already have. But on the safe side, wash your hands before eating so you can touch food in confidence. In reality there is likely to be little pathogenic bacteria on your fingers.

Always wash your hands before cooking. Always wash a wooden cutting board after cutting chicken or any raw meat on it.

Always cook your food before you eat it where food needs to be cooked. Meat always needs to be cooked. Raw beef can have E. Coli, raw chicken can have Salmonella, and raw fish can have parasites. Fully 60% of chicken has salmonella. Raw pork can have trichonella which causes Trichinosis, but that mostly been eliminated from our food supply. I am not sure about other foods.

In general it is a bad idea to eat any sort of raw meat. Even sushi can be dangerous. Humans have had fire for 1-2 million years, and we have probably been cooking our food for most of that time.

Raw meat, like most raw foods, takes a long time to digest. You eat a raw steak and you will be digesting it all day. You cook food so you can digest it faster and also cooking food kills pathogens. You heat just about any food on high on a microwave or at a certain temperature on the store (not sure which) for even three minutes, and it will kill just about anything pathogenic in there. If you buy “hot pizza” from a 7-11, always reheat it. I got sick recently eating that stuff.

Bad food almost always smells bad. If it smells bad simply do not eat it.

My family used to have food that had been in the fridge, served it to me, and I said I wouldn’t eat it because it smelled bad. People always got mad because they said it smelled fine, and they were eating it. Go ahead and eat your poisoned food! My Mom got insulted because I implied she served me spoiled food. None of them can smell anyway, and my smell is so good I am almost part dog. Well, full dog if there are women around.

Bad food often looks weird. You can often see the mold right on the bad food. Moldy bread is no big deal. It’s penicillin. It just tastes like crap. When you eat moldy food, the gross taste can stay in your mouth for hours, and it’s hard to get rid of it.

Bad food can feel funny. Spoiled food often has a weird slimy feel to it. Don’t eat slimy spoiled food.

This guy really paid for it eating that spoiled pasta salad. It had Bacillus cerueus, a common cause of food poisoning. Food poisoning usually just gives you nausea, diarrhea, and possibly vomiting. It rarely lasts more than a day. But in some cases it can be much worse as you see in this video!

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

But we did, Nathan. And that’s precisely the problem.

In the unlikely event that Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs magazine and I were ever to sit down and discuss policy we’d like to see implemented, I’m sure we’d agree on a great deal. We Need to Revive the Fight for Overtime Pay, reads a July 9, 2019 headline.

No argument here.  Doubtlessly Robinson is an advocate of universal single payer health care, preferably with basic dental and eye care included. Probably an advocate of renewed vigor in the union movement. Probably for ending neoconservative petrodollar warfare in the middle east. Probably for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics. You get the picture.

At times his enlightenment goes beyond that: Discipline, Strategy and Morality, or why beating up unarmed writers is a poor way to advance left-wing ideas… reads another article, regarding antifa’s recent violent assault on right leaning author Andy Ngo.

While Robinson has no kind words for Ngo, he rightly condemns antifa’s assault on him: “The attack on Andy Ngo does not, to me, meet the criteria for justified violence. A Quillette writer with a GoPro is a nuisance. Punching him might be satisfying (to some, not me). But it is gratuitous and unjustified. It’s wrong. It does nothing helpful, and actually harms the cause of the left.”

Agreed, though to be fair and in the interests of equal time, it’s worth pointing out that there are those who claim that Ngo is no innocent angel or martyr here either.

But I digress. As far as left wing pundits are concerned, expect good stuff from Nathan Robinson. Most of the time.

However, in a recent piece in Current Affairs, Don’t Believe What They Tell You About the Left, he drops the ball, and does so in a manner that reveals the heart of what’s wrong with so much leftism, both past and present. The article criticizes Intellectual Dark Web pundit Bret Weinstein for asserting that the left’s ongoing demonization of White people will drive more and more of them to the embrace of White Nationalism.

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight white male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight white man.” Nothing of the kind.

The closest thing I’ve ever gotten is “perhaps as a straight white male you should exercise a bit of caution and restraint before loudly giving your opinion on matters that other people may have somewhat more personal experience with.”

But when people insist they “won’t apologize for being white,” I still wonder who has been asking them, because nobody has ever asked me to do anything but show respect for marginalized people’s perspective and critically examine my own assumptions and advantages. Which seems a fairly modest ask. 

Robinson goes on to insist that there are no such voices on the left condemning white males categorically, and that these claims come exclusively from right wing sources. The article favorably quotes one Sam Adler Bell:

These people are not getting the message “everyone hates white straight males” from left wing media. They’re not watching left wing media!! It’s absurd. They’re getting that message from right wing media *interpreting* left wing media for them.

He then goes on to suggest:

Don’t get your understanding of left concepts from Prager University videos. Get them from books! Or from leftists. Go to a DSA meeting and meet some people and listen to what they have to say.

Okay. I like the idea of going to the source. Get your views on the left from right wing sources, and what you’ll get is a telling glimpse of the private obsessions of the right wing mind. The vast majority of the time, these have little to do with the obsessions of the left.

What you’ll get instead is a Shapiroesque gish gallop or a Petersonian word salad, wherein you can count on one hand the number of inhalations the speaker takes before getting into the evils of communism, government intervention in the economy, the need for high income tax cuts and deregulation, one hundred million dead in the 20th century, and no small number of mentions of Venezuela and of course endless hosannas exalting endless private wealth accumulation and concentration.

Whatever the Koch Bro’s pay them to say, basically.

And that hasn’t changed in decades now. Listen to the right wing on any format, and what you’ll get is the clear sense that the western world reached its absolute satori around 1981 or so, when Maggie and Ronnie were slashing taxes, privatizing and deregulating left and right, and sticking it to the unions at home and the commies abroad.

From there, what we have to look forward to is a millennium of glory, as outlined in the gospels of Rand, Mises, Friedman and Hayek. If this actually sounds pretty lame, that’s because it is. An endless future of sweatshops, indebtedness and boom and bust cycles doesn’t sound that exciting to me. Sorry guys.

Plus, I should hope that we’re all smart enough not to be enticed into White Nationalism, no matter how shrill and stupid the anti-White rhetoric on the left gets. Too wrongs don’t make a right, after all.

And let’s especially give Adolf Hitler’s resurgent fan club a pass. Let’s not forget that he did start a war that got tens of millions of Europeans and white males killed, that devastated the nations of Europe and permanently ended their global hegemony. With friends like Adolf, White guys certainly don’t need enemies. Fortunately, this groundswell of neo-fascist reaction against social justice culture doesn’t seem to be a huge big thing.

And no, Trumpism doesn’t count. Neither does the Tea Party. Reactionary politics tap into impulses in the American (and European) body politic that are decades, centuries even, old. It reincarnates on a decade, maybe a generational cycle, but there’s nothing here that hasn’t been here in numerous different forms for ages now. So a surge of White supremacism as a response to social justice excess isn’t a thing, in any event.

So if you want to see what’s going on on the left, check out leftist sources. Agreed, and the reverse is true. Don’t just believe that Jordan Peterson is a Nazi and that Sam Harris is a genocidal neocon. See for yourself (said no leftist ever). Unfortunately for Nathan J. Robinson, doing precisely that actually damns his basic claim.

Frustration with the Left of the kind he’s criticizing isn’t coming from the Heritage Foundation or Liberty University. It comes from people like myself and many others who’ve had countless encounters with left wing people online and in real life and report having very similarly frustrating experiences. Common themes include:

  • Robinson has had good luck with Leftists if the only anti-White, anti-male hatred he’s encountered is strictly tongue in cheek, or hyperbolic expressions of frustration with White and male privilege. If such expressions abound, that should tell us something about the character of the Left in the social media age, and that something isn’t good. If expressions of hate for anyone (except the legitimately horrible; Hitler etc) have become acceptable on the Left, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we’ve lost the plot. Remember when we hated racism, not White people? When we hated sexism, not men? This was the cant on even the radical left as recently as the 1990s. If you don’t think the Left has a White hatred problem and a misandry problem, you’re not paying attention to a host of sources: Twitter, Tumblr, a host of woke blogs, r/socialism, most of Leftbook, a good portion of Breadtube, most online feminism, etc etc. It takes a glaring dose of willful blindness not to see that the Left has become about flagrant racial and gender partisanship. It shouldn’t be.
  • Leftists are too often not direct and honest in conversation. One wonders if protest is the only way they actually have of communicating with other people. In encounters with ideological rivals, the tendency online is to post vague expressions of disapproval in a scolding and parental tone, intended to gaslight their target into assuming a purely rational, “what did I do wrong?” kind of stance. And then eat them alive. Another is a “whew boys, look at this” sort of post, followed by mocking laughter. This is the entire format of The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube. You know, the channel with the cackling asshole in the background at all times. Chapo Trap House is largely about this as well. While satirizing the right is fun and easy, if that’s all they do, one starts to come away from media like this with the impression that what leftists stand for is how smart, clever and funny they think they are. Are actual ideological and policy positions expressed on these shows? Or is it ALL gaslighting? I don’t honestly know. We’d do well to learn from the brilliant Kyle Kulinski, who always lets you know exactly what this is – or should be – about policy wise.
  • Leftists have a love of sloganeering, thought stopping rhetorical tricks, witty portmanteaus and reciting, sometimes word for word, official dogmas. I’ve read the same copy-pasta, word for word, on gender related subjects I don’t know how many times now. And as bad as the intersectional feminists are for this, they have nothing on the classical Marxist-Leninists and (worst of all) the Maoists. Now these are a thankfully small minority on the Left, but do show how we’re not immune to the ills of flagrantly cult like thinking.
  • Closed ideological systems, which contain within themselves easy means to dismiss any and all criticism of themselves. Critics are simply White males defending their privilege, reactionary capitalist roaders, kulaks, etc. They all have a stake in the maintenance of the present “oppressive” system. That the cherished dogmas of the Left, like Marxist-Leninism once upon a time and intersectional feminism today, could be flawed (while still making some correct observations) is inconceivable.
  • Related to this is a tendency to display “moral relativism in monstrous incarnation.”  Which refers to the tendency of Leftists to judge actions on the basis of the “classes” of people who perform them, or whether they belong to a “marginalized” vs a “privileged” group. Leftist hating of White males isn’t really hatred because hatred is “power plus prejudice” and since feminists and minorities have no power (according to their own self referencing dogmas) they can’t be bigots. Violent actions visited upon the kulaks or other enemies of the people are okay. Kto Kovo, right?
  • Frequent expression, or at least implication, of truly bizarre and extreme views. Consider, for instance, the occasionally cited Schrödinger’s Rapist, which implies that all women everywhere should at all times avoid all men, because they have no way of knowing which men are the rapists and which are not. This has clearly not been thought through, and doesn’t reflect the way that virtually all progressives and feminists live their lives in the real world. Gee, I wonder why? Yet even if such ideas are not meant to be taken at face value, what does their popularity among Leftists and feminists say about their underlying mindset? Most of them may not all really hate all men and white people, but their doctrines certainly open the door to legitimizing such hatred, and anti white male exacerbation is a recurring motif in Leftist spaces in a way that would not be tolerated (and rightly so) were the racial and gender identities switched. Are we to believe that only White males have flaws in their character that require self reflection and repentance? At what point do “power” and “privilege” simply become legitimizing rationalizations for why it’s okay when the Left’s charmed circle of preferred identities hate?  I guess the idea that we should not be discriminated against based on our race or gender isn’t really the idea after all. This all says something, whether the Nathan J. Robinsons of this world want it to or not. If men, White men especially, are put off by this ongoing pandering to female moral vanity, can we really blame them?
  • Fragility. Put up serious arguments against Leftist dogmas and watch their adherents fall to pieces or go into full on attack mode. You’ve caused them personal injury, and they’re damn well going to let you – or your employers or people you do business with – know it. They sure the Hell let Andy Ngo know it, among others. Of course, they’re the first to accuse their opponents of likewise being fragile, with “White fragility” being a common thought stopping slogan among critical race theorists to denounce the tendency among whites to dislike being held collectively responsible for historical mistreatment of minorities.

I should like to point out that I, and many others, were not told about any of the above second hand by Bret Weinstein or Dave Rubin. We weren’t all good, dutiful socialists until Stefan Molyneux or Carl Benjamin somehow brainwashed us into falsely believing all of this. They are experiences that I and countless others, including some of these very “rightwing” YouTubers have had, and they aren’t isolated occurrences. They are the rule and not the exception, I’m afraid.

And I hate to say all of this, because I am a Leftist at heart. I don’t even completely disagree with the tenets of today’s Left: intersectionality and so on. Robinson is right in that we’d do well to listen to those with more experience with particular kinds of discrimination, and not be so quick to get defensive.

The problem is the weaponization of intersectionality and the inflation of standpoint theory into claims for full-blown infallibility. Plus, we can reasonably question just who the intersectional ideologues are speaking for, and how representative professional journalists and academics really are of the downtrodden and marginalized?

