The Mysterious Incompetent Black Employee

Of course you can go on racist forums and see racists fomenting on and on about the incompetent Black employee, often offering examples of such. Fair enough. That’s their experience.
However, some of these stories didn’t have a whole lot behind them. Some just argued for a more relaxed style of working which doesn’t rise to the level of laziness unless you are a workaholic prig. There was also an idea that the employees could not wait to get out of the office at 5. But I worked at an office full of White and Amerindian employees who did the same thing. Once again this implies a more relaxed working style, which I for one don’t mind, as I am done with White workaholic bastards.
There are stories about coming in habitually late. My mother experienced a Black employee like that at the college she worked at. Her boss wanted to fire the woman but was stymied over union rules and fears of a discrimination lawsuit. You have to admit that being stymied from firing a lousy employee for reasons like that is disgusting.
I haven’t experienced much of the “incompetent Black employee.” Sure racists go on and on about it, but I have worked with significant numbers of Blacks over the years in many different occupations, and I saw very little evidence of this.
I worked in a medical coding office for a while, and we had some Blacks working there. Some even lived in the heart of the ghetto. They were all fine workers. Never saw any problems.
I worked as a security guard at one of the richest communities in the US. A young Black man worked with me. He was the “jolly Black” or easygoing Black guy type, but he did his job just fine. He was always happy and very friendly, and he had a lot of wisdom about life, including how to lead a less worried and stressed life.
Most of the rest of the jobs I worked at were in White communities, and there were only a few Blacks working there. The ones who worked there were just fine. I remember they fired a Black woman who worked night shift at my factory for no apparent reason other than to shove 16 hours of work on my swing shift. She was part of that ghetto culture, but she was basically a very good person. Many people who live in that culture are not bad people at all. This is what people don’t understand.
Of course I worked at jobs where they would not tolerate this nonsense anyway, so maybe I am looking at a self selected group.
Most of my experience was with Black educational professionals, both Black schoolteachers, Black administrators, and Blacks who worked in the district office. I saw almost no evidence of incompetence among any of these Black education professionals the entire time I worked in the field. And keep in mind that I worked in the heart of the ghetto in Compton and Gardena for a lot of that time. I met quite a few of these Black teachers and got to know some of them fairly well, especially the men. They were very nice people, and they were quite competent. I never got to know the women much for some reason.
I did work one day in Watts, and some Black kid stole my car battery. Some Black shop teacher helped me fix it. Things were extremely lax there and the students were almost completely useless, but even there I did not see evidence of incompetence among the Black school professionals. The administrators in Watts were mostly Black, and they were extremely laid back, relaxed, and easygoing. I didn’t see any incompetence and they were far less hard-ass than White administrators. The students were almost completely useless there anyway as I found in my joke of a day teaching, so why should the administrators care about much? They were keeping the ship going.
There was one Black teacher in Gardena who was apparently an alcoholic, and he showed movies all day. I suppose they had a hard time firing him for some reason. But he was so nice, friendly, happy go lucky, and easygoing that I almost didn’t even care that he was an alc. He was too pleasant of a person to hate.
Now you have to jump through a lot of educational and testing hoops to even do that job in the first in the first place, so maybe there is some self-selection.
I’m not saying there is nothing to the incompetent Black employee stereotype. I am simply suggesting that there is a lot less there than meets the eye. If it was omnipresent, I would have experienced it by now.
The way to deal with this problem to the extent it exists at all is to hold Black employees to the same high standards that you hold the rest of your employees. Fire them if they come in late all the time, screw off, or are incompetent. Hold the sword of firing over their heads at all times. Many Black adults, if held to high standards and demands and powerful threats of firing, will perform remarkably well on the job. Relaxed standards don’t help any race or group of people.

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

Alt Left: Praise for the Conservative Left

Although the SJW author of the piece that quotes Selbourne in the New Statesman attacks Selbourne, what Selbourne describes is nothing less than the Alt Left itself.
In a very early bulletin board post, a poster described my Alternative Left as conservative Leftists.” When Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York in 1969, he called himself a left conservative. Mailer has continued to describe himself as a left conservative to this day.
Well, that’s exactly what we are.
We are somewhat socially conservative on the Cultural Left Freakshow, but we are Left on everything else. According to our dispensation, Selbourne would be Alt Left, as he despises the moronic SJW Left. And as he brilliantly points out, the unlimited freedoms (not really unlimited though as look at how SJW Feminism wants to stop heterosexual flirting, dating and sex) to be as weird and crazy as you want are really the freedoms of neoliberalism.
This is radical individualism taken to its ultimate without any regard for the good of society. And radical individualism in Culture goes right along with radical individualism is business and the rest of society. If government has to get out of the lives of all the SJW freaks, then obviously it has to get out of the lives of US business and the rich too, right?

Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also.

Capitalism runs on a culture of individualism, and radical individualism is the ultimate capitalist society. Capitalists say, “There is no such thing as society.”
And in a Cultural Left world where everyone is running around flying their freak flag du jour, there’s no society either. Everyone has a different hair color. Everyone has a different sexual micro-orientation and gender micro-identity.
Everyone is divided against everyone else. The women workers are egged on to hate the male workers. The Black workers are egged on to hate the White workers. The gay workers are encouraged to hate the straight workers. The tranny workers are prompted to hate the cisgender workers. Everyone hates everyone. No one works together on any societal goals because everyone hates each other too much.
Now that the working class is divided into factions at each other’s throats, society is demolished, all humans are atomized, and the capitalists can go on their merry rapacious way, destroying everything in their path, including whatever is left of society, like they always do.

In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence.

I like how he describes the Cultural Left as the free market of culture. That’s exactly what it is!

David Selbourne, in the left-of-center New Statesmen, writes::
With socialism at the end of its historical evolution, the “Left” now lacks a coherent sense of what progress is. It has only a ragbag of causes and issues, rational and irrational, urgent and idle: a politics of personal rights and ‘lifestyle choices’, of anti-racism and environmental protection, of multicultural separatism, individual identity and gender, and much else besides.
Neither rhyme nor reason — and certainly not socialist reason — can be made of it, especially when mere transgression is confused with progress.
In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence. Nor is today’s ‘freedom’n’liberty’, whether Right or ‘Left’, the freedom fought for in the Reformation or in the revolutionary overthrow of the anciens régimes. It is not the freedom for which the 19th-century emancipationists and the suffragettes struggled. It is the freedom to do what one wants and the devil take the hindmost. No wonder that the far Right is advancing.
There is ignorance too in this pseudo-Left Libertarianism. It is reactionary, not progressive, to promote the expansion of individual freedoms without regard to the interests of the social order as a whole. Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also. The rapacious equity trader has as much right to be free as you or me; these ‘rights’ differ only in scale and consequence, not in essence.

I would actually agree with the following, and this is why I am an extreme statist at heart because face facts, socialism is statism taken to its ultimate ends.
From the Libertarian author:

It grabbed the methods of conservatism, embracing state power as the means of planning permissable changes and preventing others.

We don’t hate the state. We love the state! The state is the people personified as a single governmental entity, acting in the interests of the people to whom it serves, as Mao points out.

“The effort to escape from State control has always been the sign of liberty; the effort to enforce State control has always been the sign of Conservative reaction.” For this reason: “Socialism, in so far as it postulates State control, is Conservative in thought.”
Oliver Brett, Defense of Liberty, 1922

Fine. We are conservatives then. We are the Conservative Left!

Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton, concurred: “The truly ‘radical’ movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, ‘radical’ is today almost synonymous with ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. …It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, ‘progressive’ and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.”
Socialism and Modern Life, 1952

Fine, not a problem! I was always wondering when the Rightists and Libertarians would reclaim the word liberal.

Walter Lippman wrote: “…I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word.”
Carl A. Keyser, Spare None: the Federal Octopus: How it Grew and Other Tales, 1972
 

Sounds good.
Liberal historically has never meant anything like US social liberalism. In most of the world, liberal is a dirty word. It’s synonymous with neoliberalism. Liberalism in economics means classical liberal or neoclassical economics. It’s Ricardo and Smith all the way to Mises and Hayek, without stopping.
In the rest of the world, it tends to mean the “free minds and free markets” garbage that American reactionary foreign policy claims to support in their lying propaganda. Note once again the tie-in of social freedoms with freedom of Capital. You want free elections, gay rights, feminism, porn, civil liberties and the rest? Fine, you have to let the market run free with no restictions from the state whatsoever.
According to this nonsense, you can’t have free minds without free markets, and you can’t have free markets without free minds. Any restrictions on the free market are automatically symptomatic of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
This is why every Left government on Earth immediately gets called a dictatorship by US foreign policy. Because to the sick American way, socialism in any way,  shape or form is automatically undemocratic and dictatorial by its very nature.
This nonsense places economics over politics as Economics Uber Alles. Here economics determines the nature of the state.
If the market is free, you have a democracy automatically, no questions asked. