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 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.

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.

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: 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: 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.

Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism as "Syndromes"

 Jynxi: I’m glad you cleared that up because that was exactly my conclusion. That being said, how would you go about classifying homosexuality? Would it not be a type of BDD light?

Homosexuality is not a sin and it’s not chosen anyway. I am not much of a Christian, but it seems hard to figure out if it is a sin considering that God obviously made these people gay.
Homosexuality itself is not a mental disorder. Just because a man is turned on by men and not women or a woman is turned on by women and not men doesn’t mean that that man or woman is crazy. It’s not nuts or crazy to have a sexual preference for your own sex and not the opposite sex.
And it makes no sense to call the whole homosexual syndrome a mental illness because many gay men and possibly lesbians are extremely healthy psychologically. You can’t have mental disorders where the sufferers are very well-adjusted and mentally healthy. That goes against the definition of a disorder.
Nevertheless, both male homosexuality and lesbianism, while not being mental illnesses, still resemble them. In other words, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it looks like one! This is because there is so much pathology that seems to go along inevitably with these orientations when you look at them as groups.
The PC claim is that all homosexual pathologies are due to discrimination. However, recent surveys have found high levels of all sorts of pathologies in both gays and lesbians even in places like Sweden and most recently in the Netherlands. Gays are more accepted there than anywhere on Earth, so the gays can’t use the discrimination excuse which they always use to handwave away all gay and lesbian pathology.
Male homosexuality and lesbianism on average cut a full 20 years off your lifespan. The most recent studies showing a 20 year lifespan reduction have come out of Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Gays also say that the 20 year reduced lifespan is due to discrimination, but this is hard to reckon with in places like Sweden and Denmark where there is little discrimination against gays. Gay men who die of non-HIV causes only live a few years longer than those who die of HIV, and lesbians who are not affected by HIV don’t live any longer than gay men.
The implication is that all of the pathologies and the reduced lifespan are simply inherent aspects of this homosexual syndrome when look at the groups as a whole. There is something inherent in homosexuality in many cases that causes you to be unhappy, have all sorts of problems and die young.
However, if you believe in Natural Law, homosexuality seems to be violation of Natural Law. Obviously nature wants men and women to pair off and make babies. When that gets messed up as in women raising children alone or homosexual couples raising children, all sorts of problems seem to develop. The children have quite a few more problems than those raised by a father and mother.
A household with a father and a mother continues to be the best for children. This doesn’t really make sense unless you think that possibly Nature wants it this way, or perhaps we have evolved to raise children this way. If the latter, we might not be adapted to raising children in other ways very well.
Homosexual relationships both gay and lesbian seem to run into all sorts of problems. First of all, they usually end up caricaturing heterosexual relationships with one playing the dominant and masculine man and another the submissive and feminine woman in both gay male and lesbian relationships. That even gays end up caricaturing the basic heterosexual pattern implies once again that this is either Natural Law or we have evolved that way (possibly “Natural Law” might mean nothing other than the way we have evolved).
Gay relationships seem almost inherently pathological. They do not seem to last long. 91% of even lesbians never have a relationship that lasts more than five years, and gay men are even worse. Hell, even I did better than that. Gay male couples are 4-5 X more likely to suffer from domestic violence than straight couples are. Lesbians beat each other up so often and so badly that their rates are off charts, worse than even gay men’s rates.
Lesbians often fall into what is called Lesbian Bed Death where they have sex once a month if that often. No one knows why this happens, but perhaps lesbian relationships lack the male “charge” that may be necessary to fire up female sexuality. Lesbians try to imitate the charge by having one woman play the male role, but maybe it doesn’t work.
Gay men typically have notoriously unstable relationships which are much more temporary even than those of lesbians. Gay male life often revolves around a never-ending swirl of temporary and often one-time or even anonymous relationships. A survey out of Australia in 2000 showed that many gay men were continuing to have sex with more than 100 men per year. And this is long after the wild promiscuity of the 1970’s that preceded the HIV epidemic calmed down to much lower levels in  the 1980’s. Even at this late date, gay men are very promiscuous.
All of this wild sex for some reason does not seem to make them happy and in fact it may make them unhappy. Many gay men seem to be caught in this never ending drug and promiscuous sex cycle in which they seem to be chasing an elusive happiness and fulfillment that they never seem to find.
Many gay men seem to be looking for a father figure. Gay men’s relationships with their fathers and male peers were typically quite poor, and it has been suggested that gay men are forever trying to fill the “father hole” that never got filled in them or are forever trying to find the male acceptance and brotherly love that they never got from their peers while growing up. Gay male culture revolves heavily around the notion of the “Daddy,” and many gay male relationships incorporate the “Daddy” archetype. A number of gay men have stated that a theme of their adult lives, particularly sexually, was a search, often wandering, painful, and yearning but ultimately fruitless, for the father relationship that they never had.
Neither gays nor lesbians seem very happy. Gay men have a 3X elevated rate of suicide even in the Netherlands, which is as gay-friendly as you can get. There seems to be something inherent in male homosexuality that causes this suicidality.
One can picture heterosexual relationships in the yin and yang figure. Take them apart and they float alone, missing their other half. Men and women only become completely whole in a heterosexual relationship where the male donates his masculine element to the woman which she incorporates into herself and the woman donates her female element into the male which he incorporates into himself. They are both now whole, locked together in that perfect fitting embrace, the key in the lock of the yin/yang emblem.
Look, I do not think that male homosexuality or lesbianism are lifestyles that gay men and lesbians choose to lead in most cases, although there are some women who seem to choose to be lesbians, and there are a few basically straight men who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but the numbers of the latter are very small.
By age 15, gay men cannot be changed to straight, and they cannot even be made somewhat more heterosexual or somewhat less homosexual. Male homosexuality is incurable, unfixable, or permanent, however you want to look at it.
In early onset cases, lesbianism appears to be quite permanent and incurable too. So almost all gay men and many lesbians are pretty much stuck being gay. 
Still the lifestyles that especially so many gay men in big cities seem to live seem to be very unhealthy both physically and psychologically. In many cases the way they live is simply not a good way to live your life.
I don’t hate gays and lesbians. You can’t hate people for what they can’t help. I wish for all of them the very same happiness and health that I want for myself in life, not 1% less.
Nevertheless, I worry that all of this pathology may simply be somehow inherent in the “syndromes” of male homosexuality and  lesbianism, possibly due to their violations of Natural Law or our evolution, and that these problems may never be fixed much.
And that is quite a sad thing to believe. 

Is It True That the Number of LGBT People Is Growing More and More by the Year?

Answered on Quora.
Indeed in the most recent poll in the UK, the rate of homosexuality and bisexuality has increased dramatically among the youngest generation (18–30).
Now whether the rate is really going up or not will be the subject of an endless circular argument because no matter how high the rate goes, the PC people will always insist that these are just more and more people who would have been counted gay in prior years except they were closeted.
All increases will be hand-waved away as “people coming out of the closet.” Because of this tautological argument the PC types always trot out of all increases being explained by people leaving the closet, we may never be able to determine if the rate of this sort of thing is increasing or not.
I have had also had PC people explain increases in the rate of homosexuality as “those people were already gay anyway.” Once again we see an argument circling around itself. In fact, an argument like this fails falsifiability and hence it is not only inherently false, but it’s not even wrong!
The rate of bisexuality among young women in the West is skyrocketing in recent years, from 1.5% to 12%. Obviously this is a real increase, and many of these women are simply choosing this orientation. There’s no way that all of those women were “born that way.”
It is absolutely certain that the rate of transgenderism is skyrocketing in recent decades. In the 1960’s-1980’s, the rate was 1/90,000. It was quite rare all through the 1970’s. In recent years the rate has exploded to the point where in Generation Z, an incredible 2% of the population claims to be transsexual.
Therefore the rate of transgenderism has gone up 1,800 times (!) in recent years. It’s pretty obvious that there that that 180,000% (!) increase cannot possibly be explained away on an organic basis. Clearly many people are simply choosing to be transsexuals for whatever reason. Either that or it is a mental disorder, which is my position. In that case, the rate of this mental illness is going through the roof.
If it is a choice, it doesn’t seem like a good one to me, as the rates of psychiatric morbidity and mortality among trans people are extremely high. Transsexuals commit suicide at fully 18–57 times the rate of the rest of the population. Their overall death rate is 2.5 X higher than the rest of the population. Rates of heart disease and cancer are double to triple that of the rest of us. 41% of transsexuals attempt suicide. Their life expectancy is cut short, possibly by decades.
The usual PC argument here once again is that no matter what the transgender rate is, the rate was the same in prior years, except these transsexuals were all closeted. I am sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that 2% of the people in my or my parents’ generations were transsexual. Doesn’t pass the smell test. Furthermore, the argument is tautological and hence not only is it not correct, but it’s not even wrong!

Is It True That the Number of LGBT People Is Growing More and More by the Year?

Answered on Quora.
Studies in the US show that 3-5% of the population is gay or bisexual. The rate has been flat for several years.
However in the most recent poll in the UK, the rate of homosexuality and bisexuality has increased dramatically among the youngest generation (18–30). In all other age cohorts, the rate was flat or near-flat.
Now whether the rate is really going up or not will be the subject of an endless circular argument because no matter how high the rate goes, the PC people will always insist that these are just more and more people who would have been counted gay in prior years except they were closeted.
All increases will be hand-waved away as “people coming out of the closet.” Because of this tautological argument the PC types always trot out of all increases being explained by people leaving the closet, we may never be able to determine if the rate of this sort of thing is increasing or not.
I have had also had PC people explain increases in the rate of homosexuality as “those people were already gay anyway.” Hence the rate never goes up or down. Once again we see an argument circling around itself. In fact, an argument like this fails falsifiability and hence it is not only inherently false, but it’s not even wrong! In parts of Ancient Greece, 95% of the male population were bisexual. That rate is the highest recorded rate on Earth. Instead of saying that homosexual behavior showed an explosive increase in Ancient Greece, the argument is “those men were already gay anyway?” What?!
The rate of bisexuality among young women in the West is skyrocketing in recent years, from 1.5% to 12%. Obviously this is a real increase, and many of these women are simply choosing this orientation. There’s no way that all of those women were “born that way.”
It is absolutely certain that the rate of transgenderism is skyrocketing in recent decades. In the 1960’s-1980’s, the rate was 1/90,000. It was quite rare all through the 1970’s. In recent years the rate has exploded to the point where in Generation Z, an incredible 2% of the population claims to be transsexual.
Therefore the rate of transgenderism has gone up 1,800 times (!) in recent years. It’s pretty obvious that there that that 180,000% (!) increase cannot possibly be explained away on an organic basis. Clearly many people are simply choosing to be transsexuals for whatever reason. Either that or it is a mental disorder, which is my position. In that case, the rate of this mental illness is going through the roof.
If it is a choice, it doesn’t seem like a good one to me, as the rates of psychiatric morbidity and mortality among trans people are extremely high. Transsexuals commit suicide at fully 18–57 times the rate of the rest of the population. Their overall death rate is 2.5 X higher than the rest of the population. Rates of heart disease and cancer are double to triple that of the rest of us. 41% of transsexuals attempt suicide. Their life expectancy is cut short, possibly by decades.
The usual PC argument here once again is that no matter what the transgender rate is, the rate was the same in prior years, except these transsexuals were all closeted. I am sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that 2% of the people in my or my parents’ generations were transsexual. Doesn’t pass the smell test. Furthermore, the argument is tautological and hence not only is it not correct, but it’s not even wrong!

The Story of Mr. Hands

Betiality porn is apparently legal in the US. There are bestiality photos and videos all over the Net. You can go look at them if you wish, but it’s pretty messed up stuff.
Yes, the video is called Mr. Hands, and in that video, you can indeed see this idiot getting fucked in the ass by a horse. The same act that you see on that video ended up killing him hours later. Perforated rectum I think.
I don’t like to rejoice after deaths too much, and I won’t rejoice over his, but I don’t really care that this idiot died. I don’t care when fools do stupid things and die. I don’t care when idiots jump out of airplanes and die. I don’t care when morons climb 20,000+ foot mountains in Alaska or Tibet.
A movie called Zoo was made about his story. It’s excellent, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Corpse Landmarks on Mount Everest

I don’t care about all the fools who died climbing Mt. Everest or K2. Actually K2 has killed quite a few more people than Everest. The people who got killed climbing Everest are still sitting there on that mountain, frozen human hot dogs on an icebox mountain. I’m not sure what it means that they are still there. Maybe there is no way to go get the body. Those bodies are actually marked on maps and are used as landmarks by people climbing the mountain!
Can you believe it? You are looking at a map climbing Everest and your friend points in the distance at this darker colored object on the mountain. That’s Climber #74 over there. We call him Human Frozen Burrito for short. It’s on the map. Find Human Burrito on the map, and you can figure out where we are on this infernal mountain.

The Lie of the 20 (or 40, or 60, or 80, or 110) Million: How Many People Did Stalin Kill?

Here.
In 1991, after the Soviet archives were opened, a wild debate raged in the journals for many years. The subject of the debate was how many people did Joseph Stalin kill. Most people assume that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million people at the very least. That figure is considered unassailable. Other figures of 40-60 million are considered to also be possible.
The fascist hero and traitor Solzhenitsyn said that Stalin killed 110 million people. We have little data about how many were killed by early Bolsheviks in peacetime. Much of their time was spent in a brutal Civil War and there were many deaths associated with that. There was also a brutal famine that occurred in the context of war. But all indications are that the Leninists were not responsible for a lot of deaths. I would be surprised if they killed 100,000 people in 10 years. From 1926-1953, we have readily accessible data however.

                     Deaths
Executions           900,000
Anti-Kulak Campaign  400,000
Gulag                1,200,000
Total                2,500,000

I am leaving out deaths during wartime here, as we should not be counting those. However, there were some serious population transfers during World War which ended about 10 years later. The death tolls from these transfers were very high. Populations in the Baltics, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush and other Caucasian people were transferred, sometimes en masse, to gulags in Siberia. Death tolls were extremely high. I am not sure whether to include these totals, so I am leaving them out. Anyway, I do not have a good source for the deaths.
Surely there were executions and deaths in the gulags after 1943, but after Stalin died, the system was very much loosened up under Khrushchev and certainly under his followers. I doubt once again if there were 100,000 people killed between 1953-1989, a 36 year period.
I am also leaving off deaths due to famines because there is no evidence that these famines were artificially engineered. The most famous fake famine of all, the fake Holodomor, simply never even happened. What I mean was, yes, there was a famine, and many people died – 5.4 million in fact. But those deaths were not all in the Ukraine. Many died in the cities and 1 million died in Siberia. The death toll was higher in the fanatically pro-Stalin Volga than it was in Western Ukraine.
Even in Ukraine, the deaths were as high in the pro-Stalin East as in the anti-USSR nationalist West and Center. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that any “terror famine” occurred at all. There was simply a famine that occurred for a variety of causes, mostly a simple harvest collapse. Most died of disease instead of starvation. Much of the death toll was due to the kulaks.
The kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR to keep them from being turned over to the state. In the famine year, wheat fields were torched all over the Ukraine. Harvests were piled in the fields and left out to be rained on until they spoiled. Much of the crop failure was due to these dumbasses setting their fields on fire or piling harvests in the rain to spoil. They destroyed all their food crops, and then they sat around and said, “We ain’t got no food!” Duh. Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”
There was an armed revolution in the Ukraine with 20-30 armed attacks per day. Collective farms were attacked and set on fire. Workers in the collective farms would be shot and the women would be raped. This went on all through the years around the famine. The state crackdown was very brutal and that is why I listed 400,000 deaths during this time. If you want to count those 400,000 as “Holodomor” deaths, be my guest. But it ain’t no 6 million and there was no terror famine.
Look, if anti-Communists want to go on and on about Stalin killing 2 1/2 million people, please knock yourselves out. But they’ll never do that because it’s not sensational enough. You say the phrase “20 million killed in Communism” and everyone sits up and takes notice. You say Stalin killed 2 million and most will yawn and ask, “That’s all?” and turn back to the TV show.
This crap is all about propaganda. It’s not about real history or social science of any of that. It’s about lying for political purposes, which is what most of modern history is anyway.
How shameful that is.

Possible Origin of the Black Plague

Here.
The standard view is that twelve ships from Florence docked at Messina in 1347, bringing the Plague to Europe. It would later kill 1/3 of all Europeans and an incredible 20% of all humans. It would be as if 1.6 billion people died in only seven years or as if 66 million Americans died over a seven year period. Can you imagine? In my city alone, 12,000 people would be dead. Of every five people you knew at the start of the period, one would be dead after seven years. Can you imagine? That would not have left one person unscathed.
A new view though is that the Plague, which had already been active in Asia for a while, came to Europe via a biological warfare attack by Genghis Khan’s raiders on the city of Caffa in the Crimea. The Caffans were probably Turkic speakers at this time, but it is hard to say what Turkic lect they may have spoken. Perhaps a dead language called Cuman.
Khan’s raiders besieged the city and a number of people died of the Black Plague in the conflict. Khan’s men suspected a thing or two about biological warfare, so they loaded up the bodies that had died of the plague and catapulted them over the walls of the city into the population. Can you  imagine the horror of looking out your window and see a dead, bubonic plague ridden corpse fly by in the air at rapid speed to splatter nearby. Good Lord. In due time, this biological warfare killed a lot of the people in  the city.
Khan knew nothing of the  germ theory of disease, but experience with the plague showed that those who came in contact with victims tended to sicken and die. No one knew what was causing it. One European physician posited that plague victims radiated some sort of death vapors or essence out of their very eyes. Without medical science, people had to fall back on spiritual theories.
But people caught on quickly that being around plague victims could quickly make you a victim yourself. Physicians refused to treat plague patients and patients were often abandoned wherever they sickened. Family members even fled from their own sickened members, leaving them to die in the home while countless people fled to the countryside. But even there they were not safe. Even farm animals, cows, pigs, goats and sheep, caught the plague. So many sheep died that there was an acute wool shortage all over Europe for years afterwards. There was no solace or respite anywhere. The epidemic ended almost as fast as it began in 1354, but Europe was ruined. Entire cities had been abandoned as thousands of residents fled to the false safety of the countryside.
Many people escaped from Khan”s raid on Caffa, and survivors fled all over the Mediterranean. This people soon sickened and died. It was possibly from some of this group, fled to Florence, that the ill-fated death ships docked in Messina on that warm October night. The disease was in Southern France the next year and Germany soon after that. Not long afterwards, it hit Paris. And despite the primitive conditions of the day, it was not long in  Paris before London was also hit. People did have ships in those days you know.
Despite the enticing new theory, the medical journal concludes that the entrance of the Plague to Europe was multifactorial and the infection of the Caffa population did not play an important role in the European pandemic.

Trumpcare Is Going to Kill a Lot of People

A lot of people are going to die.
In the US, 250,000 people already die every year from lack of health insurance. Trumpcare will get rid of healthcare for 23 million people while jacking up rates wildly and reducing coverage for everyone else. It’s hard to understand why anyone other than an insurance executive would support this BS. It’s not good for anyone. Even if you keep your insurance,  Trumpcare is going to jack your rates up to the ceiling while dramatically reducing your coverage.
What’s in it for you, conservatards? Are you all masochists? Is that it?
“Yes, please, throw me off my healthcare so I die! Yes, please, Mr. Trump, jack up my health insurance rates through the roof and reduce my coverage so I am broke with crap medical insurance!”
The more I study conservatives, the more I think they are flat out masochists. They claim they are out to benefit themselves, but whenever the rich or the corporations want to rip off the people or ream them so hard it hurts, conservatives drop their pants, bend over and say, “Batter up!”
I don’t get it. You idiots like to suffer? You like to get ripped off by corporations. What’s your argument?
“Yes I love capitalism! Yes, this corporation and these rich people are running me through the meat grinder to line their greedy pig pockets, but that’s ok! I love to suffer and lose money and stuff so rich people can have more cash! I love to be impoverished so corporations can make more profits! That’s capitalism, and I’m a capitalist!”
Conservatives are dumbasses!
You scumbags are going to kill and hurt lots of Americans so you can give rich people are big fat tax cut. That’s pure political sociopathy. How do conservatives sleep at night?
PS. Republican Wealthcare is not even very popular with conservatives. Only 19% of  Americans support it. It’s so toxic and unpopular that Republicans are holding hearings on it in secret because if anyone finds out what’s really in it, there will be a huge uproar. Trump is phony as usual. He complained that the House version was “mean,” but the  Senate bill is almost worse. The House bill throws 24 million people off their healthcare and the Senate bill throws 23 million people off. Hey, that’s progress! But the Senate bill is actually much worse in terms of Medicaid.
Let’s kill hundreds of thousands of people so billionaires can get a huge tax cut! That’s the logic of capitalism right there, folks.
You guys wonder why we are socialists. You wonder why we hate capitalism so much. Read that paragraph above and see why. We socialists are on firm moral ground, I assure you. We sleep very well at night.

Repost: Average IQ's of Liberals Versus Conservatives (with References)

Thought I would repost this with references. This finding is very robust in social science. Liberals are smart. Conservatives are idiots. That’s all there is to it, folks. But you knew that.

Jason Voorhees: Liberals in general have an IQ of 110 or above.

Quite an exaggeration. More like 105. 75% of the population has an IQ below 110. On the other hand, he is onto something.
We don’t call em conservatards for nothing, I guess.
Liberals are actually smarter than conservatives! Quite a bit smarter. And the more liberal you are, the smarter you. And the more conservative you are, the dumber you are. It’s a linear curve.

               IQ
Liberals       106
Centrists      99
Conservatives  96

Source

I would argue that the reason for that is that conservatism is basically stupid. So of course stupid people support it. Fiscal conservatism is intelligent if you are rich and possibly if you are upper middle class, but it’s idiotic for everyone else because only the top 20% make money under rightwing economics. The entire 80% of the population loses money.

Political ideology
Ha ha! Conservatives are stupid! Liberals are smart! Something we always knew. No wonder they are called conservatards. Neener neener. Conservatives are so stupid they probably spell dumb “dum.” LOL.

Rightwing economics is a massive wealth transfer system from the poor and middle classes to the upper middle class and the rich. It’s basically a scam. Pure class war. Incidentally this has been proved all over the 3rd World, especially in Latin America. Surveys in Latin America under the neoliberal decades of failure showed that only the top 20% benefited under rightwing economics. The entire bottom 80% lost money. Furthermore, death rates skyrocketed and education figures collapsed. Neoliberalism has killed many millions of people. We may not have yet found a good alternative to capitalism, but capitalism surely continues to kill as sure as night follows day.
Oh and there is a reason why liberals control most US institutions. Although the idea of a liberal media is pathetic, 89% of media whores, I mean journalists, call themselves liberal. But universities are liberal. The only major US institution that is not liberal is business, which is conservative for basically self-serving interests because conservatism serves to line their pockets better while it picks the pockets of the poor and middle class. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood. That’s conservatism in action. The fact that the people calling themselves Christians in the US support Reverse Robin Hood is truly pathetic. Obviously they know nothing about how the Main Man lived his life.

References

Carl, Noah. 2014. Verbal Intelligence Is Correlated with Socially and Economically Liberal Beliefs. Intelligence, Volume 44, Pages 142-148.
Stankov, Lazar. 2009. Conservatism and Cognitive Ability. Intelligence, Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 294-304.
Thompson, James. November 29, 2015. US Academics: Lefty and Liberal Because of High IQ? Unz.com.

The Second American Civil War, 2016-?