We’re not stupid, Nathan. We know when these ideas are being manipulated so as to establish social dominance. We’ve been through it with hip, politically correct ideologues time and time again, and the fact our frustration with it gets chalked up to the “alt right” simply compounds the problem.

Where Robinson gives himself, and the mainstream Left away, however, is in this pair of quotes:

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight White male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight White man.” Nothing of the kind.

One of my colleagues, for instance, has a tendency to joke that all men should be fired into the sun. (At least, I believe she is joking.) Men sometimes email to complain, saying they do not feel “welcomed” into the Left and that these jokes are hurtful because they imply that all men are bad.

I am not very sympathetic to the men who write these notes, because I am of their gender, and I do not feel wounded about remarks advising that men be fired into the sun.

In short, Nathan J. Robinson has not himself ever been told to fuck off for being a straight White man, so we’re to assume that never happens. Nathan J. Robinson himself doesn’t feel wounded by remarks advising that men be fired into the sun. Therefore, such remarks are well and good.

Well, I hate to have to say this, Nathan, but it isn’t all about you. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not wise for Leftists to countenance White male bashing in their ranks because doing so drives away a huge potential base for support. Support the Left needs to actually win elections, take power and actually implement policy that can really help poor and marginalized minorities.

Maybe that support and the politics it can achieve is more important to the broader cause than professional educated professional activists getting to be right and dumb Rightists being wrong about a cherished point of dogma, such as ‘power plus prejudice or of the ego stroking satisfaction of displaying their unbound feminist wittiness in the face of yet another neanderthal male.

But many Leftists will never consider this, and thus the core of the problem on the Left reveals itself, and why self-reflection (except a vain sort of self criticism of one’s own ideological shortcomings, itself a very totalitarian and cultish concept) seems never to be on the table with most Leftists:

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

Too many Leftists are caught up in a kind of narcissism wherein their projected self-concepts as warriors fighting on behalf of the underdog (the precise origin of the derisive use of the phrase social justice warrior) must be shielded at all times from any kind of doubt or criticism.

Thus, their reactions to disagreement are always ones of emotionalism, hostility and defensiveness. Never due consideration of what their opponents actually have to say, even if the end result of such consideration would reveal the critics being incorrect and the Left’s position vindicated by the facts.

One gets the sense that, like the religious fundamentalist, many Leftists demand blind faith, and the very notion of fact checking thus offends them. To doubt is to be racist, misogynist etc.

It’s so much easier just to handwave any and all dissent as the shrill hysteria of this or that rightwing pundit, and maybe even call for their deplatforming, milkshaking or the like.

So much easier than meeting the challenge head on. The bubble of self satisfaction doesn’t get burst that way. Not to say that rightwing pundits on YouTube or elsewhere are correct in their own world views. The Right has its own problems. However, the lack of self awareness among so many on the Left is simply breathtaking.

Perhaps this is why most of the intellectual and activist vigor on the Left is poured into digging in their heels over metapolitical dogmas aimed at asserting a kind of ideological infallibility: standpoint theory, power plus prejudice, white male fragility, dissension from feminist and race theory equating to racist and sexist oppression, and “hate” speech as a form of actual violence (justifying censorship).

As opposed to fighting the good fight for actual policies that will help real people in the real world: universal health care, free education, a living wage, ending petrodollar warfare, a new new deal, getting money out of politics and so on.

Witty Leftists so love their portmanteaus, so I have one of my own: too many Leftists are egolitarians. Its meaning should be obvious. So if you are reading this, Nathan J. Robinson, or whoever else on the Left who’s reading this, let’s work at not being egolitarian.

Let’s make this about the policies we all know we need, that Kyle Kulinski and Bernie Sanders so love to repeat so often. I’m not calling for perfection, purity testing or vigorous tone policing. Rather, let’s try to make this about ourselves and our self concepts a little less and about achieving good political results for the most needy and the most marginalized a little more, if we could?

Repost: Alt Left: What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.

Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.

How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.

A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me. Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. It is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse; nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were  fairly to very common to in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis, and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men; whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights. I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying, and heartbreaking, particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society.

Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.

The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men. Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions.

I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.

I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.

However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.

The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.

Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate. However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.

Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities. Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).

Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

Alt Left: Do Not Eat Processed Meats with Nitrates or Nitrates

I am just learning this right now. The nitrates are added to processed meats such as luncheon meats, bacon, ham, sausages, pepperoni, etc. to help preserve them and to give them the pink color. Most meat that has that pink color is probably bad for you.

The nitrates and nitrites themselves are not harmful. Many vegetables have them. However, when added to meats, especially red meats, the nitrates interact with chemicals in the meat to produce nitrosamines, which are not only bad for your heart but are also a strong carcinogen.

We’ve known this for a long time now. There was a big warning leveled against these meats in the mid-1970’s.

Back then the FDA was pro-consumer, unlike now when it is viciously anti-consumer, pro-business, and anti-public health. The FDA gave the meat industry three months to prove that nitrates in meat were harmless. They couldn’t do it. Instead they made up a lie that nitrates were required to keep botulism out of food.

But meats cured without nitrates have been used for decades and there hasn’t been one case of botulism. Most botulism comes from canned foods, often canned vegetables. The can is often very old and many times the botulism causes a bulge in the can. Never eat out of any can that has developed an odd bulge in it.

In 1980, Republicans came in and a consumer and public health-hostile and pro-business FDA came in and the nitrate controversy went away. It awakened again a few years ago when British papers published studies showing that processed meats with nitrates caused thousands of cases of cancer per year in the UK. This was called the bacon scare.

The industry has been lying shamelessly about these carcinogens in our foods for almost fifty years now. Their line came right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook.

There are many websites on the Net with articles about the fake nitrate scare and even how nitrates are good for you. I just realized that I bought a package of turkey hot dogs and one of ground turkey meat that both had sodium nitrite in it.

There’s really no safe amount of this stuff you can eat. Even eating one nitrate hot dog a day significantly increases your risk of dying of cancer, typically colon cancer. If you know what’s good for you, you will quit eating this junk right now.

There are not a lot of nitrate-free processed meats out there, but there are some. There are completely safe traditional ways to cure meats that work just as well as nitrates. But the curing process can take up to 18 months. Meat companies want their meats to cure rapidly. Waiting around for them to cure cuts into profits.

So we see once again how the maximize profits directive of capitalism once again puts money and profits over human lives. Capitalism literally murders or kills humans just so other humans can make a buck. I hope you fanboys are proud of that fancy free market of yours.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

The Lie of the Incompetent Black Affirmative Action Professional

The racist argument – which I just saw again on Niggermania today (as I said you need to know what your enemies believe) – is that due to affirmative action and whatnot (which is a racist White Whale that barely exists anymore anyway), Blacks are held to a lower standard.

Well, they’re Black, so we don’t expect much of them, so we will pass them with lower grades than the Whites, and we won’t expect as much of them at work, we will not expect them to do as much work. and we will let them get away with more bad behavior.

I have no idea how true this is. Yes, some law schools do lower standards for Blacks at admission, but there’s no evidence that they grade Blacks at a different standards than Whites. Even if they can fudge a bit to get them in, Blacks in professional schools still have to do just as good as Whites to pass in class. No one’s cutting them any slack on law or med schools, at least not yet.
And if the Blacks really can’t cut it because they slid in on lowered affirmative action standards, they will flunk out anyway, especially at a place like Berkeley. So the lowered standards in a sense are a non-problem. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing if you will.
And even if they somehow do not flunk out, they still have to pass the bar. If a Black gets admitted to law school and graduates and then somehow passes the damned bar, they’re competent. It doesn’t matter whether standards got lowered for them to get in or not. The Bar doesn’t believe in affirmative action, at least not yet.
Medical school is the same thing. Ok, they lower standards of admittance, but 35% drop out anyway, and 7% out and out flunk out. So if they were admitting unqualified people, they will bomb out one way or another anyway. And if they do graduate, now they have to pass their boards. Boards don’t believe in affirmative action or not yet anyway.
Tests like the Bar and the Medical Boards are the Great Equalizers. If a Black person can get through law or medical school and pass the bar or their boards, Jesus Christ, how bad of an attorney or physician could they possibly be?
The Bar and the Boards are so difficult that they make it so that anyone who miraculously passes them is absolutely qualified at a minimal level to practice law or medicine. So the idea of all these incompetent Black  professionals everywhere that the racists bring up doesn’t pass the smell test. There simply cannot be lots of incompetent Black professionals as long as they have to pass murderous tests to get the job, and the workplace holds them to high standards.
The notion of the incompetent Black professional affirmative action hire lies in the dust.

Crime Rates in Black Countries, among Black Populations and in Black Cities and Neighborhoods around the World

Thinking Mouse: Many African nations have a similar homicide rate to far eastern Europe, despite having much lower incarceration rates and younger demographics.

Incarceration rates are low because the police are often incompetent and much crime is not prosecuted or even reported.
Black Africa has had some of the highest homicide rates on Earth for decades. Crime is so bad there are travel warnings against going to most of those countries. Are there travel warnings telling people not to go to Eastern Europe? I recently went through the US State Department warnings for Black Africa and in every single country in the region, there were warnings about high levels of crime and violent crime. I believe Senegal was somewhat of an exception and most of the crime there was property crime.
I would not feel frightened going to Eastern Europe. I would feel frightened in most large Black African cities except possibly in the Sahel. I have heard that Senegal is relatively low crime. There is terrorism now in the Sahel though, so it is dangerous on that basis, but the crime is not very high. Of all of the countries in Black Africa, I would probably recommend Senegal as safe enough to take a careful vacation there. I’ve also heard that it is a very interesting country. It might be nice as a human to visit Black Africa once in a lifetime.
Generally the Muslim parts of Black Africa are safer, more orderly, calmer, and have less crime than the Christian areas.
However, there is an ethnic group of 1 million people in Burkina Faso that has a homicide rate of ~1/100,000, about the same as Japan’s. So this shows that not all Black populations automatically commit lots of violent crime and homicide. But whatever environment this group has created to make such a safe culture does not seem to be easily replicable outside of that group. The group is Muslim, and study of Muslim texts is mandatory for all young people, so the group is educated. Elders are revered and respected and children fear their wrath and do not disobey them much. Elders take it upon themselves to mentor youths and young adults as a matter of course. Ethnic pride is high and members read texts about the group and participate in frequent cultural exercises.
In addition, much of the crime in Black Africa is simply not reported, as police are incompetent, corrupt, and take bribes. In a number of those countries, police set up roadblocks specifically to take bribes from motorists.
The Black Caribbean has a high violent crime and homicide rate.
I read a recent figure for the UK that Blacks were 2% of the population, and they committed 20% of the homicides. In the US, Blacks are 13% of the population, and they commit 53% of the homicides.
All of the high homicide US cities are Black. In LA, the top nine most dangerous police precincts are in Black neighborhoods.
Has the commenter ever been around large numbers of Black people? Gone to school with them, went to their parts of time, driven around in cities where there are many of them? You need to stay out of areas where there are large numbers of low income Blacks. Those areas dangerous as Hell. I taught in Black schools for years.
You had to leave school before sundown. Once I went back to see my school at 9:30 at night and it was absolutely terrifying. Basically these neighborhoods can be more or less ok in the daytime (I drove around them a lot and went out to eat a lot), but don’t go off the main streets even in the daytime and make sure you are out of the area after dark.

There Are Many Good Black People even in the Ghetto

However, having worked in those schools for years and spent some time in the deep inner city of LA (South Central LA), I will say that it is trivial to meet decent people in that area. My car broke down twice in Black areas, once in South Central and once in Compton. Both times, Black adults came out and helped me get my car going. In both cases, there was an older man in his 40’s. In one case there were some young men in their 20’s helping him. They were extremely nice people.
I dated a Black woman in South Central and though she was a scumbag crack addict, I spent some time in her barbershop talking to some older Black men in their 50’s and 60’s. They were extremely cool. One  man acted a bit strange around me and I asked my date and she said he hates Whites and has not been around them much. But he was very nice to me, although he seemed  a bit awkward around me. I think he was surprised to find a friendly, decent Black man.
Even in South Central, a lot of the older Black men from 40-60 are very good people, assuming they are not imprisoned and are still alive. Particularly if they own a home. Black culture has a way of winnowing out the worst people who tend to spend much of their lives incarcerated or else die young.
A number of the incarcerated ones get out and though they are not great people, I would not say they are bad people either. I spent a couple of hours talking to a 45 year old Black man who had done ten years in prison for robbery and attempted murder. He seemed quite a bit calmed down.
People tend to age out of crime and bad behavior anyway and even among adults, it is young adults who act the worst and commit the most crime. Even many psychopaths burn out in middle age and become depressed/alcoholic while the condition lessens and moderates quite a bit.
The Black teachers and aides at the schools I taught at were generally very nice people, although some were pretty angry. I mostly befriended Black female teachers. Some of the administrators were very cool too.
However, in the very heart of the ghetto, in deep Compton near Willowbrook, not only were the students the worst of all, but they hated Whites the most. In addition, a number of the Black female teachers seemed to hate Whites, something I never dealt with before.
Many of the older Black women even in the ghetto are very good people, especially if they are deep into religion. Even some of the Black students I taught were good people, especially if they were deep into religion. At one school, a Black female senior seemed to be in love with me and asked me out and tried to get my phone number.