Great post from Judith Mirville.
The country’s pretty much gone at this point in so many ways it’s not even funny. The MSM has completely forfeited its role as arbitrator of truth and instead has transformed into one of the most monstrous propaganda systems the world has ever seen.
The Republican Party is two states away from calling a Constitutional Convention after which they will rewrite the Constitution to end any government role in the well-being of the nation’s citizens. They will also finally dissolve civil rights once and for all, a project they have been whittling away at for a while now. The Voting Rights Act was just overthrown,  taking us back to the 1960’s. The Housing Rights Act is hardly enforced at all. All Republican Presidencies completely defund this arm, and the Democrats don’t do much better.
Every Republican President who comes in completely defunds the EEOC, which is the arm of the government that enforces the Civil  Rights Act in terms of job discrimination. With the EEOC defanged, businesses are very to discriminate as they wish.
The Citizens United case was a dagger deep in the heart of democracy which showed that America was a nation whose only real citizens were the rich and the corporations. The rest of us are servants, peons, sharecroppers, bonded labor, serfs, helots, prisoners or ragamuffin vagabonds.
America is the land of the 1%.
There’s nothing here for the rest of us, the 99%. We are superfluous, and I suppose with the new Trump Wealthcare Act, we are now encouraged to up and die.
The death of what was once a respectable tradition of the GOP began with Ronald Reagan and the move to the Hard Right. The country has been on a rightwing juggernaut ever since, much to its detriment.
Since 1980, we have seen endless conservative treatises to the effect that we are a republic, not a democracy. This requires a bit of shorthand. Whenever a conservative says that, he means he hates democracy.  Conservatives always hate democracy everywhere and and at all times, as conservatism is aristocratic rule by the divine right of kings. This is antithetical to democracy on its very face.
Democracy is rule by the people.
Conservatism is rule by feudal lords, kings, rajahs, czars, Dalai lamas, warlords, emperors, sultans, furhers, generalissimos, caudillos, strongmen, militarists and leaders for life. It is rule by the richest men, the aristocrats, the 1%,  over the 99%, where the money and wealth of the 99% is progressively shoveled upwards to the conservative royalists until the people become more and more impoverished.
When a conservative starts going on and on about how we are a republic, not a democracy, you need to listen very closely to that. He is showing just how much he hates rule by the common man, by the workers, by the salt of the earth, by the people. The state only exists for those wealthy enough to purchase in order to rule in their own name and for their own ends and means.
Since 2000, Republicans have stolen many elections with the use of hacking of computerized voting machines. Indeed Trump’s recent victory was stolen. Not only did he lose the popular vote but he also lost the electoral vote and we can prove it.
Jonathan Simon of Code Red says that the era of election theft from 2000-2107 will be an era of increasingly extreme politics. His reasoning is quite simple. If the Republicans are going to win elections no matter how the people vote, then there are no restrictions on their behavior. They can do whatever they want to without fear of being voted our of office.
The politicians of the aristocracy (the Republican Party) are constrained by fears of being voted out of office. When they no longer have to fear being voted out of office, they can do whatever they want without any fear of the consequences.
Hence we see the extreme Republican Wealthcare Act that throws 23 million off their health care and pulls the plug out from under millions of newborn babies, tens of millions of children, half of the elderly and almost all of the poor. It’s a death sentence for countless Americans. That’s right. A lot of people are going to die, all so the rich can get a tax cut. The Top 400 earners in the US are going to get a $4 billion tax cut with this unspeakably cruel act. Ordinarily, politicians would be afraid to be thrown out of office for voting for such a monstrosity (81% of the public opposes it), but as the Republicans have rigged elections to always win, they have to fear of being voted out so they can act and vote fearlessly.
To me Trump is the proof that the country founded by Franklin and Jefferson rebuilt by Lincoln and Roosevelt just no longer exists: there is no longer any common soul uniting it. The Democratic and Republican parties, though both equally corrupt and dangerous for the survival of humanity, no longer refer to the same country and civilization.
The only thing equivalent elsewhere in the world is the difference between India and Pakistan or between Israel and Palestine: the difference between both in unbridgeable, and the only thing that can bring both under a common government is military occupation of one by the other.
Let’s get over it: Abraham Lincoln’s endeavor never succeeded actually: the Dixieland was occupied and wrought a slow motion revenge onto the rest of the country thanks to military industries and media industries being located in it. It is a different civilization altogether, where doing productive work, or worse still, harboring a mere mental concern for the common good, is considered a shame and something that should be reserved to prisoners and dark people having committed an offence in their previous life. The only other country like that on Earth is the Indo-Gangetic plain where Hinduism and caste are the law of the land.
Lincoln tried to give a common ideal to all Americans, the self-made man, the idea that however lowly is your station of departure in life, there is no limit to your success in life as an entrepreneur, an inventor, a scholar or even a president if you put it the right amount of the right kind of personal effort.
Get over it: the Dixieland never accepted that creed, it is a blasphemy of the God they adore not only as regards Blacks and Mexicans but as regards all social classes the Whites form themselves…and most of the Western Plains conquest was done by Dixielanders even though nominally under Union flag.
Kennedy, exactly one century later, seeing that both countries never united actually, tried to respect the Southern Civilization in the framework of a grander humanistic scheme by devising Political Correctness and multiculturalism as we have been knowing them, and it has proven equally futile an enterprise as Lincoln’s. The Dixieland and the Flyoverland just pounced upon the opportunity given by multiculturalism to enclose themselves in their own cultural no-go zones and also succeeded in having allied recently-immigrated ethnic groups in their enterprise.
However diverse is India, there is just no place in it for Pakistanis, they will rather consider nuclear war rather than accepting diversity of creeds: in the same way, in Kennedy’s new diverse America, there is no place for Dixieland; they already know that multiculturalism is a Marxist scheme organized by extraterrestrials to destroy natural law as they define it.
Secession is the only solution for America.
The present state of America is a Cold War between both countries with presumed spies and traitors from the other side being submitted to punishments and exclusion from professional work as harsh as in the Soviet-occupied parts of Europe (the only thing missing up to know is a new Berlin Wall as in Eastern Germany in the 1950’s just before they built it, but it is Trump’s promise he will never recoil from).
It is also a military occupation of Democratic America by a Republican government in a sweet revenge for the Reconstruction Era: when the Republican cut social programs, they don’t even do it to make their own 1% richer but to punish and crush back down in Third World style misery the 99% of the lands they feel they occupy like the Nazis did in German-occupied France and Eastern Europe during the 1940’s, together with the local 1% as collaborators.
Like the Hitler-led Germans they are ready to suffer themselves all kinds of miseries and revert to Feudal Age renouncement to all modern comforts just to go on with what they feel is their duty : killing once for all the civilization of the Enlightenment.
All KKK-approving lands should have been realistically subject to military occupation following that of Hitler’s Germany, and American citizenship be given back to their own people only on a piecemeal basis as to meritorious Germans at that time. The Civic Rights Movement should have been a military operation with humanistic militants trained for close combat during the Sixties and early Seventies, and devisers of the so-called Southern Strategy within the Republican Party should have been put to death for high treason before the foe.
All strategic industry, especially aerospace, military and media, should have been moved out of that perimeter into friendly territory. But now it is too late: they are the occupiers themselves. It is time for the decent part of America to organize military resistance together with foreign allied countries supporting or just tolerating humanism in the world however undemocratic they are themselves.
Make no mistake about it: the people of Flyover America, now onwards to be known as Murrica, consider all forms of upward social mobility and all endeavors to make the world better as the cardinal sin against their God’s law and the ability to make money in a zero sum game as the physical manifestation of their God’s grace.
They consider that over-educated people, that is to say educated beyond their own capacity to make money and for another aim than personal financial success, have forfeited their right to life, liberty and happiness and should be treated as Indian Untouchables. They actually stick to that dogma with far more fanaticism and less humanity than right-wing Hindu Indians themselves, most of whom abide by that rather play a humorous game in comparison, and all they ask from an Untouchable is not to be educated in Sanskrit and other sciences they consider sacred. They have no problem with one who succeeds to make himself known as an English writer.

Average IQ's of Liberals Versus Conservatives

Jason Voorhees: Liberals in general have an IQ of 110 or above.

Quite an exaggeration. More like 105. 75% of the population has an IQ below 110. On the other hand, he is onto something.
We don’t call em conservatards for nothing, I guess.
Liberals are actually smarter than conservatives! Quite a bit smarter. And the more liberal you are, the smarter you. And the more conservative you are, the dumber you are. It’s a linear curve.