Though Bad People Are a Minority in the Hood, There Are Simply Too Many of Them

The problem with these areas is not that everyone is lousy. In fact there are many decent and even good people even deep in the ghetto. However the rate of lousy, bad and out and out evil and dangerous people is much higher than in White areas. There are just too many bad people around (although they are a minority) such that it makes traveling and spending time there a dangerous endeavor.

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.
But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
Measuring potential school performance:
Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
Job performance:
Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
Eugenics:
Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:
Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning
And i also agree with:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
Height and IQ Genes
making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
Testing mental health:
This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
Criterion validity and correlation:
I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.
And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 
I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?
Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.
Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.
Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.
State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.
Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.
Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.
Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.
Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.
Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.
Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls
Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.
Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.
Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.
The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.
Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.
Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Alt Left: "Sleazy Gay Men Who Just Want Boys"

Great article from a gay man who has now gone religious and is opposed to homosexuality. The problem with these guys is that they say homosexuality is a sin against God according to Christians. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it’s not a scientific argument and most us, even Christians like me, are most interested in the science than the doctrine when it comes to that. Anyway, I don’t think homosexual behavior is sinful.
There are other problems with these guys.
They all adopt an anti-essentialist point of view on homosexuality. Of course, we on the Alt Left are essentialists or we are nothing. The best available evidence that is the homosexuals somehow get wired up that way by the time they hit puberty. The best theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder akin to left-handedness. These people seem to argue that gays choose to be that way, when that does not seem to be the truth.
They all argue that homosexuals can be cured, while there is no evidence that they can be.
They are also against gay marriage of course, which I support.
Other than that, a lot of these men offer an immaculate critique of modern gay culture that cannot be found anywhere else because PC/SJW Culture means that gay men are a protected class above all critique. Apparently it’s illegal to even look at them wrong. It’s long been known that homosexuals have high levels of mental pathology along with a long list of medical problems. The way homosexuals live shaves a full 20 years off their lifespans. A lot of gay men are are flaky and sleazy. Crime is high in the gay community as is a general debasement of morality and culture itself as everything of value is subsumed to the supreme value of sex above all else.
That gay male culture has very high rates of pederasty and that pederasty has been elevated as the ultimate gay male relationship above all others has been true since Antiquity. Older gay men have very high rates of sex with young teenage boys than older straight men do with young teenage girls. Yet no one says a word about this because gay male culture is silent on the older gay man – teenage boy question.
These relationships, many of them illegal, are ubiquitous across the gay community. They are regarded with an accepting or amnesic shrug, and these older men are almost never turned in. Gay organizations deal with these relationships constantly and they never turn the man in even one time. Yet we hear no end of screeching from the Puritan/feminists about how all of us straight men are pedophiles for turning our heads when a hot 17 year old girl walks by.

This article contains graphic true language of the sinfulness of homosexual sin.
I have to thank Michelangelo Signorile and other gay writers who have come forward in the Huffington Post and elsewhere in response to the discussion of Dustin Lance Black’s relationship with a nineteen-year-old boy. After decades of false pretenses, they have at last come clean with the American public and admitted that the gay movement cannot succeed unless taboos against man-boy sex are at last knocked down.
I had tiptoed around the issue until this week. I had been attacked as “anti-equality” and “anti-gay” for over a year, even without bringing up what I knew about the rampant pederasty (sex between men and teenagers, as opposed to pedophilia, which is sex between men and children.) Even as my defense of children’s rights made me vulnerable to charges of conspiring with evil homophobic rubes, I was holding back an even more difficult dimension of my opposition to same-sex parenting.
I had known that beneath the appeals to gay “normalcy,” there was an underbelly in the gay male world of men sleeping with boys.
I avoided mentioning this when I testified in St. Paul, Paris, and Brussels. Nonetheless I had engaged in the debate about same-sex parenting with the unspoken suspicion that many gay male couples, if given the chance to be foster parents or adoptive fathers, would end up having sex with boys in their care or exposing their charges (both boys and girls) to a gay male culture that trampled on the generally understood prohibition against old people sleeping with vulnerable young people.
The result, I feared, would mirror many of the negative impacts on gay boys that have occurred as a result of “It Gets Better,” the Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools, sexualized curriculum, online gay sites like Chatroulette and TrevorSpace (not to mention the creeps on Craigslist), and gay mentorship programs. These public policy projects have blossomed over the last twenty-five years in the United States with the best of intentions — to keep gay boys from killing themselves out of despair.
As it turns out, gay boys don’t usually kill themselves simply because people reject them for being gay. The vast majority of people really don’t care what anybody does in their private sex life, which is why Dayna Morales, the tragic lesbian waitress in New Jersey, had to fabricate the tale of homophobic patrons stiffing her on a tip.
Homophobia is far less powerful than the reigning callousness and indifference of society to what’s going on with other people, really. So gay boys are far more likely to kill themselves not because people care about their gayness and hate them for it, but rather because most people don’t care about their gayness at all other than horny gay men who are much older than they and fuck them up the ass when they aren’t ready to deal with the emotional minefield of homosexuality.
All these naive programs placed boys in contact with adult gay men based on the assumption that the gay adults wouldn’t end up using such arrangements to corner boys and sodomize them. That assumption was criminally negligent.
I speak crudely because, as the statistics from the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control reveal, the end result of many such gay mentor programs has been many adults inserting their penises into boys’ anuses. Hence there has been a spike in the HIV infection rate of boys aged 13-19, of which 95% result from unprotected anal sex.
Studies into HIV infection rates among black gay men reveal that blacks are infected with HIV at an exorbitant rate because they of all the races are most likely to be engaged in relationships with males much older or much younger than they are. Black gays do not engage in higher rates of unprotected sex, nor do they have unusually high or risky numbers of sex partners. Rather, their Achilles’ heel is their greater penchant for what Mr. Signorile lovingly calls “intergenerational” sex.
One of the top indicators of HIV infection risk is a tendency to date much older or much younger than oneself, and this makes sense for a basic reason: the kind of men who disregard the taboo against men fucking boys will usually also disregard other ethical limitations to their gratification, seeing limits as unfair or prejudiced. Condoms disappear somewhere in the confusion — and no, making people feel less guilty about doing something doesn’t make what they do safer, as the recent statistics shockingly tell us.
Let’s forget HIV for an instant however and the overall issues of sexually transmitted diseases. What if there were no STD’s at all to be spread from older men to boys through anal and oral sex?
There is still tremendous emotional vulnerability in a boy who is considering gay sex which isn’t there with girls or boys who are 100% straight.
A boy who starts getting fucked by men finds his whole future rewritten — it is not only an event dealing with one particular partner, but rather a foundational shift in his imagined future.
He will be in the gay community, living by its rules. Once an old man’s penis finds its way into the boy’s anus, the boy has to redefine his life goals, envision a future without women, without children, without access to the cultural mainstays enjoyed by the 99% of the world that isn’t gay and male. He must picture spending his time in the constricted, tiny circle of gay bars, gay associations, and gay cliques, looking for love in a tiny, somewhat incestuous pool of familiar local characters; gay men who will flit in and out of his life, vanishing without a morning call-back after a year and then popping up two years later on the arm of his best friend.
There is also the sheer physical change that happens when you are a boy and you first start letting men fuck you. It’s painful. You are being taught how to mix pain and pleasure, which increases the likelihood that you’re going to develop masochistic behaviors. You feel like a different person. As someone who got fucked by a lot of men in their forties and fifties when I was a teenage boy, I speak from real, extensive experience.
So when you as a grown man fuck a boy, you are inflicting a host of potential anxieties on him. You are throwing his masculinity and sexual identity in doubt. You are forcing him to picture himself growing old and dying without having a wife and children, without giving his parents a daughter-in-law and grandchildren — being stuck in a claustrophobic world full of flaky and sleazy men.
The recent statistics from many sources all seem to confirm that man-boy sex is a rampant problem in the gay community, and it’s destroying people’s lives.
The Department of Justice found that gay teens are much more likely to be in physically abusive relationships not to mention emotionally abusive relationships, with one of the key factors the fact that they are involved so often in unstable sexual liaisons with men much older than they are. While the report included a statement about the lack of “role models” for gay teens, we must extrapolate a deeper problem that straight researchers might not be able to piece together. Gay teens have role models, but the role models are fucking them. That messes up their heads.
Many of the recent cases involving gay foster dads or gay mentors who sexually abused boys do not reflect a sinister, evil psychology in the adult gay male, but rather a frighteningly innocent belief on the part of the adult that the youth wanted to get fucked and somehow fucking him was part of helping him.
Walter L. Williams, the founder of USC’s Gay and Lesbian Archives, got caught in sex traffic with underage boys in the Philippines and elsewhere, after decades of writing in favor of more open attitudes toward sexuality. He most likely thought that he was doing something benevolent by fucking boys. He had been after all a veritable father figure to gay college students for years.
Mark Newton, who manufactured a baby with an illegal Russian surrogate and then used the child he bought as an international sex slave, said it was an “honor” to have been a gay father as he was sentenced and sent off to prison. He was profiled by Australia’s ABC in 2010 as the idyllic example of same-sex parenting, beneath a headline, Two Dads Are Better than One. He and his husband, Peter Truong, probably felt that the toddler was experiencing pleasure with penises in his mouth, since the experience was pleasant for the adult getting a blow job.
There is a failure of ego differentiation in many of these cases (of which these are only a sliver.) The gay male adult, fed a steady diet of LGBT narratives about people being born gay and deserving sexual gratification as a civil right, cannot comprehend that what they believe and feel isn’t exactly the same as what the child is believing and feeling.
Since so much argumentation about gay parenting has hinged on the notion of “gay couples providing a loving home,” many gay adults charged with youths get lost in the nebulous meaning of “loving.” They have been prompted to believe that if what they do to young people comes from affectionate motives, it’s good. Which is a very convenient way to talk oneself into fucking a boy, unfortunately.
I am sure that Dan Savage felt that he was helping young boys with “It Gets Better,” though it seems that the tens of thousands of testimonials from adult gays merely encouraged boys to go out and get fucked up the ass by older men, with the result that now a lot of them are going to die from AIDS.
And then think of Caleb Laieski, the teen activist honored by President Obama, who helped a fortysomething gay policeman score with a fourteen-year-old boy who was questioning his sexuality. As Caleb and his adult conspirator prepare to go off to prison as well, I cannot say that they were ill intended. He and the gay policemen were leaders in the gay community and thought they were helping the fourteen-year-old by breaking him in. Unfortunately for them, the boy got suicidal and exposed the entire activist game as a terrible exploitative ruse.
While neither Michael Jackson nor Jerry Sandusky identified as gay, it is worth noting that they both also viewed their suspicious congress with boys as part of nurturing and affection.
These abhorrent data result from the gay movement’s uncritical celebration of the penis and its supposed liberating power. Your penis is not an instrument of charity, gentlemen. Your penis is a loaded weapon. You must understand that.
Mr. Signorile speaks of intergenerational sex as “nurturing” and educational. His views on this reveal that the modern gay male has little to no concept of nurturing and educational relationships except when such connections involve inserting their penises into people and ejaculating into them.
It’s bad enough that relationships between gay male adults have to be hypersexualized. When your beginning mindset is, “I can help and coddle this young boy, and fuck him too,” and you see nothing wrong with this, in fact believing that any resistance to it is based on homophobia (as Mr. Signorile has written in stark terms), you may be qualified to lead the gay community in developing its imagination, its fantasies, and its sense of self-actualization.
But you should not have custody of children, teenagers, or young adults. You should not be asking the American people to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and then place millions of future 18-year-olds in basic combat training under gay NCO’s who think this way. You should not be asking the American people to allow gay leaders in the Boy Scouts. You definitely should not be listed as a potential foster care home, let alone candidates for adoption.
The response from Mr. Signorile that the 19-year-old in the Dustin Lance Black case was a “consenting adult” makes it all the more urgent that the American people reject the ligbitist push to change laws about adoption, employment non-discrimination, and the like. Mr. Signorile, like most in the movement, believes that anything legal is okay. It shouldn’t be surprising that they are therefore so interested in changing laws to make more of the sleazy things they do legal.
I didn’t arrive at these harsh declarations because I hated gay people or because I am part of the gay community and have a deep abiding love for my gay brothers; I got here because I love young people and understand that it’s better that gay men don’t try to fuck them, which they will, if given the chance. That scares me.
As a professor, I live and operate with the understanding that people in a seasoned, mature, mentor-like role must express love toward those who are in the learning, young, and undeveloped role, without unzipping our pants and getting our penises involved.
As a father, I live and operate with the understanding that my daughter should go forth in the world and be mentored by adults who can differentiate between teaching her about professional life, etc., and involving her in the fraught act of sexual intercourse.
As a veteran of the US Army Reserves (as undistinguished as my service admittedly was), I live and operate with the understanding that training and discipline do not mix well with orgasms and erections and ejaculation.
These are all understandings — norms, if you will — that an adult entrusted with children has to walk around with. It has to be second nature. It must be something beyond question, beyond editorial review, beyond negotiation. While women face this issue, it is even more acutely an issue for men, who have a long history and perhaps biological predisposition, to inject their penis into situations and confuse their own quest for pleasure with their obligation to teach, mentor, and guide young people.
Heterosexual men who defy these rules with girls are subject to swift recrimination, even if they get away with it because it’s supposedly “legal.”
Colleagues of mine who have violated the sacred sexual barrier between teacher and student and made love to their pupils have lost tremendous respect from me and especially from females in the profession.
Non-commissioned officers or officers who sleep with female subordinates are subject to severe penalties in the military.
Think of what happened to Bill Clinton and David Petraeus as a result of their inability to manage their penises properly in the presence of younger forbidden fruit.
Dustin Lance Black is thirty-nine years old and almost the same age as his boyfriend’s father when the latter passed away recently. Judging from what the boy said in the video and what others have reported as information gleaned from people close to him, he looked up to Dustin Lance Black and wanted to learn from him, be mentored, be held and fathered by him.
It’s entirely possible that the boy broached the topic of sex and wanted the older man to teach him about homosexual intercourse–as a professor, trust me, I am familiar with how 19-year-olds can be sexually aggressive, even demanding that a relationship that should be based on mentorship turn into sex.
When I say that our penises are loaded weapons, I do not mean to say that the “victims” of gay penises aren’t sometimes eager to have access to them. But the adult in the room has to be able to say “no,” tell the college freshman to calm down, and keep his zipper up and his penis under lock and key. That’s part of being a grown-up. If you can’t say “no” to a young person who wants to take a look at your penis, you have no business trying to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.
Related articles
Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays (americanthinker.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: Tom Daley Is 20 Years Younger than Dustin Lance Black… So What? (huffingtonpost.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: No, Pope Francis Is Not the LGBT Person of the Year (huffingtonpost.com)
Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V. (thelib2013.wordpress.com)
Man-Boy Sex and Its Long Tradition among Gay Men (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
Michelangelo Signorile at Odds With HRC over Positive ‘Duck Dynasty’ Message (towleroad.com)
Gay Teens Are At Higher Risk for HPV, Study Shows (thegayclassifieds.wordpress.com)
Study Finds HPV Common in Young Sexually Active Gay Men (counselheal.com)