               IQ
Liberals       106
Centrists      99
Conservatives  96

Source

I would argue that the reason for that is that conservatism is basically stupid. So of course stupid people support it. Fiscal conservatism is intelligent if you are rich and possibly if you are upper middle class, but it’s idiotic for everyone else because only the top 20% make money under rightwing economics. The entire 80% of the population loses money.

Political ideology
Ha ha! Conservatives are stupid! Liberals are smart! Something we always knew. No wonder they are called conservatards. Neener neener. Conservatives are so stupid they probably spell dumb “dum.” LOL.

Rightwing economics is a massive wealth transfer system from the poor and middle classes to the upper middle class and the rich. It’s basically a scam. Pure class war. Incidentally this has been proved all over the 3rd World, especially in Latin America. Surveys in Latin America under the neoliberal decades of failure showed that only the top 20% benefited under rightwing economics. The entire bottom 80% lost money. Furthermore, death rates skyrocketed and education figures collapsed. Neoliberalism has killed many millions of people. We may not have yet found a good alternative to capitalism, but capitalism surely continues to kill as sure as night follows day.
Oh and there is a reason why liberals control most US institutions. Although the idea of a liberal media is pathetic, 89% of media whores, I mean journalists, call themselves liberal. But universities are liberal. The only major US institution that is not liberal is business, which is conservative for basically self-serving interests because conservatism serves to line their pockets better while it picks the pockets of the poor and middle class. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood. That’s conservatism in action. The fact that the people calling themselves Christians in the US support Reverse Robin Hood is truly pathetic. Obviously they know nothing about how the Main Man lived his life.

References

Carl, Noah. 2014. Verbal Intelligence Is Correlated with Socially and Economically Liberal Beliefs. Intelligence, Volume 44, Pages 142-148.
Stankov, Lazar. 2009. Conservatism and Cognitive Ability. Intelligence Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 294-304.
Thompson, James. November 29, 2015. US Academics: Lefty and Liberal Because of High IQ? Unz.com.

Why Mass Sexual License and Depravity Should Not Be Promoted to the Masses

Ryan England: I think that the pertinent question in matters of sexual politics is: to what extent does “promoting” such-and-such a sexual behavior actually result in increased participation in said behavior on a societal level? The way I see it, if people have it in them to do gang-bangs, threesomes, sex with two hundred women or the like, they will.

Oh, I know that the promotion of this stuff leads to more of it. I have dated many women. I also have female friends who have many young woman friends. A female friend told me that all her young woman friends are under pressure from their lovers to engage in anal sex and to have threeways with another woman. So all these young women are taking it up the ass and eating pussy due to cultural pressure, whereas they probably would not be ordinarily doing so. My friend told me that all of this is happening because of porn. I would agree with that.
I have dated a lot of women, and I also have noted that the sex has gotten a lot more pornified in recent years, even among older women. I mean 50 years old. I mean in recent years I could not believe the crazy sex I was having. It was like I was living in a porno movie.
I go on dating sites, and the women say pretty quickly, “Ok here is what I do.”
And then they proceed to list all their kinks, and by age 50, they’ve accumulated a few. They are actually trying to outwhore each other! I’m serious.
I am on a dating site, and I meet a woman and pretty soon it’s, “Ok, well do deep throat, I take it up the ass but only sometimes, you can tie me up, blindfold me and handcuff me, and I like it sort of rough.”
It’s like they are having a contest to see who can be the most kinky and whorish so they can get the hot guy, and the sluttiest woman gets the sexy guy. This is a recent thing. Women were not like this 30 years ago. Not that I object. But it’s obviously all coming from porn or faddism or peer pressure.
People are immensely susceptible to fads and peer pressure when it comes to sexuality. You think all those Romans having wild orgies all the time “had it in them already?” Hell no, but they were born into a society where this was the cool thing to do, so they did it. Same thing with fucking guys. In Rome and Greece, fucking other men and boys was the groovy thing to do, and in some cases up to 95% of the men were fucking other men (Sparta). I don’t see how people can say that sexual activity is not culturally driven. That’s just nuts, sorry.
I am absolutely certain that articles on Slate or Alternet lead to more and more people doing this stuff. Plus it’s disgusting that they are promoting degeneracy to the masses in the first place.
Recent articles include a man who likes to get pegged (his girlfriend straps on a dildo and fucks him in the ass). I guess all us guys need to go out there and get women to strap on dildos and fuck us in the ass! Nothing gay about that! Men: How To Get in Touch with Your Bisexual Side. Ok all us men need to get out there and suck a cock! I want to see all my male commenters going to a gay bar and ordering a Penis Colada before the month is over. That’s an order!
Other articles promote on having 3-ways, cuckolding (a big favorite), where idiot men enjoy seeing their wives fuck other men while they watch and get humiliated, and a similar major movement of White men who love being “cucks” to Black men called “Bulls” who they bring in to fuck their White wives. The White guys like to be humiliated and often enjoy having their wives or her Black lover degrade them by comparing them unfavorably to the Black man. The White wives even lock up the White men’s genitals in little cages at night before bed. Then they deny the White men sex for weeks to months. These articles were actually promoting this activity to White men as the latest groovy trend.
And by the way, gay male culture is an excellent example of a culture that promotes mass sexual license and depravity. Look at the result:

  • A horrific HIV epidemic that’s killed hundreds of thousands of gay men. 20% of gay men are infected to this day. Gay men are 1.5% of the population and over 50% of new HIV infections.
  • Regular outbreaks of Hepatitis A and B and parasites. Most gay men have 60 different types of parasites in their gut, whereas the average straight man has zero.
  • Regular outbreaks of syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men are 1.5% of the population and 70% of the syphilis cases.

37% of gay men practice S/M. The result is that many serial killers (40%) are homosexuals, because serial killing and sexual sadism are linked and once you make sexual sadism the latest hip trend, you are going to create some dangerous men. Gay men are 1.5% of all the men and 40% of the serial killers.
16% of gay men drink piss. 8% of gay men like to get shit on or eat shit. Gay men are 1.5% of the population and 50% of the consumers of scat porn.
By age 30, almost all gay men have had group sex, and many to most of them have been to orgies with 8 or more men at once.
The result of all of this unbridled sexual license is a seriously messed up culture psychologically and medically with regular disease outbreaks and a drastically shortened lifespan by ~20 years. Yes, being gay knocks 29 years off a man’s life expectancy.

Night of the Living Anthrax Zombies

Here.
After a 75 year hiatus, anthrax zombies rise from their permafrost graves to kill again! They have killed a boy and a grandma so far and hospitalized 72 other humans. In the meantime as far as non-humans go, they have killed over 2,300 reindeer. This variety doesn’t like to eat brains*, but they can kill you dead just the same.
Whew! It’s a good thing there’s no such thing as global warming! They really had me worried there for a second!
*One of my favorite movie lines of all time comes from that great movie. It’s near the end when the huge police forces have been killed out to kill the zombies, who can only be killed with a bullet to the head. A nervous civilian asks a ranking cop if the zombies can move fast on the ground.
“Are they fast?” he asks anxiously.
The captain looks disgusted and turns away like he wants to spit on the ground. “Nah,” he says. They’re slow. They’re dead. They’re all fucked up.
God smiles down on you, George Romero.

Gabon – Africa's Shining Star

Chinedu writes:

As for Africa, it’s a large place, and some regions have higher GDP per capita and better living standards than Eastern Europe. We’ll see what the future holds.

There is one country that has a higher standard of living than Eastern Europe. It is Gabon, and the high PCI is all due to oil. It’s $20,000/yr PCI. However, Gabon is still one of the most horrific shitholes in all of Africa.
Apparently all of the money is being stolen by an elite of ~10-20% of the population, which is what happens in all Black African countries. It is being stolen by a group associated with the government and maybe the tribe or ethnic group that is represented in the state. Everyone else is getting fuck all. The medical care statistics are horrific (about as bad as India’s), and at least 40% of the population is actually starving (malnourished). For medical figures, look at maternal mortality in particular. Gabon’s maternal mortality figures are off the charts.
 

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Radical Center

Here.

This should be a pretty nice interview. I am told that he sounds exactly like an Alternative Left type in this piece. Looks like I am starting to have some influence!

Topics include:

Bay Area Guy’s article The Radical Center
How Radical Centrism combines the best aspects of the right (ex. Pat Buchanan) and the left (ex. Ralph Nader) against the corrupt establishment
How the establishment combines the worst aspects of both the left and right
More on the election and why Bay Area Guy supports Bernie Sanders
How Radical Centrism could be co-opted by the establishment
Making Sense of White American Misery
How hyper individualism leads to high rates of suicide and mass shootings
Why “Diversity” is Simply Code for “Non-White”
How to Win by Refusing to Say Sorry
The Importance of Historical and Global Awareness: Bay Area Guy’s Brief Thoughts on 1984

Anatoly Karlin Discuses My Ideas on Robert Stark’s Show

Interview here.

In this interview, Karlin discusses my proposal for an Alternative Left which would be Left on economics and socially conservative or at least negotiable and sane on the Cultural Left. It would be for everyone who supports Left politics but its turned off by Identity politics and the SJW PC crowd. I would think there would be a lot of people out there who would support such a thing.

Anatoly Karlin is a blogger, thinker, and businessman in the SF Bay Area. He’s originally from Russia, spent many years in Britain, and studied at U.C. Berkeley. He blogs at The UNZ Review and DaRussophile.

Topics include:

His interest in both Neoreactionary politics and Futurism and how they compliment each other
His thoughts on the Alternative Right, the Alternative Left, and the Radical Center
Transhumanism
The four political currents in Russia today (social conservatives, neoliberals, communists, and nationalists)
Vladimir Putin as a civic nationalist and his economic policies
The 5 Types of Russian American
Misconception that Americans and Westerners have about Russia
The Soviet Parallels of Fishtown’s Middle-Aged White Male Mortality Crisis
How automation will make a basic income necessary
The Ethnic Politics of Basic Income
National Wealth and IQ and how oil and Communism explain the exceptions
Dysgenic Deutschland
The European migrant crisis and how it will be used to justify more wars in the Middle East
The Syrian conflict and Russia’s role in the region
How cousin marriage correlates with support for ISIS against Assad in Syria

Happy 9-11 Everyone

As most of you are probably aware, today is the day when Americans commemorate the anniversary of the 911 attacks on the US by Al Qaeda.

And on this very day, the anniversary of 9-11, a crane fell in Mecca due to heavy rains, killing 107 pilgrims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL-EI7fUJuc

Happy 9-11 Everyone. And perhaps there is a God after all.

And for today only, WTC Pizza, which stores across the US, is offering a one time only deal of a large cheese pizza for $9.11 as a special in order to commemorate this important date.
And for today only, WTC Pizza, which stores across the US, is offering a one time only deal of a large cheese pizza for $9.11 as a special in order to commemorate this important date.

There Is No Such Thing As the Holodomor

Stary Wylk writes:

The Holodomor was starving Ukrainians through crop seizure, not mass deportations. Those came later.

The Holodomor never even happened. And murderous deportations were indeed part of the process that killed many people in that region in 1932.

The starvation was just as bad as in the Ukraine if not worse in a number of other places including the Lower Volga and western Kazakhstan. The Kazakhs supported Stalin, and the Russians of the Rostov were fanatical Stalin supporters. Also the Holodomor hit the east of the Ukraine where the Russians live very hard. Support for Stalin was and is still strong in this area. 1 million people died in Siberia. There were a lot of deaths in Moscow. Did Stalin unleash a “terror famine” in Eastern Ukraine, the Rostov, the Lower Don, western Kazakhstan, Siberia and even Moscow? Of course not.

There was no terror famine. There was a famine harvest. In one year, the harvest collapsed and was only 50% of normal.

You can argue why that happened.

Crops had to be seized because the Ukies were setting their crops on fire and piling them in the fields to get rained on until they molded. The kulaks killed half the livestock in the USSR in the years leading up to the Holodomor. This made things worse, as there was a shortage of horses to plow fields and livestock to eat.

Also the Ukies waged an insurgency where they were attacking the collective farms, burning crops, killing livestock and raping and murdering collective farm workers. At the height there were 20-30 attacks a day going on. All of this was going on in the context of the Holodomor. Actually many deaths occurred in the context of a vicious counterinsurgency campaign combined with some very cruel mass deportations of Ukies to Siberia. 390,000 Ukrainians were killed in this savage counterinsurgency/deportation campaign. If you want to add that to Stalin’s kill total, I would not object.

Ukraine suffered the most deaths, but that was where the harvest collapse was worst. 90% of food exports back from the state for famine relief went to the Ukraine that year.

There was no terror famine!

Choking Women Out Is a Bad Idea

Interesting piece from a BD/SM enthusiast who is also a medical professional. You see guys choking out women all over porn these days. And on PUA sites, a lot of guys like Roosh are really into choking women out when they have sex with them. I must say that this is completely sick. Why would I want to choke out the woman I am screwing?  Maybe if I wanted to fantasize being a serial killer? Anyone who does this obviously is fantasizing about being a murderer or a rapist. I don’t feel like pretending to be Ted Bundy when I am in bed with a woman.
Not only is it sick, but it’s also dangerous. You can kill a person or give them a heart attack at any time. And there are a lot of other injuries that can and do occur also. I have heard that a number of women in porn are getting TIA’s from getting choked out all the time on porn sets. Those are Transient Ischemic Attacks. They are like mini-strokes. The thing is, if you have enough of these as a young person, you may damage your brain and make a real stroke more likely when you get older.
These choking fetish is insane. Don’t choke out your partner! Ever!
Former ambulance medic, former law school professor, expert witness on BD/SM matters, Jay Wiseman has over 35 years of experience in BD/SM and was one of the early pioneers and builders of the BD/SM community in the San Francisco area.
He continues to be heavily involved, both in his local area and nationally, as an S/M author, educator, mentor, workshop leader, video producer, expert witness, and activist. Noted for being both an exceptionally knowledgeable and highly entertaining presenter, he is very much in demand and has given hundreds of presentations on various aspects of health, relationships, and sexuality in more than 70 cities in the United States and Canada. In 2007, Black Rose presented him with the Vaughn Keith National BD/SM Educator Award.