Alt Left: The Real Reasons for Many Murders of Transwomen and Gay Bashings of Gay Men

Much has been written about how many transwomen are murdered. Many transwomen are indeed murdered. Whether these are the true transsexuals (homosexuals) or the transtrenders (transvestites, crossdressers, and autogynephiles) is not known. Many transwomen (men who think they are women) work as prostitutes. Many are not able to work in ordinary jobs, they often have very poor mental health that prevents them from working at regular jobs.
Transwomen have the highest rates of mental disorder of any group seen clinically. 90% of transwomen are significantly mentally ill, and they have everything under the book, from mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder to anxiety disorders of different kinds to personality disorders. They also have very high rates of paraphilias and sexual disorders and have rates of being convicted for sex crimes (these are the transtrenders). The transwomen working on the street are often homeless and many have drug and alcohol problems. Very high HIV rates have been found for transwomen prostitutes – up to 42%.
Although the murders of transwomen are tragic, it is helpful to note the circumstances under which these are occurring.
A lot of these murders occur when they are prostituting themselves, and their label doesn’t always say what’s in the bottle. In other words, they are out on the streets advertising themselves as female prostitutes. They get picked up by male clients thinking they are picking up a woman.
At some point, they are shocked to find that it is actually a man as many transwomen are pre-ops, that is, they take the hormones but they have not taken the surgery, so they look like women, have women’s breasts, and yet they still have penises. When the client finds out that this is a “woman with a penis” sometimes they fly into a rage and kill the transwoman in a blind rage murder of the type that men are susceptible.
A friend of mine picked up a “woman” in a cab and went home with “her” only find out halfway through the blowjob that it wasn’t a woman at all. He didn’t get violent but he was pretty freaked out and upset.
It’s pretty abusive for TIM’s to tell us other men that they are women, and we men get into dating/sexual stuff with them and suddenly find out they’re a guy. They’re men pretending to be women and worse they are not even telling everyone!
No one wants to hear this, but a lot of gay bashing is actually done to gay men who are openly propositioning straight men (like, say, grabbing their cocks?). I am not supporting bashing of course, and I have been gay-bashed three times myself, once with a baseball bat! So I’m not wild about gay men, but homophobes are 100X worse. Also, how come no one talks about straight men getting gay-bashed? It’s epidemic.
But it is actually true. Many gay bashings occur not just when gay men hit on straight men, which they do constantly, but when they won’t take no for an answer, which is all the time. You women think straight men are bad about not taking no for answer, well, gay men are 50X worse.
And no one talks about this either, but gay men are far worse than straight men as sexual harassers, in fact they wrote the book on sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the unspoken norm in gay male society.
I do dislike gay men but I support them politically and even work on their campaigns. I dislike them because they have been hitting on me for decades, and they won’t take no for an answer. My reaction is similar to that of women mad at men over sexual harassment.
Yes, gay men sexually harass straight men. You cannot talk about this either because it is “homophobic.” When I lived in LA, I lived in a gay community for a while. Supposedly I was good-looking back and then had some male modeling offers. I had a couple of friends who were straight models who started out pro-gay but became almost violently homophobic over time due to constant harassment by gay men. Male models are not all gay. Actually 2/3 are straight.
Anyway, the place was swarming with gay men, and I would walk down the street, and all of them would be rubbernecking me in their cars driving by. I had one who waited outside my workplace every night right before work. I would go to the window and look out, and there he would be, staring right up at my window. I almost had a panic attack every time. And he would watch me like a hawk as I walked to my car.
When I would go to parties, etc. they would creepily stare at me for long periods of time.
I related this on my site and got called homophobe of course, but some of my female readers commented and said, “Ok, now you know what it feels like to be a woman!” And she was right. I didn’t like those gay men treating me like a piece of meat. Now if women want to, ok, maybe.
The generally feeling would best be described as unnerving, which may be how women feel with constant male sexual attention?
I also disagree that sexual harassment is driven by misogyny. As you can see, men harass other gay men worse than they harass women and gay men harass straight men like crazy.
Men sexually harass women because they are men, and that is what men, do – they sexually harass other humans?
It’s a more science-based theory.

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.
China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.
Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.
“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”
Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.
Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.
45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.
Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.
There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.
I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.
Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.
Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.
There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.
It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.
How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.
The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.
Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.
In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.
Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.
This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.
The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?
A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”
The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.
China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.
Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.
The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

Alt Left: Female to Male HIV Transmission: How Does It Work?

Shakey: It’s 2018, do you still think it’s impossible for female to transmit HIV to male (negative) during vaginal intercourse?

I never said that. I would not say that because there have been a number of documented cases of female-male transmission.

  • If a male has an open sore like syphilis, herpes or chancroid, you can get HIV from a female.
  • And if she has any sort of vaginal bleeding or if the male has any sort of penile bleeding, all bets are off. Almost all cases of female-male cases nowadays involve the presence of genital bleeding, most often vaginal bleeding.
  • Odds of catching HIV from a woman are 1/10,000 per sex act, but this is from a study of long-term discordant couples. The couples in which the woman infected the man all had significant episodes of penile and vaginal bleeding (Nancy Padian 1989). This the famous Padian study that causes so much ridiculous and unnecessary uproar among Gay Politics types, who simply objected to the negative findings of the study. At the time, Gay Politics was actively promoting a falsehood that all heterosexuals were at risk of HIV.  This was done because they felt that if Americans thought only gays were getting HIV, they would not care to spend much money as gays were a despised minority. In order to get the funding that the gays thought they needed to study and treat the illness, the gays thought they had to convince heterosexual Americans that they were all at risk too. However, this was a lie concocted for political reasons. Padian was ferociously attacked by gays for her largely negative reports on female to male HIV transmission, as her findings blew up the gays’ lie that all straight were at risk too. Padian was forced to do a humiliating apology to gay SJW types for no reason at all. The whole matter was disgusting.
  • In the subtypes of HIV present in the US, the titers of HIV in vaginal fluid seems quite low to my eye anyway. I am looking at those titers, and they are so low, I am wondering how they are even going to transmit. It’s not enough to simply be exposed to HIV. You can be exposed to HIV many times and never get infected. The exposure that infects you has to carry a high enough viral load to cause infection, otherwise your body will just fight it off and you will not be infected. There is little to no evidence so far of female to male transmission of HIV via vaginal fluids from female to male.
  • Keep in mind that HIV is a blood borne illness. It tends to be transmitted via blood and that blood needs to come in contact with the blood of the other person for an infection to occur. Semen is full of blood, so semen can cause HIV infection. But it has to come in contact with the bloodstream of the other person for this to occur. In homosexual anal sex, the semen from one man comes into contact with the anus of the other man. Anal sex causes small microtears in the lining of the anus. Furthermore, the lining of the anus is very thin. The anus seems to be a mucous membrane that simply soaks up whatever is in it. Hence it is relatively easy for blood-infused semen to enter the bloodstream of the receptive partner of gay anal sex. In vaginal sex, the risks are much lower because the vagina has very thick walls in order to pass a huge baby, for one thing. It was also designed for regular hard PIV sex, which it handles quite easily. However, if a man ejaculates inside a woman’s vagina, it can somehow come in contact with the woman’s bloodstream. I am not sure exactly how this happens. If you have read this far, you can see that HIV carried by something either blood or blood-infused, is needed to transmit HIV. There is nothing in a woman’s body that is blood-infused enough to give HIV to a man, and it has to somehow get into his bloodstream anyway. Hence the only reliable method of female to male transmissions seem to be occurring when there is vaginal bleeding. If the man comes into contact with this blood that has a lot of HIV in it, apparently this blood can get into his bloodstream somehow and infect him.
  • The question of a man getting HIV from a woman via insertive anal sex is not known. A man could theoretically be exposed to blood from the woman while he is having sex with her. However, it would still need to get into his bloodstream somehow, and it’s not known how HIV can infect someone via a man’s penis.
  • The question now turns to whether a man performing oral sex on a woman can HIV that way. Not only will you almost surely not get HIV this way, but you stand a very low chance of getting any STD through oral sex on a woman. It is one of the safest sex acts out there. The question of vaginal fluid being so low in titers that I doubt if it transmits is still somewhat up in the air. There has been one documented case of transmission of HIV female to male via a man performing oral sex on a woman. A 60 year old man who was impotent nevertheless still liked sex and had some money. He paid a  prostitute every day to perform oral sex on her. These sessions could go on for an hour or two. The prostitute was HIV positive this whole time. This sex went on for an hour or two a day for six months, after which the woman infected the man with HIV. The vaginal fluid with HIV entered the man’s bloodstream somehow via his mouth, possibly via bleeding in his mouth. Another thing to consider is multiple exposures. So vaginal titers may be able to transmit under extreme circumstances. It is useful to note that lesbians often perform oral sex on each other in the same way that men to do women. I am not aware of a single transmission of HIV from woman to woman via oral sex.
  • The role of a reduced immune system. In the above case of the man getting HIV via oral sex with a woman, the researchers still thought the transmission was odd. They searched for other factors that could explain his infection. This older man had diabetes, which can significantly lower your immune system. The authors of the report felt that the man’s reduced immune system plaid a role in his infection. Someone with a good immune system would not have gotten infected.
  • The role of multiple microinfections with vaginal fluid. Vaginal titers are very low, but that mostly means that they will not transmit in one sex act. However, if you repeatedly get exposure to low titer vaginal fluid many times, you can build up enough microinfections that you build up a high enough HIV level in your system via many repeated infections.
  • Bottom line is it is very hard for a woman to transmit HIV to a man. Since I wrote articles on this, commenters with experience with long term sex with an HIV positive woman and an HIV-negative man. One couple had been married for 23 years and had been having regular sex the whole time. They often used condoms, but for the first three years of their marriage, they did not. Even after 23 years of regular sex, the woman had not yet given HIV to the man. I had a Black woman who was HIV positive comment. She said she was HIV-positive, but had been having regular sex with her HIV-negative husband for 10-15 years. She had not yet transmitted HIV to him. I asked her about it and she simply said, “It doesn’t go from woman to man, so we don’t worry about and have sex any way we please.
  • It is probable that there has not been a single female to male HIV infection in the porn industry over many years. Some of the men who claimed they got it from a woman were later revealed to have been having sex with men on the side, often working as male prostitutes. They practiced receptive anal sex when they did this.
  • The female to male infection rate figures are artificially inflated because many men who claim they got HIV from a woman are simply lying. This has been known for some time. In the late 1980’s, the New York state Health Department reported that they had had a number of reports of female to male transmission since the early 80’s. However they said that via very careful extended interviewing, in every single case it was found that the man claiming he got it from a woman had  actually gotten it either from IV drug use or from homosexual sex. The Department felt that female to male transmission was rare. The head of the department said, “HIV goes from men to women, and then it stops.” In other words, women are the last stop for HIV infection and the line of infection typically stops with women as they do not usually give to someone else. Recently an Infectious Disease specialist physician in the US reported that he had received a number of patients who were men who said that they got HIV from a woman. In every case but one, he was able to either find evidence of IV drug use via needle marks on the skin or via examination of the men’s anuses, he found evidence of receptive anal sex in them. I don’t know what that evidence constitutes. In the one case where he found neither method of transmission, the man had active Herpes lesions. The doctor felt that the man had gotten HIV from a woman via the woman infecting him through his Herpes lesions. These are after all open sores that provide direct access to the bloodstream.

Please help support this site. If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Alt Left: How the Cultural Left Privileges Gay Male Sex Over Straight Male Sex

Most gay men are sexually degenerate, and they probably always have been. There are reports from large European cities like Paris and Florence of men prowling the city parks at night for surreptitious homosexual sex. These reports date from the 1500’s and 1600’s. Yep, gay cruising was a thing way back in the Middle Ages.
I think the wild promiscuity and sexual degeneracy of gay men is part of what I call the Gay Male Syndrome. Male homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it is a psychological syndrome in that certain mindsets and behaviors almost ubiquitous among gay men across time and space. These common behaviors probably have to do with deep truths about male homosexuality that are part of the package it is delivered in. In other words, as with so many things, they have to do with Natural Law. Mother Nature getting her two cents in.
You don’t have to like gay male degeneracy to support gay rights. I figure this is just the way they are, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Prominent gays have been screaming about gay promiscuity for decades now since the Gay Plague hit. Promiscuity did drop a lot, but it went down from stratospheric to the cloud layer. Gay men still have very high rates of HIV – in the US, 20% of gay men are HIV positive. Gay society and public health folks wage endless propaganda campaigns to try to stop gay men from turning themselves into Typhoid Mary’s, but they continue to acquire dangerous and deadly diseases at a high rate.
At some point you wonder if gay sex itself is a death wish – Eros and Thanatos, supposedly opposing forces, instead perversely wrapped in a deadly embrace, tumbling to the gallows. And I wouldn’t be the first person to suggest that. Many gay writers have hinted at something similar going on.
In other words, gay men still screw anything that moves and probably a lot of things that don’t. A lot will even screw a woman not because they like to but because gay guys fuck anything. Quite a few will screw an animal, gerbils for one. Even if you don’t like gay decadence, you probably ought to shrug your shoulders and leave them alone to sleep in the dirty bed they made. Their stupid lifestyle cuts a full 20 years off their lifespan. It’s death by a hundred self-inflicted cuts. They won’t stop, there’s no way to stop them, and they’re mostly hurting themselves. Leave them alone to the consequences of their misbehavior.
Anyway, here we get to the SJW Left. Of course the SJW Left loves everything gay men do, presumably even eating each other’s shit (practiced by 6% of gay men). There’s no such thing as gay sex that is too sick or fucked up gay sex for the Cultural Left.
Instead the Cultural Left mostly rages at straight men for looking at women or asking them for their phone number. I call that trying to get laid, but the Cultural Left calls it sexual harassment and says it is a form of violence and rapey behavior somewhere on the rape spectrum. Yep, you can rape women with your eyeballs now, but only if you’re a straight man. You can rape women with your mouth if you ask them for a date, as long as you are a heterosexual man. Of course dykes get to to whatever they want to women because they are a privileged victim class on the Cultural Left, and their victim status vastly proceeds that of straight men who are on the bottom of the heap.
So gay men can take 100 bareback Black cocks up the ass a year and acquire three different subtypes of HIV, and that’s all fine and dandy. But we straight men apparently don’t even have a right to get laid because that’s called rape, and we don’t even have a right to try to get laid because that’s harassment, which is a mild form of rape! SJW’s are like this because modern feminism is an essential pillar of the SJW outhouse, and modern feminism hates men, especially straight men, and hates us mostly because we dare to have sex with women, which feminists see as a form of violence and oppression against these precious and frail damsels.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Why the Endless Feminist Screeching about Male Violence Against Women Is Wrong

I recently clicked on a Youtube video that talked about the wave of violence against women in South Africa. Women down there were organizing demonstrations against the murders of women, and feminists around the globe were agitating about the number of murders of women by men in that country.
Then I did a bit of research. Sure, the numbers of murdered women (almost all by men no doubt) was quite high at least by Western standards. But I did some mucking around with statistics and came up with something very interesting.
88% of all people murdered in South Africa are their fellow males. Only 12% of male murders in that country are females.
So according to feminists, we are supposed to ignore that men get the most horrific brunt of male violence in South Africa and instead focus on the women who are murdered in vastly smaller numbers. Furthermore, the feminist critique of male murders of women is that they are all motivated by misogyny and that men specifically single out women due to their sex alone for violence and murder.
Men kill women for all sorts of reasons. I’m sure misogyny is one of them. But a lot of other times misogyny is not a factor. Maybe a man is mad at a particular woman. Maybe he’s a psychopath who doesn’t care about the gender of his victims.
And if men go out of their way to specifically target women for no reason other than their sex, why are the numbers of murdered women so low compared to the murdered men? If anything, men are massively deselecting women for homicide compared to their population, and they are deliberately selecting men for murder to a huge degree. So men aren’t singling out women at all for murder down there. They’re singling out men for murder. But that doesn’t fit the feminist theory,  so that fact is elided.
In science, if your theory doesn’t match the facts, this means that your theory is wrong, so it’s back to the drawing board.
However, when the facts on the ground don’t match the feminist theory, feminists, like ideologues everywhere, decide that the theory is just fine and the problem is that the facts are wrong. Instead of redoing the theory, they decide that they need to redo the facts to make them fit the theory because feminists believe that theory trumps facts and evidence.
You women think you got it bad in terms of male violence against you, try being a guy! You ladies are getting off easy.
Hint: it’s even worse.

Repost: What Are the Odds of a Human Surviving a Wolf Attack?

This is a repost of a very nice earlier post from four years ago that is being posted around the Net right now.
From the Internet. Fascinating stuff.  A number of respondents said they would bet on the human or said that a smart human can indeed take out a wolf, although your odds are a lot better if you are armed with anything.
However, many other respondents said if you a wolf attacks you, and you are unarmed, get ready to die. You’re gone. Overwhelmingly, your chances of survival are near zero.
First thing to note is that they are extremely intelligent, far smarter than a dog.

I raised many hybrid wolves, mostly German Shepherd breeds, and one 80% wolf that was awesome with me and my partner, but no one else dared go near it – luckily it never really wanted to mess with people, but if you picked a fight with it, you picked the wrong one to fight with…
The thing with wolves is the intelligence and the chess match you are involved in from first encounter. They are always thinking two steps ahead and know what to do, even as youngsters…
…If you are in a fight with a wolf, I’d give you less than the minute it took for them to down a pig, and unless you’re some kind of ninja, you’d never remember what happened. They know where and when to strike you, know how to do it, and are so smart.

99% of the time, you are going to die.

Maybe if you knew some kind of special wolf triangle choke where you could incapacitate the wolf, but just like everyone else says, you’ll lose that fight 99 times out of 100.

A wolf is not a dog.

You wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell against an adult wolf.
Oliver Starr has dozens of accounts of living with wolves, including several on this very subject, and one thing that is quite clear is wolves are not just wild dogs.

Wolves chew right through solid metal objects. Think of what they could do to your measly flesh.

My friends had a part wolf dog. The most noticeable difference was the mouth. That wolf dog was very friendly, but he had a long head and was all teeth. Having read Oliver Starr’s story I would not give myself good odds of surviving if he had ever tried to take me down. He once chewed through a metal cooler to get some lunch meat and routinely chewed open food cans.
Wolves are not dogs, and it only takes two dogs to kill an adult human.

Even if you do live and kill the wolf, you might wish you had not survived:

If you do manage to fight the wolf off, you could be hurt really bad, possibly sustaining life-threatening wounds. A bite can tear open major veins, crush bones, and rip open your abdomen or throat.

Police are allowed to use deadly force against even large dogs that seriously attack them. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

That is why I as an officer am allowed to shot a wolf or dog that I feel is going to attack me. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

If you don’t have a gun, the best thing to do is to climb a tree, but that probably won’t work, as wolves are fast as lightning.

A wolf will kill most adult humans easily. That is why if  you fight a wolf, you must always presume it will be a fight to the death, and you had better want to live. Yes, some people have hysterical/psychotic strength, but that happens rarely and cannot be depended on. Best advice is to climb a tree (if you get the chance, good luck with that) if unarmed, otherwise shoot it if you have a gun.

 

Alt Left: How Do Most Straight Men Feel About Male and Female Transsexuals?

I doubt if most straight men see transmen (female transsexuals) as really women because we wouldn’t touch one with a ten-foot pole. Sure, it’s got lady parts, but it looks like a man, often including a beard and mustache. That seems like gay sex to most straight men, so we won’t do it.
A little known fact is that 90% of transmen opt not to have “bottom surgery” and hence retain vaginas and other reproductive organs. This bottom surgery can involve up to 4-5 separate surgeries, it is hard to make the artificial penis, and it doesn’t work anyway, and it’s risky, as each surgery carries a risk, and transmen can have up to 4-5 of these operations.
Anyway all this means that though many have “top surgery” = a double mastectomy, bottom surgery is rare, with only 10% of transmen opting for it. However they often do not refer to their vaginas as vaginas. The Trans Lobby prefers that transmen’s vaginas be called a “front hole,” and if you are not an evil bigot, you are supposed to use this terminology.
Some transmen have gotten pregnant and had babies. Which the trans lobby used to prove that “men can get pregnant too!” There were even headlines saying that men can get pregnant too now. If you are groovy and SJW, you are supposed to agree with that insane statement.
Along the same lines, most straight men don’t see transwomen as real women, so most of us refuse to have sex with them, as we think that would be gay sex, and most straight men don’t want to do that. Most straight men who have sex with transwomen only do so under very secretive and paranoid circumstances. There is a lot of bashing of straight men going on now by groovy SJW’s calling us “transphobic” in refusing to date transwomen! This is similar to how some lesbians are being bashed and called transphobes for refusing to have sex with heterosexual transwomen.
 

The New Open Air Urinals in France

Apparently the French have had such problems with men urinating in public in their cities that they have now installed open air urinals that look something like a brightly painted trash container.
Feminists are saying that men like this because now we can take over the streets, whip our dicks out in front of women any time we like, and piss right in front of them to in effect, show that we own the streets and women are trespassing on our territory.
I don’t know about that. All I know is that neither I nor most men I know would want to use those things. I would only use one maybe at night if there was no one around to see me. I don’t understand men who would want to do this in public.
Most of us men do pee in public if we can’t find a bathroom nearby. Of course we do it in rural or wild areas off the road where it’s quite easy, but I did it quite a few times in alleyways, etc. in the Hollywood area or after rock shows at night in various places like shrubbery or alleyways. You only do it if there’s no one in sight, and then you do it really fast so you can get away with it.
Most of us men like to pee in private, believe it or not.
And I don’t see why the French can’t put four walls on these things and make them open to women and children.

Alt Left: Putting "Transsexual" Minors on Hormones Boils Down to Child Abuse

70% of “trans” minors grow out of it by age 18. I know a man who tried to transition as a teenager. Then he went back. He now has some permanent physical damage and deformation to his body (3 inches too short for instance) due to his normal development as boy getting hijacked by powerful hormones. He calls his trans phase a delusion (which it is), and he’s deeply depressed, even suicidal. Oh, and he’s also incel. And consequently he’s really pissed off on top of the suicidality and self-hate.
Giving these “trans” kids those insane hormones boils down to child abuse.

Schiz OCD Versus Psychosis: Differences and Interactions

Hassan Herrera: By saying “Anxiety processes can at times escalate all the way to psychosis.” You mean, for example a OCD’er getting through the fear of going psychotic can start experiencing psychotic symptoms coming out of the anxiety process? I catch sight of a post of you setting apart core process and where the symptoms come from. I hope i got myself across.