The Medical Realities of Breath Control Play

For some time now, I have felt that the practices of suffocation and/or strangulation done in an erotic context (generically known as breath control play; more properly known as asphyxiophilia) were in fact far more dangerous than they are generally perceived to be.
As a person with years of medical education and experience, I know of no way whatsoever that either suffocation or strangulation can be done in a way that does not intrinsically put the recipient at risk of cardiac arrest (There are also numerous additional risks; more on them later.)
Furthermore, and my biggest concern, I know of no reliable way to determine when such a cardiac arrest has become imminent.
Often the first detectable sign that an arrest is approaching is the arrest itself. Furthermore, if the recipient does arrest, the probability of resuscitating them, even with optimal CPR, is distinctly small. Thus the recipient is dead and their partner, if any, is in a very perilous legal situation. The authorities could consider such deaths first-degree murders until proven otherwise, with the burden of such proof being on the defendant. There are also the real and major concerns of the surviving partner’s own life-long remorse to having caused such a death, and the trauma to the friends and family members of both parties.
Some breath control fans say that what they do is acceptably safe because they do not take what they do up to the point of unconsciousness. I find this statement worrisome for two reasons:
(1) You can’t really know when a person is about to go unconscious until they actually do so, thus it’s extremely difficult to know where the actual point of unconsciousness is until you actually reach it.
(2) More importantly, unconsciousness is a symptom, not a condition in and of itself. It has numerous underlying causes ranging from simple fainting to cardiac arrest, and which of these will cause the unconsciousness cannot be known in advance.
I have discussed my concerns regarding breath control with well over a dozen S/M-positive physicians, and with numerous other S/M-positive health professionals, and all share my concerns. We have discussed how breath control might be done in a way that is not life-threatening, and come up blank. We have discussed how the risk might be significantly reduced, and come up blank. We have discussed how it might be determined that an arrest is imminent and come up blank.
Indeed, so far not one (repeat, not one) single physician, nurse, paramedic, chiropractor, physiologist, or other person with substantial training in how a human body works has been willing to step forth and teach a form of breath control play that they are willing to assert is acceptably safe — i.e., does not put the recipient at imminent, unpredictable risk of dying. I believe this fact makes a major statement.
Other “edge play” topics such as suspension bondage, electricity play, cutting, piercing, branding, enemas, water sports, and scat play can and have been taught with reasonable safety, but not breath control play. Indeed, it seems that the more somebody knows about how a human body works, the more likely they are to caution people about how dangerous breath control is, and about how little can be done to reduce the degree of risk.
In many ways, oxygen is to the human body and particularly to the heart and brain what oil is to a car’s engine. Indeed, there’s a medical adage that goes “hypoxia (becoming dangerously low on oxygen) not only stops the motor, but also wrecks the engine.” Therefore, asking how one can play safely with breath control is very similar to asking how one can drive a car safely while draining it of oil.
Some people tell the “mechanics” something like, “Well, I’m going to drain my car of oil anyway, and I’m not going to keep track of how low the oil level is getting while I’m driving my car, so tell me how to do this with as much safety as possible.” (They may even add something like “Hey, I always shut the engine off before it catches fire.”) They then get frustrated when the mechanics scratch their heads and say that they don’t know. They may even label such mechanics as “anti-education.”
A bit about my background may help explain my concerns. I was an ambulance crewman for over eight years. I attended medical school for three years, and passed my four-year boards, but then then ran out of money. I am a former member of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a former American Heart Association instructor in Advanced Cardiac Life Support. I have an extensive martial arts background that includes a first-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My martial arts training included several months of judo that involved both my choking and being choked.
I have been an instructor in first aid, CPR, and various advanced emergency care techniques for over sixteen years. My students have included physicians, nurses, paramedics, police officers, fire fighters, wilderness emergency personnel, martial artists, and large numbers of ordinary citizens. I currently offer both basic and advanced first aid and CPR training to the S/M community.
During my ambulance days, I responded to at least one call involving the death of a young teenage boy who died from autoerotic strangulation, and to several other calls where this was suspected but could not be confirmed. Family members often “sanitize” such scenes before calling 911.
Additionally, I personally know two members of my local S/M community who went to prison after their partners died during breath control play. The primary danger of suffocation play is that it is not a condition that gets worse over time (regarding the heart, anyway, it does get worse over time regarding the brain). Rather, what happens is that the more the play is prolonged, the greater the odds that a cardiac arrest will occur. Sometimes even one minute of suffocation can cause this; other times even less.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 1

When the heart gets low on oxygen, it starts to fire off “extra” pacemaker sites. These usually appear in the ventricles and are thus called premature ventricular contractions — PVC’s for short. If a PVC happens to fire off during the electrical repolarization phase of cardiac contraction (the dreaded “PVC on T” phenomenon, also sometimes called “R on T”) it can kick the heart over into ventricular fibrillation — a form of cardiac arrest. The lower the heart gets on oxygen, the more PVC’s it generates, and the more vulnerable to their effect it becomes, thus hypoxia increases both the probability of a PVC-on-T occurring and of its causing a cardiac arrest.
When this will happen to a particular person in a particular session is simply not predictable. This is exactly where most of the medical people I have discussed this topic with “hit the wall.” Virtually all medical folks know that PVC’s are both life-threatening and hard to detect unless the patient is hooked to a cardiac monitor. When medical folks discuss breath control play, the question quickly becomes: How can you tell when they start throwing PVC’s? The answer is: You basically can’t.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 2

When breathing is restricted, the body cannot eliminate carbon dioxide as it should, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood increases. Carbon dioxide (CO2)* and water (H2O)* exist in equilibrium with what’s called carbonic acid (H2CO3)* in a reaction catalyzed by an enzyme called carbonic anhydrase.
*Sorry, but I can’t do subscripts in this program.
Thus: CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
A molecule of carbonic acid dissociates on its own into a molecule of what’s called bicarbonate (HCO3-) and an (acidic) hydrogen ion. (H+) Thus: H2CO3 = HCO3- and H+ Thus the overall pattern is: H2O + CO2 = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+
Therefore, if breathing is restricted, CO2 builds up, and the reaction shifts to the right in an attempt to balance things out, ultimately making the blood more acidic and thus decreasing its pH. This is called respiratory acidosis. If the patient hyperventilates, they “blow off CO2” and the reaction shifts to the left, thus increasing the pH. This is called respiratory alkalosis, and has its own dangers.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 3

Again, if breathing is restricted, not only does carbon dioxide have a hard time getting out, but oxygen also has a hard time getting in. A molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) breaks down within the cell by a process called glycolysis into two molecules of pyruvate, thus creating a small amount of ATP for the body to use as energy. Under normal circumstances, pyruvate quickly combines with oxygen to produce a much larger amount of ATP. However, if there’s not enough oxygen to properly metabolize the pyruvate, it is converted into lactic acid and produces one form of what’s called a metabolic acidosis.
As you can see, either a build-up in the blood of carbon dioxide or a decrease in the blood of oxygen will cause the pH of the blood to fall. If both occur at the same time, as they do in cases of suffocation, the pH of the blood will plummet to life-threatening levels within a very few minutes. The pH of normal human blood is in the 7.35-7.45 range (slightly alkaline). A pH falling to 6.9 (or raising to 7.8) is “incompatible with life.”
Past experience, either with others or with that same person, is not particularly useful. Carefully watching their level of consciousness, skin color, and pulse rate is of only limited value. Even hooking the bottom up to both a pulse oximeter and a cardiac monitor (assuming you had either piece of equipment, and they’re not cheap) would be of only limited additional value.
While an experienced clinician can sometimes detect PVC’s by feeling the patient’s pulse, in reality the only reliable way to detect them is to hook the patient up to a cardiac monitor. The problem is that each PVC is potentially lethal, particularly if the heart is low on oxygen. Even if you “ease up” on the bottom immediately, there’s no telling when the PVC’s will stop. They could stop almost at once, or they could continue for hours.
In addition to the primary danger of cardiac arrest, there is good evidence to document that there is a very real risk of cumulative brain damage if the practice is repeated often enough. In particular, laboratory studies of repeated brief interruption of blood flow to the brains of animals and studies of people with what’s called sleep apnea in which they stop breathing for up to two minutes while sleeping document that cumulative brain damage does occur in such cases.
There are many documented additional dangers. These include, but are not limited to: rupture of the windpipe, fracture of the larynx, damage to the blood vessels in the neck, dislodging a fatty plaque in a neck artery which then travels to the brain and causes a stroke, damage to the cervical spine, seizures, airway obstruction by the tongue, and aspiration of vomitus. Additionally, there are documented cases in which the recipient appeared to fully recover but was found dead several hours later.
The American Psychiatric Association estimates a death rate from this practice of one person per year per million of population — thus about 250 deaths last year in the U.S. Law enforcement estimates go as much as four times higher. Most such deaths occur during solo play, however there are many documented cases of deaths that occurred during play with a partner. It should be noted that the presence of a partner does nothing to limit the primary danger and does little or nothing to limit most of the secondary dangers.
Some people teach that choking can be safely done if pressure on the windpipe is avoided. Their belief is that pressing on the arteries leading to the brain while avoiding pressure on the windpipe can safely cause unconsciousness. The reality, unfortunately, is that pressing on the carotid arteries, exactly as they recommend, presses on baroreceptors known as the carotid sinus bodies. These bodies then cause vasodilation in the brain, thus there is not enough blood to perfuse the brain and the recipient loses consciousness.
However, that’s not the whole story. Unfortunately, a message is also sent to the main pacemaker of the heart, via the vagus nerve, to decrease the rate and force of the heartbeat. Most of the time, under strong vagal influence, the rate and force of the heartbeat decreases by one third. However, every now and then, the rate and force decreases to zero and the bottom “flatlines” into asystole — another, and more difficult to treat, form of cardiac arrest. There is no way to tell whether or not this will happen in any particular instance or how quickly. There are many documented cases of as little as five seconds of choking causing a vagal-outflow-induced cardiac arrest.
For the reason cited above, many police departments have now either entirely banned the use of chokeholds or have reclassified them as a form of deadly force. Indeed, a local CHP officer recently had a $250,000 judgment brought against him after a nonviolent suspect died while being choked by him. Finally, as a CPR instructor myself, I want to caution that knowing CPR does little to make the risk of death from breath control play significantly smaller. While CPR can and should be done, understand that the probability of success is likely to be less than 10%.
I’m not going to state that breath control is something that nobody should ever do under any circumstances. I have no problem with informed, freely consenting people taking any degree of risk they wish. I am going to state that there is a great deal of ignorance regarding what actually happens to a body when it’s suffocated or strangled, and that the actual degree of risk associated with these practices is far greater than most people believe.
I have noticed that when people are educated regarding the severity and unpredictability of the risks, fewer and fewer choose to play in this area, and those who do continue tend to play less often. I also notice that, because of its severe and unpredictable risks, more and more S/M party-givers are banning any form of breath control play at their events.
If you’d like to look into this matter further, here are some references to get you started:
Emergency Care in the Streets by Nancy Caroline, M.D. (I’d recommend starting here.)
Medical Physiology by A.C. Guyton, MD
The Pathologic Basis of Disease by Robbins, MD
Textbook of Advanced Cardiac Life Support by American Heart Association
The Physiology Coloring Book by Kapit, Macey, and Meisami
Forensic Pathology by DeMaio and Demaio
Autoerotic Fatalities by Hazelwood
Melloni’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary by Dox, Melloni, and Eisner
People with questions or comments can contact me at www.jaywiseman.com or write to me at P.O. Box 1261, Berkeley, CA 94701.
Regards,
Jay Wiseman