Never seen a case of Schiz OCD going all the way to psychosis, although I know a woman with schizophrenia and Schiz OCD in which the two sort of go together but not completely. She still has delusions that she does not doubt. She also hides symptoms a lot, which is very hard to figure out, though I can sometimes do it.
I don’t think the Schiz OCD went into the Schizophrenia, but the Schizophrenia dx obviously played into the Schiz OCD. It’s an extremely complex case. Never seen a case of Schiz OCD going all the way to psychosis, although I know a woman with schizophrenia and Schiz OCD in which the two sort of went together but not completely. She still has delusions that she does not doubt. She also hides symptoms a lot, which is very hard to figure out, though I can sometimes do it. I don’t think the Schiz OCD went into the Schizophrenia, but the Schizophrenia dx obviously played into the Schiz OCD. It’s an extremely complex case.
There is a Psychotic OCD but I have never seen a single case of it, and I have seen more OCD’ers than 95% of clinicians will ever see. I have seen cases that I worried were Psychotic OCD, but when you got it all untangled, they still had reality testing intact more or less, at least in terms of overvalued ideas. There is a sub-diagnosis of OCD with Overvalued Ideas.
The OCD symptoms in this case were extremely bizarre, and phenomenologically, they looked a lot like the sort of thing you see in Psychotic OCD. His symptoms appeared so psychotic that when I mentioned them to a retired clinician, she insisted that this person was psychotic and would not accept that they were not. Unfortunately I am not allowed to share the very interesting symptoms on here.
Psychotic OCD has a sort of a “look” to it along with typical delusions that are present in a lot of cases – it is a syndrome, in other words.
A classic case of Psychotic OCD would be a case where the obsessions have escalated into delusions. The people are typically not dangerous, as fear is a freezing agent, and OCD’ers tend to be shy or very shy, passive, introverted, and remarkably nonviolent. A classic case is a man sitting in a chair all day shaking like a leaf and going on about his obsessions, which have now reached delusional intensity. The old view was that Psychotic OCD’ers never got too far gone psychosis-wise, and it was quite easy to pull them out of the psychosis. A typical case might last three weeks.
However, we now have recent cases of Psychotic OCD going on for years that did not respond to treatment. Some responded to ERP oddly enough. Some of these people are so ill that they have become the homeless mentally ill like a lot of schizophrenics, carting their belongings around in a suitcase.
The main thing to note is that Psychotic OCD is rarely seen. However, when OCD is very bad, they can appear psychotic. Hence, OCD’ers are often misdiagnosed with psychosis of one form or another and put on antipsychotic drugs, which generally do not help them. I get clients all the time coming to me with a diagnosis of some form of psychosis. Once I figure out they are not psychotic and are usually instead Schiz OCD’ers with what I call fake delusions and fake hallucinations, I tell them to fire their psychiatrist and go doctor shopping until you find an MD who understands that you have OCD and not psychosis.
A lot of psychiatrists continue to misdiagnose OCD’ers with psychosis. The phenomenology of OCD is not understood well by many clinicians, and the fact that OCD when severe looks like psychosis but is not results in  a lot of misdiagnosis.
I think a Schiz OCD’er would be the last person to go psychotic, as the condition is predicated on continuous worry and doubt that they are going psychotic. If you have spent any time around psychotic people, that’s clearly not what’s going on. In psychosis the person never worries whether they are psychotic, nor are they are aware they are psychotic.
If you are worried about or are aware of being psychotic, then you cannot possibly be psychotic. That’s a rule out for psychosis right there. This is exactly what is going on in Schiz OCD, hence Schiz OCD is never psychotic by definition.

The White Whale of Affirmative Action

Zamfir: To say that AA no longer exists is legalistic at best. Almost all universities are still very strongly committed to ‘diversity,’ which in practice just can’t be achieved except by discriminating against whites (and Northeast Asians).

What happened was that the relatively clear and straightforward objective measures they had years ago got struck down, so they were replaced by vague ‘holistic’ measures that no one outside the admissions committee or the administration can ever understand.

It’s not exactly the same thing. There’s so much less anti-White discrimination than their used to be. Studies have shown that since getting rid of AA in California, admissions for Blacks and Hispanics to the tougher schools have dropped by a lot, in some cases by 75%. For instance at Berkeley Law School, rates of Black admissions went from 11% – 2%. That’s a huge drop.
And at the state universities, there are no restrictions. Really anyone with good enough grades can go to California state universities if your cash is green. Your grades don’t even have to be that good, as you can go in via a remedial program. State universities have open admissions and no one is turned down due to AA.

Zamfir: And there’s no other way to explain the results. If you look at any objective measures that would correlate with academic achievement, either IQ scores or LSAT’s or GPA’s or whatever, these all predict massive ‘under-representation’ of certain groups in the universities, but that isn’t what you find.

I do not know who you are talking about as in California, state universities have open enrollment and just want your cash. I went to USC, a private university also, and they want is to make sure your cash is green too.
You can always go to a lower tier law school if your money is green. Hardly anyone drops or flunks out of medical school. The admissions program is too rigorous. There’s no AA in med school. You don’t have to go to an elite New York city school. Any old NYC school should be just fine.

And then there’s hiring within the universities. I know of way too many absurd cases to believe that AA doesn’t exist. I’ve seen non-Whites and women with essentially no relevant experience or achievements (PhD incomplete) get hired into high-level tenure stream jobs over White men with 10 fancy publications and years of experience. It’s real.
And wouldn’t it just be crazy to think that the academic community, who are the most fanatical about feminism and anti-Whiteness, the most extreme supporters of AA, would not find someway to implement their values in their own institutions?

I don’t know what to say about university hiring in which there does appear to be a lot of what looks like AA going on. What does Zamfir propose to do about it. AA is already illegal at all universities. So they are getting around the law. What are we supposed to do now?

Answering Some Reddit Delphi Murders Sub Haters, Part 2

Here.
I really shouldn’t answer this stuff, but some of it is so outrageously and libelously flat out wrong that they need to be answered because they are so nasty, so wrong and so destructive. They actually report my conclusions as the exact opposite of what I concluded! Very few rumors below fall into that category, but a few do.
I would like to point out that a few posters were considerate enough to write about me more or less respectfully. I thank these posters for their decency. I notice they are all men. For some damned reason I am a lightning rod for women on that sub.

(like instuctionals on how to seduce a preteen girl, A.K.A “grooming”)

This is the worst one of them all. I keep answering this charge and they keep throwing it back at me. Now that I think of it, I did write a post, “How to Seduce a Teenage Girl,” but I think I said the post was mostly intended for teenage boys. Anyway, that was a troll post and having had a lot of experience with them, you don’t seduce a teenage girl any differently than you seduce a grown woman. There are no special techniques to use if she’s not 18 yet.
Thing is, I would never write a post ever instructing child molesters on how to groom a child! Are you kidding? Hell no. I don’t support molesting children. Never have, never will. In fact, I have turned people in for child porn, and I turned in a neighbor for possibly prostituting their 12 year old daughter out to men.

‘exploring the sexuality’ of underage girls by adult males is definitely illegal and mostly considered immoral.

That’s not true. Grown men can talk about the sexuality of teenage girls all they want to. Of course it’s legal. And in terms of immorality, adolescent sexuality is a study of heavy research and many books and journal articles have been published on this very important aspect of our culture.
If he truly is a psychiatrist/therapist, professional whatever,the discussion of such taboo issues on personal blog is also unethical.
Peer counselors don’t need a license. And a lot of clinicians write about subjects like this. There is a sexologist who writes about this subject very regularly. Is he unethical. Clinicians can write about any are of psychology and psychiatry that they wish, even sexology.

The correct way is to conduct a study, compile the research, and present it to a community of peers for review. Open internet blog is not the way.

That’s not true either. I publish in academic journals and I referee for a journal. Scholars, including colleagues I have worked with, publish their ad hoc, seat of the pants, anecdotal and observational research all the time. It’s just that people might not take it seriously until you do actual peer reviewed research on the topic.

Can you imagine some poor mom dropping off her poor daughter to talk to a “professional” and its him????

I don’t generally work with minors for money. I have worked with one teenage boy though. I worked with two teenage girls, one 13 and the other 14, for free because they were in such bad shape. They were miserable and almost suicidal so they needed some intervention. And course we talked about all sorts of sexual matters because that was why they came to me in the first place. Most of my professional work is with people dealing with sexual issues. Last time I checked, they felt that I helped them a lot.

but i wouldnt doubt thats the reason he got into that field-

She just called me a pedophile of some sort. I have no more interest in underage girls than any other man.
Another libel.

I know everyone is entitled to have their own opinion- but being attracted to girls that age is 100% NOT OK- I’m 38 and holding a conversation with guy or girl in their early 20’s is hard enough.. everything about him is off – total creep.

If you don’t think he’s a creep you either haven’t read his entire blog or you agree with his views on the sexual availability & desirability of prepubescent or barely pubescent girls.
Sounds like another libel. Of course I do not think that prepubescent girls are sexually available. Are they sexually desirable? Not to me, but to at least 25% of all normal men they are. But no men should have sex with a girl like that. Actually it is more than that. The most recent study I saw showed 51% of normal men responding sexually to prepubertal girls in the lab. I guess 51% of all men are evil pedophile scum who should be killed.
What’s barely pubescent? 10-12 years old? No man should have sex with a girl that young. They’re not available to anyone. Desirable? Not to me but to at least 25% men they are.
In fact it is. Endless studies in the lab have shown that all normal men are aroused by teenage girls in the lab, typically maximally. In other words, men react just as strongly to teenage girls as to adult women. The only men who don’t react to them are dead or gay, so I assume this man mosluggo is a homosexual.

Frankly I’m amazed he hasn’t been investigated on suspicion of possessing child pornography.

No one gets investigated for possession of child porn for some shitposting they did on the Internet. Good luck getting a warrant for that. They would have to have a valid tip (you saw CP on someone’s computer) or they would have to catch them on CP sites. The latter is how most men go down on this charge. They also find networks and when they unravel the networks, they often find a lot of other people trafficking in this stuff. I have no interest in that garbage and I wouldn’t have any of it anywhere near my computer. Supposedly I’ve already been reported for this dozens of times already, and no officer ever contacted me, so it’s useless to call me in.

In my opinion, these statements are the reason for all the pedophi- excuse me, hebephilic tendencies….He can’t deal with a real grownup woman. So he “explores” the sexuality of pubescent girls. But Hey, he’s not a pedophile. Noooo sir. No way.

Are you kidding? I’ve had many relationships with real grow-up women ever since age 17. I’ve dated more women than most men will in 10-20 lifetimes.

Jeez, he’s an old man pedocel…Guy sounds like an incel.

More libel.
Sheesh, I am probably as far as you can go in terms of being the polar opposite of an incel. Where do these idiots come up with these ideas?

apparently he dates almost very young models (in his dreams).

Actually I do. They are usually in their 20’s. Last date I had was last September though.

i used to read his writings and try to guess what his DSM-V personality orders were, for fun.

More libel.
I don’t have a DSM-5 personality disorder, and I’ve probably seen 30 clinicians who diagnosed me over 35 years. They actually specifically stated that I didn’t have a personality disorder, thank God.

Hmmmm….the quotes from the first few paragraphs were plagiarized verbatim from this very subreddit. I’m surprised you didn’t recognize them.

I have no idea what this lunatic woman is talking about. She is referring to this post. I don’t even read that vile Reddit, and I don’t understand what material she thinks I plagiarized (copied word for word) from there, but I copied nothing word for word from there.
Another libel.

RL might understand the consumption and effects of methamphetamine though..

This comment accuses me of being a meth user. Of course I do not use that awful drug. I’m not an idiot. I know what the drug is like, and it’s definitely not for me. The three-day post-high crash alone is enough to put me off of it.
Another libel.
 

He describes himself as a lady killer.

LOL used to be, I guess. I have no idea why people find statements like this so outrageous. Don’t they realize that men like this actually exist? Do they think it’s all fantasy and lies. There are a lot of men like this out there, you know. I know, I made friends with a lot of them. Why do women find this so offensive? Anyway, this is a PUA blog. What do you expect to find on here?

He’s almost certainly attracted to young girls as evidenced by his continual references to pedophilia and hebephilia.

Of course I am. But all men are. It’s been proven in the lab endlessly. I am just being honest. But when I see them on the street nowadays, I don’t even look at them much. They are not very interesting to me. It’s too much of a young girl.
I’m not particularly interested in those subjects, I’m no more attracted to little girls and Lolitas than any other man, but I just think society’s attitudes about this stuff are nonsensical. Pedophilia and hebephilia are research interests of mine because I work with a lot of people who are dealing with thoughts around these themes. But if you want to talk about sexual fantasies and whatnot, all mine revolve around adult women these days, and often older women believe it or not.

He also quotes a study he just happened upon that is about the masturbatory habits of pubescent girls.

Teenage girls. Right. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with studying the sexuality of sexually mature teenage girls? It’s an important subject of research in terms of Pediatrics, Adolescent Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, and many other areas. They are sexual beings who are sexually active in all sorts of ways with themselves and maybe others, and it’s a perfectly reasonable area of inquiry.

I saw several self-confessed paedophiles comment on his blog, including one who graphically detailed his abuse of a little girl in Mexico.

Yes he commented here for a while, but most of the commenters fought with him. Anyone can come here and say anything they want to. If you want to come here and confess to your serial murders or whatever, be my guest.
That slug Lindsay not only left the post up, but made a comment in response.
Sure, why should I take it down? Did I support him? Everyone was attacking him anyway. Let them post and let the antis take them on. Fair is fair.
Is it merely chance that paedophiles congregate on Lindsay’s site?
They don’t congregate here. We have had a couple but the people who came here were mostly hebephiles. I had one on here for a long time,  but I finally threw him off because I got tired of his endless linking to photos of 12 year old girls and whatnot. I could care less about that stuff and I don’t want them literring up my site with that junk.

 I wonder if they’re members of the super safe password protected site? Just musing.

Of course not. Why would I join some pedo site? I’m not into that nonsense.

Law Enforcement are checking your site, slug?! Damn fuckin’ right they are.

No they aren’t. I’ve talked to LE in relation to this Delphi case. They told me they don’t give a damn what I write here. Don’t people realize that police have better things to do than to monitor some random Internet blog?

Lindsay also had a counselling business going on where he states on his blog that he counselled pedophiles.

I worked with a couple of them, one very briefly. I don’t really specialize in that though. I would almost rather refer them out.

I wonder then, why they picked the slug as a counselor.

They came to me because of some articles I wrote. They wouldn’t to make sure they were pedophiles. I assured them that I was 100% sure that they were pedophiles. One man needed a lot of work because he was suicidal and at serious risk of self-harm. He was going to hurt or kill himself to protect children from himself because he could not bear the thought of hurting a child and he was worried he might do that. As you can see, he’s a horrible person, isn’t he? Last I heard he was going to take some libido lowering drugs to kill his sex drive because he was so worried he might hurt a kid. I thought he was a very good person.

Of course, he’s not a counselor anymore.

Yes I am. And I work all over the world too. How about that?

His new job is writing made up drivel on the internet and begging people to send him money.

I work hard. I would like to be compensated for my labor, just like any other worker. Do you work for free? Why should I work for free?
There are some disgusting paedo/hebo apologist posts.
What do you mean? For those who actually have a fixated orientation like this, they can’t help it, and it’s not their fault. It’s only a problem if they act on it? Why beat someone up for something they can’t control and had no choice over? It’s like seeing a guy in a wheelchair and throwing him in the gutter.
Not to mention continuous rants about age of consent laws
I don’t really care about age of consent law as I will hopefully never break them anyway. I am concerned about very young men going down on this stuff. I mean, an 18 year old man going to prison for sex with a 16 year old girl? Two underage teens going to prison for having sex with each other? It’s crazy. And 18 seems a bit high. Most of the world is at 15 or 16. But it makes no difference to me as I don’t violate those laws anyway. I think most men who break these laws are idiots who get what they deserve.
(Personally I think the people who watch porn with innocent high school girl themes need to be watched very very closely.
Idiots don’t realize that LE doesn’t have the resources to watch the millions of men watch teen barely legal porn bullshit. We are talking millions of men here. They don’t even monitor men with openly pro-pedophilia blogs. There are pro-pedophile forums out there, and LE doesn’t even monitor the men on those forums. There are over 1 million men like that in the US alone. LE doesn’t have the time or interest to waste on some guys shitposting in the Net.
They will only investigate if there is evidence of a law being broken. There has to be a credible charge that an attempt or actual child molestation. For possession of child porn, mostly they monitor sites that distribute this s stuff, watch the traffic and trace it back to individual computers. Police don’t have the resources to monitor all of the “possible criminals” out there. It’s an insane notion. I can’t believe people fall for this bull.

Yeah, he is unemployed.

Actually I live off a trust fund, so I don’t have to work. But my health is not good enough to work fulltime anyway, so I work these side jobs. And of course I pay my own bills.

He repeatedly quotes pro-paedo studies, like apparently 95% of men are attracted to 13 year olds or some shit like that.

Nope, it’s 100%, and they’re not pro-pedo studies.  That’s the straight up solid science on the subject. The studies have been replicated so many times that no one even bothers to test the hypothesis anymore.

Isnt he the same guy who was trying to justify being attracted to young girls, but saying he wasnt a pedo at the same time??

Shit. The teenage girl bullshit again! Of course it’s normal to be attracted to teenage girls, even if they are underage. All normal men are. The only ones that aren’t, like mosluggo here, are obviously faggots. The only men who don’t turned on by these girls are gay men. It’s been proven in the lab so many times that no one even questions it.
Of course normal men who are attracted to JB’s are not pedophiles! Pedophiles don’t even like teenage girls. Those are old ladies to them!
And the American Psychiatric Association has even stated that men being attracted to 12-14 year old girls is not a mental illness, and it’s not even abnormal! Even if it is to the point of Hebephilia. Go read the Hebephilia discussions during the debate about DSM-5 (see, I actually read all that stuff). They threw out Hebephilia as a proposed paraphilia because they said it’s not a disorder and it’s not even abnormal.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll argue the science, and you all argue the hysteria, pseudoscience and unscientific bullshit. Deal?
And if i remember right, he said hes a doctor/psychiatrist.??
I work in mental health as a counselor or whatever else you want to call me. We work on a strictly scientific basis too. And I actually specialize, among other things, in people who are getting wrapped up in worries about sex with children. And yes I have worked with a couple of actual pedophiles, and I understand the condition very well. Big hint here: They don’t get turned on by mature humans! They only like little children, under 13. I’ve worked with two of them so far, and neither had an interest in teenagers. Teenagers were too old for them.

at one point had posted a near-tutorial about how to seduce one

What? Why would I post something like that?! I can’t even touch those girls for God’s sake and I almost never even talk to them. I can tell you right now how to seduce a teenage girl though, having done so many times. You do it pretty much like how you seduce a woman. A teenage girl is a woman in a sense. What works for women works for JB’s. It’s not rocket science, folks.
how attracted to **him** these children were.
What! Hell no. I mean sure, for most of my life, some of them were, of course, but at my age almost none of them are. Newsflash to all the idiot women out there! Teenage girls like men! JB’s like men! Even older men. 18-40. Some of them do anyway. Anyone knows that except stupid women who lie to themselves and everyone else.
This makes me conclude he is a girl attracted hebephile himself.
Really you dumbass woman? Do you even know what that word means? If I were like that, it would mean that I am only attracted to 12-15 year old girls and I am not attracted to mature females at all. I would see a 16 year old girl and call her a grandma. That’s what hebephiles do. You really believe I think like this? You dumb bitch.

His so called “crime scene photos” were merely pics of searchers and natural flora that were so pixelated that the subjects could not be identified.

No one knows what those photos are of. There are many camera flashes going off right in the area of those photos. Does the brilliant Gray Hughes have any explanation for all those camera flashes? Those flashes are from a crime scene. They are being caused by detectives shooting photos of a crime scene. No way are there searchers in those photos. Searchers in a circle shooting photo after photo? Please. How stupid are you, woman?
Anyway, I think you have reading comprehension problems. In my last post, I said I didn’t know what those were photos of.

In short, if there is a rumor about that Lindsey hears, he will expound on it ad nauseum, no matter how far-fetched. I believe he never met a speculation he didn’t like

That’s funny. You realize that the ISP specifically contacted us and asked to see a lot of our photos and data? But no worry, obviously I’m full of it and ISP are idiots.

With the amount of information that he claims to have about the case there are only a few logical conclusions 1) He is LE attached to the case, but for some reason is leaking all of the information that is supposed to be kept secret or 2) He is the actual killer (only other way he could possibly know this much detailed info) or 3) A pathological liar / fraud.

None of them are true.
Of course I’m not the killer, but thank you for crediting my intuitive, profiling, and cold reading skills. Also I’ve already been investigated and cleared by Indiana State Police. Go ask the FBI. A friend of mine did, and the FBI told them, “Lindsay hasn’t left California in years.”
Of course I don’t make up anything. If I did, I would tell me group and ask them if they want to dissolve the group because I would be so ashamed of myself.
Oh boy, the clowns and haters over on Reddit are going round and round again lying about me. Some of these lies are truly pernicious though and as many times as I have refuted them, I always have to go back and do it again.
First of all, a couple of the comments are fairly respectful, as far as such things go. My regards to those commenters for keeping it clean and real. I will deal with most of it in another post.

When he first started turning up on sites discussing Delphi, because of the type of comments he was making & his blog content, people were wondering if he was an RSO trolling crime forums under a pseudonym he took from the other notorious Robert Lindsay

Whoa! One of us Robert Lindsays is a sex offender! Well, I’ll be. I always knew we can came from an illustrious family line.

I’ve definitely seen Lindsay describe himself as an extremely attractive man in the looks dept.

Gong! Wrong again. I’m not that tone-deaf. I would never say I was goodlooking because no one can be objective about that. Instead I say that other people have been saying for many years that I was goodlooking or very goodlooking. And at age 24, I did get two offers to be a model, but I turned them down because I’m so damned homophobic. Now that I think of it, that really was the peak of my looks. What I would give to have that face back!
Alas, when you bet on the body, you bet on a losing horse, as the Buddhists say. The handsomest men and the most beautiful women will all see their looks fade. I am 60 years old. Most women won’t even look at me anymore. But women my age still rave about how hot I am, so I guess I’ve still got something. Honestly though, I hate my most recent photos.

He is certainly preoccupied with his appearance and intelligence (such as it is).

It’s an IQ blog. We talk IQ on here. It’s what we do. If it offends you, leave. There’s really no need to talk about my intelligence. If you’re bright, it’s obvious to all around you. Just read the site. There’s nothing more to say.
I would like to say though that I did absolutely nothing to earn either my looks or my brains. I simply lucked out in the genetic lottery. I don’t see how that makes me better than anyone else. How am I better? Because I was smart enough before I was born to pick the right parents?
And in case you are wondering, my father was a very handsome man. I saw a photo of him at 35 when he married and he could have been a Hollywood actor. No wonder he slayed so much. And my mother has always been beautiful of course. My father had a near-gifted IQ (129), and my mother has a genius IQ (~147). She also graduated second in her class at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School. That’s pretty damned hard to do. All my siblings have genius IQ’s of 140+.
I guess we all got lucky.

His prose is the literary analog of explosive diarrhea.

Well, let’s see you do better, ok?
I won Best Column for a High School Newspaper in California in 1974 at the USC High School Journalism Awards. I wrote for my school paper and school magazine at university. Out of 50 submissions to the magazine, five were chosen, and mine was one of the five. I am a former Assistant Editor of a magazine. I have worked as a freelance writer. I have published literary fiction (short story). Gary Snyder, a very famous writer – look him up on Wikipedia – was at that literary conference, and he was telling people how much he liked my story.
I write for a peer reviewed linguistics journal and referee on the same journal. I also write books. I’m a published author. Most recently, I published an 81 page chapter in a linguistics book printed out of a university in Turkey. And that had to get through two murderous peer reviews – one for the journal and one for the book – including one that included the top scholars in that field.
So anyway, you don’t like my writing? Let’s see you do better.

The guy is a pervert and shows no regard for others and their comments. He constantly asks for money.

Pervert? Well, of course I am. Thank you very much. As long as I get those testosterone shots anyway.
No regard for others and their comments? Not so. Come to our forum some time and see if it’s true.
I don’t constantly ask for money. But this is a pay site. It’s not a free site! We hit you up of course in the first two posts on the front page, but after that, we leave you tight pikers alone most of the time. How bout if you tell me why I should work for free? Do you work for free?

I am saddened to think that anyone would believe anything he writes.

Ask the ISP. They requested to see a lot of our data and photos, and we sent it to them. I sure hope they don’t believe us!

He seems to me like a sad, lonely, messed up man with nothing but time on his hands.

Not sad.
Not lonely.
Messed up? Hey, we all are. But I work in mental health, so I’m not allowed to be too nuts, or I won’t be able to work with my “messed up” clients.
Time on my hands? I live off a trust fund. I don’t have to work. Eat your heart out!

I personally feel like he should be ashamed of himself for all of the nonsense he spews.

Of course not. They’re all rumors and nowadays at least we check the rumors out extensively before we even run them. A lot of rumors come from such unreliable sources that we never run them. Rumors are rumors. A lot of them will go bad. That’s just how rumors are. But usually some will end up being correct.

He’s banned him and deserves to be sued…How he hasn’t been sued and found guilty of defamation is beyond me.

I am certainly not banned from the Delphi forum. I posted there not long ago in fact. No one will sue me. I am a Journalism major. In order to prove libel, the statement must be:

  1. False
  2. Known to be false by the person who made it.
  3. Made with malice aforethought.

Of course I don’t print anything that I know is false. Anyway, you can’t get sued for libel for printing a rumor.
BA Journalism. Had to take Law of Mass Communications, run exactly like a law school class. We spent a lot of time on libel law. I know it better than you all ever will. I can’t be sued for libel because I haven’t committed any.

People that use tragedies like this to exploit others are the lowest of the low.

Ha ha. Well the police found some of our information valuable. That’s worth something. And the families don’t care what I write here. We have contacts with people who are very close to both families and they told us this.