Rightwing Lie: China Is a Free Market Capitalist Country

I’m not a libertarian, my politics is best described as social democrat. I’m just a realist that understands what a spectacular failure the communist project has been.
“Mao built up and industrialized China.”
In 1988, average wages in China were about 3,00 Yuan, now it is 47,00 Yuan. Today’s China owes more to Deng Xiaoping than it does to that maniac Mao. China liberalized its economy but didn’t liberalize its politics. It’s a state capitalist economy, not communist by any means. I have first hand experience; I’m part-owner of a mid-size factory that produces goods for my company here. And have you ever been to Shanghai? The closest thing to capitalist paradise.

45% of the economy is still in public ownership. The government still owns all the land in China. You can only lease the land. You cannot buy it.
The system is set up so that the market is a tool which can be manipulated by the state any way they wish. They can even shut down whole industries if they want to. The market serves society and operates at the behest of the state in contrast to capitalist countries were society serves the market and the state is beholden to the capitalists, not the other way around. In China the market is a tool for the development for the productive forces only, not a form of politics as it is in most capitalist countries. In China the state runs the country and the market just makes stuff, as opposed to capitalist countries were the market not only makes stuff but also runs the state.
I know a number of Communists and Marxists who approve of what the CCP is doing in China. Even on Maoist boards, the CCP has a lot of supporters. That right there implies that there is something other than radical free market capitalism going on.
Almost all of the banking is done by large state banks. The government spends a tremendous amount of money on society in general and lately on developing the rural areas. I believe that all schooling continues to be free. The Chinese state is completely non-imperialist overseas. In fact it has extremely fraternal relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Laos and Vietnam. No purely capitalist state would ever have friendly relations with those countries. If China were a pure capitalist state, they would be attacking all of those countries like the US does.
Much of the growth in the Chinese economy has actually taken place in enterprises that are actually formally run by labor collectives and small municipalities. Cities run enterprises within their boundaries and compete with other cities for workers. The better the enterprise does, the more money the workers get. Not exactly the sort of exploitation Marx discussed in the Labor Theory of Value.
All state firms are formally owned by their workers due to a Mao era law. All of the income from the firm goes to the workers themselves, but they are generally required to hand back 95% of it to reinvest it in the plant. Still, when the enterprise does better, their paycheck goes up. The #3 largest producer of TV’s in the world is a Chinese state factory. I thought public enterprises could not compete with private ones.
Capitalists in the West are yelling all the time that they are at an unfair advantage with their Chinese competitors due massive state subsidy of their Chinese competitors. But wait, I thought state subsidy made firms less competitive? How much superior are the capitalist firms when state-subsidized firms regularly kick their asses?
Although much of the collective system was dismantled in countryside when they got rid of the village communes (an action that has caused severe problems) they still have local irrigation boards that control much of the farmland infrastructure. Those small farmers do not make enough money to fund irrigation projects and they won’t cooperate on them anyway. So the state moved in, and the state spends a lot of money running all of the irrigation in agricultural China and it does a great job of it. You can see that the state plays a large role in Chinese agriculture.
There are homeless in much of the capitalist world, but there are no homeless in China. It is illegal to be homeless. If you are homeless, the cops will pick you up and put you into a shelter right away. If you are not from the city, then they send you back to your home in the countryside. Obviously the state plays a huge role in preventing homelessness. Most housing is state housing.
Due to the many rural people leaving to go the cities (which is causing a lot of problems) the state is spending a vast amount of money to improve the rural areas to keep the people on the farm. Does that sound like something a capitalist government would do? No capitalist government would ever spend a vast amount of money on its rural poor.
There have been 200 million excess deaths in India because India chose the capitalist road as opposed to the various socialist roads the Chinese have taken.
Malnutrition in India is 50% and in China it is 7%. The numbers were equal in 1949.
Chinese life expectancy was the same as India’s in 1949 and since then, Chinese live much longer than Indians. Those extra years add up to 3-4 million excess deaths occurring in India every year, purely due to India’s economic system.
60% of Indians shit out of doors, while only ~6% of Chinese have no toilet. The numbers were equal in 1949.
That China surpasses India in all of these regards is not the result of Chinese capitalism. It is the pure result of Chinese socialism.
Without the tremendous buildup of agricultural, educational and industrial bases of the economy, none of this growth could have taken place.

Chairman Mao Murdered 100 Million People?

Luther Seahand, a rightwinger, writes that Mao Zedong murdered 100 million people during his term in office (1949-1978). Of those, one half, or 50 million, were buried alive so as to save bullets.

RL: This is a socialist blog. We don’t believe in the “Mao murdered 100 million” stuff.
LS: Of course you don’t, Mr. Lindsay.  I was just wondering how a socialist might react when faced with the facts.  Thank you for not ripping my head off.  Have a good one!

You didn’t present me with any facts. You presented me with lies.
There were no “100 million murdered by Mao.” And there certainly were no “50 million buried alive so as to save bullets.”
Are you talking about people executed under Mao’s rule?
In the land reform campaign at the very start, it is very possible that up to 3 million landlords (most of them criminals) were executed.
There were 29,000 executions during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).
Mao was in power for 29 years. That covers about 14 of those years, or nearly half his time in office.
So covering 50% of his term, there were 3.03 million executions, possibly. Probably hardly any of them were buried alive. I have no figures on executions from 1953-1965.
3 million is a lot, but it is not 100 million. Let us first get out figures straight
The problem with crazy rightwing anti-Communists is not their view that Communism is bad, or even that it is evil. Perhaps it is either of those things. Their problem is that they habitually trot out lies when whipping out figures of those killed under Communism. Favorites include Joseph Stalin of the USSR and Mao Zedong of China.
Hence we often get figures that Stalin killed 10-110 million people. Even many perfectly sane and often liberal people believe this hogwash. It’s not that Stalin or the Soviet Communists never killed any of the opposition or the dissidents. Stalin was a killer. He killed lots of people. But not 110 million.
Final figures for Stalin’s regime are for 1926-1953 (27 years in office):
Executions and political killings: 1.29 million
Unnatural deaths in the gulags: 1.4 million.
Total political killings by Stalin: 2.7 million
There are some problems with that figure as it apparently does not include some of the deaths during WW2, such as deaths of German POW’s, enemy civilians and most importantly, deaths during the ethnic relocations during that war. I also do not include “Holodomor” deaths because there was no “terror famine.” Famine, yes. Terror famine, no.
3 million is a lot of human beings, but it’s not 110 million. If we want to talk about whether the deaths under Communism were justified or not, we first need to get the figures straight.