I’m pretty certain that he is an Aspie (Aspergers syndrome) which is through lack of a better term high functioning autism.

Assburgers?! I’ve been seen by plenty of clinicians over time, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, MSW’s, LCSW’s. I’ve gotten a few diagnoses but I definitely never got that one! I’ve dated maybe 200 females in my life. There’s no way I could have done that if I had Assburgers. I hear those guys are practically Walking Chick Repellent.

He is extremely intelligent from what I can see, and a lot of what he says is either stated fact or it’s talking about a rumor- that’s where he falls over, he is a bit time deaf and awkward to the mood.

Lots of people are tone-deaf, especially men. The vast majority of them certainly don’t have this massively overdiagnosed condition. Actually I am the opposite of socially clueless. I can almost read your damned mind! That’s how socially with it I am. That’s just about a diagnosis of Anti-Assburgers, if there is such a thing.

Same reason he spends his days on Quora answering questions.

Queera banned me. Thank God! Why is answering questions on Queera all the time imply being tone-deaf? There are hundreds or thousands of people who do just that.

The part I have a problem with is not only does he obsess about pedo vs. hebe., he said he went into chat rooms with little girls and also went on and on about how sexual 9 yr old girls were.

This is so wrong! I have never gone into chat rooms where there were little girls. Why would I go into a place like that? I’d be ashamed to anywhere near a place like that.
As part of some anti-pedophile research I was doing to try to disprove some common arguments pedophiles use to support having sex with kids, I did go into bulletin boards where teenage girls were talking about developmental milestones, which I was doing research on as the age of pubertal markers is said to be dropping. It just so happened that  they were discussing their sexual behavior too. They were just bulletin boards like Reddit, sitting on the Net for anyone to see. No one was chatting in real time. You can go read them yourself if you wish.
I wasn’t there for that, but I got out a pen and tallied it up anyway. It’s good research. Underage teenage sex is problematic in a lot of ways and causes some society problems. We need to learn as much about it as possible. It’s a public health matter.
That nine year old girl stuff is some real slander. Pedophiles argue that little children have strong sex drive, want to have sex with adults and  try to seduce adults all the time. That argument seemed dubious to me, so I was out to disprove it. That’s why I was on the bulletin board. And on the contrary, my research determined that pre-pubertal children do not have much of a real sex drive at all.
The sex drive comes on in girls at age 13 nowadays, and at that time, many start masturbating, fantasizing about sex, and desiring to have sex with other humans. I found little of that behavior before age 13. So this person has completely misrepresented my position. In fact, they have turned it completely upside down.
I’m getting called a pedophile for doing anti-pedophile research! What in God’s name is wrong with you?

“hot girls throw themselves at me”

LOL wut. Baby, I’m 60 years old. That was way back in the old days, and those days are long gone, never to come again. But yes, it was like that for a bit. People just don’t understand how good handsome men can have it if they play their cards right and perfect their charm, Game, personality, etc. You would not believe the type of lives they can live and the crazy things that can happen to them. It’s the sort of stuff you hear about it and say, “That never happens to anyone!” except it does happen to Chad. I have known many young men like this, and oh boy, the stories I could tell you.

it is NOT okay to be discussing little girls(9 freaking trs old!) Sexuality.

It is ok. I will do it again just to piss you off. As far as the sexuality of 9 year old girls goes, as a good rule, they don’t have any! They don’t have  any real sex drive the way we adults do. They do not have the physical sex drive that mature females do. There are physical sensations of the mature female sex drive that I will not go into here, but girls have none of these. Furthermore, little girls do not seem to have any interest in having sex with other humans.
This is the psychological component of the mature female sex drive. One of my best woman friends once described it to me as a feeling of “hunger.” Well, little girls don’t have that. Yes, little girls do engage in sex play. We call it childhood sex play and it is extremely common. I hear about it from clients all the time. This seems to be more exploratory or curiosity seeking as opposed to the type of actual physical and psychological sex drive of a mature adult.
You happy now?

He admitted going into CHILDREN’S chat sites and discussing sexuality with them…He crossed the line with his “research” and I didn’t care to support someone who would blur those kinds of lines for any reason…they were still trying to explain the problem wasn’t him being specific about age or development preferences in child sex offenders, it was his activities and methods of getting information.

We already discussed this, well, libel. Of course I did no such thing and would not ever do such a thing. I’d rather kill myself.

Oh, ugh, I forgot he was talking about underage girls being attracted to him.

Haha! Baby, I am 60 years old. Come on, please. How many 60 year old men are able to attract underage teenage girls? .01%? I wish they were still attracted to me. That would be so great for my ego. I would not feel so old. But really? This does still happen to me, but almost never, maybe only once a year. The last time was nine months ago, she was a 15 year old girl, and she was a total knockout. You’re welcome. I am so proud of myself! Eat your hearts out, haters.

As someone who is usually called a “hot girl “ you’d never see me ever hit on him let alone lie and say he’s attractive.

Evangitron baby doll, I wouldn’t touch your hot ass with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension!

He should be looked at for at least the creepy research with young girls.

Turn me in, Evangitron, for reading bulletin boards on the Internet! I dare you.

Honestly, it his was what he wrote in his blog about the pre-teen sex drive and his own ‘studies’ that creeped me out more than anything he ever posted about Delphi.

Sigh. Here we go again. My studies determined that “preteens” don’t have any damned sex drive, for Chrissake! That blows up one of the pedos’ biggest justifications for molesting kids! You happy now?

Haven’t looked for a long time, but I see he still has some of his milder views re teenage girls on his older blog posts

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/test-to-see-if-a-man-is-gay-or-not/

I love it! One of my favorite posts of all time! Thank you so much for linking to that. And yes it is a gay test, and all you guys who say that girl doesn’t turn you on, well, you’re all a bunch of faggots, ok? Have fun in Frisco, boys!

…he came into the biggest fb group posting such unusually graphic sexual assault scenarios to explain the crime scene, that he got himself banned from the group within a few days + mass-reported to the Delphi tip line (he ranted about being questioned by police on his blog not long after being booted from the group)…Being kicked out of the group & questioned by LE was what set off his first round of blog rants.

I don’t care about those silly bitches and their hen party groups. They can have them.
Sheesh. Ranted? How would you like to get reported to the police 50 times for no good reason as a suspect in one of the most notorious modern murder cases? Would you be happy with that?

and it was so sensationalized because he wanted/needed people to pay him.

Not really. Some of the rumors were quite gruesome and nasty as far as how the girls were killed, but we had to report them, as they were good rumors that had a lot of traction.

The Dangers of Fisting

Here.
I never thought this was a good idea. Gay men have been doing it forever, but it’s only recently that women started doing it too, at least according to the porn I’ve been watching.
Fully 37% of gay men have engaged in fisting.
What is it? Well, the insertive partner takes his fist and shoves up the receptive partners ass. Shoved is not quite right as they go tend to go very slowly with lots of lube.
I almost never look at gay porn, either photos or videos, but of course I’ve run across a tiny bit of it. It’s not my thing, and I find it rather disgusting.
I’ve seen a few gay porn stills of this. I have to admit that it looks pretty weird to see a man with another guy’s fist shoved all the way up his ass.
Here are some of the problems that can result from fisting:

Eleven patients with injuries of the rectum and sigmoid colon secondary to the insertion of the clenched fist are presented. Six patients sustained mucosal lacerations of the rectum and four patients had rectosigmoid perforations requiring laparotomy. One patient sustained a severe sphincter laceration producing complete anal incontinence. The management of these conditions is discussed.

I don’t know much about the mucosal lacerations of the rectum. I’m not sure if that can happen with anal sex. Usually with anal sex you get these little tears called fissures that tend to heal on their own after a bit. Laceration sounds pretty hardcore.
The other four are much more serious. These are rectosigmoid perforations, in other words, a perforated rectum. That’s a very bad thing and it almost never happens from just anal sex. I’m not sure what a laparotomy is.
The last man had a severe sphincter laceration which produced complete anal incontinence. You can have surgeries after this happens to try to fix the problem, but they don’t necessarily work. There are indeed some older gay men who have anal incontinence after years to decades of all sorts of anal sex. These men do indeed have to wear something like a diaper to deal with this issue. It’s not a myth.
I doubt if it’s the typical outcome though. That sounds like a nightmare. Not being able to hold your shit.
I keep seeing the word laceration used here. I’ve never seen that word used in conjunction with an injury from anal sex. That must have something to with the fact of a huge fist being up there instead of a small penis.
I can’t believe 37% of gay men have had a fist shoved up their ass. That sounds nuts. Sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with gay men, other than simply being gay of course. They seem so self-destructive.

Alt Left: What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.

Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.

How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.

A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me. Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. It is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse; nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were   fairly to very common to in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis, and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men; whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights. I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying, and heartbreaking in particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society. Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.

The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men.
Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions.

I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.

I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.

However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.

The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.

Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate. However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.

Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities. Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).

Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

Mexicans, a Portrait of a Depoliticized People

Mexicans in their own country and in the US are profoundly depoliticized and do not know their ass from a hole in the ground politically, for which I blame that awful fake revolutionary party in power for decades. It is true that the party preserved many good progressive structures, but they didn’t go further from that.
It’s hard to call yourselves a revolutionary party in a land where many people complete only 2nd-5th grade education.
I meet Mexicans like this all the time aged 20-40. Some told me that their kids never went to school past 5th grade. It costs money to go to school down there, and many people cannot afford it, so their kids only get a few years’ schooling. This is happening to this very day. Many rural schools are defunded and have no money to pay teachers, so many students drop out in the 2nd grade or so to go work out in the fields.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
Yes, there is free medical care and it is decent enough. You might have to wait in line all day, but you will still get in, and they will treat you. As with everything else, it is horribly defunded.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
28% of Mexican sewage flows into rivers untreated.
Sound like a revolutionary party?
The ejido system brought by the Mexican Revolution is great and has prevented another revolution, but it was never properly funded. Most land in Mexico is owned by the state and divided into ejidos. Anyone who cannot make a living in the cities can always go to some ejido and join as a worker and work the land. At least you will end up with enough food to eat. However, some recent administrations have started to privatize the ejido system, which will be catastrophic for Mexicans.
The oil company remains nationalized, a source of pride for most Mexicans. I remember gas was damn cheap down there. There was only one type of gas station, but they sure sold gas cheap. However, there have been recent moves to privatize the oil company, which have run in to a lot of opposition. I believe it was privatized under Benito Juarez.
 
Because I am a provocateur, I like to mess around with the local Mexicans and tell them I am a radical. I flat out tell them that I am a Communist and a revolutionary. They often look a bit puzzled, but they are not angry. They often seem curious and seem to think that I am on their side. Then I make a fist and say “Revolution! Benito Juarez! Pancho Villa! Emilio Zapata!”
Everyone is very happy and cheers me on. These are the heroes of the Mexican Revolution and afterwards and frankly, all of them were out and out Leftists. So the heroes of the Mexican working class for almost a century have been full blown Leftists. I would say there is a lot of underground and unconscious support for Leftism among working class Mexicans and of course Salvadorans. Mexicans simply had their revolutionary spirit co-opted by that fake revolutionary party which started out with great motives but got very corrupted and bureaucratized over time

Can Your IQ Increase During Adolescence?

Answered on Quora.
Yes, oddly enough, IQ does move around somewhat, including gains or losses of up to 10–15 points, during adolescence. It is not quite known why IQ can move around a bit in adolescence, but in that stage of life, you can move around in a lot of ways. Your personality is not fully formed yet, so we cannot diagnose personality disorders in adolescence.
In addition, you can intervene with some dangerous adolescents, and if you work hard enough, you can make some good progress with them. I recall a young man who seemed to be headed for a career as a rapist, but they grabbed him as a teenager and threw him into intensive therapy. He’s now 40–50, and he hasn’t raped anyone yet. Some adolescents may be on track to seriously assault, attempt to kill or kill other people. I believe that if grab them early enough as teenagers and work hard on them, we can at least get to where they don’t kill anyone during their lifetimes. I have had some good success with people like this myself.
In adulthood, your IQ gets a lot more stuck and it’s hard to raise it. Long ago when I was in high school, a friend told me that a psychologist told him that you could raise your IQ ~15 points even in adulthood if you really put a Herculean effort into it, but it’s so hard to do, that most don’t do it.
He also said that you hit a ceiling at 15 IQ points gain, and you can’t gain any more than that. I think you might be able to lose ~15 IQ points if you sit on your butt, never think or open a book, or stay stoned or drunk a lot. But you will probably hit a floor where you can’t drop it anymore no matter how much of a slacker you are.
Large IQ declines are sometimes seen in illnesses, particularly illnesses of the brain. There is a woman on Quora who documented I believe a 57 point drop in IQ due to her Multiple Sclerosis. She was at Genius IQ before and she fell down to Low Normal. Other MS sufferers also complain of IQ drops. MS is a disease of the brain, so it makes sense.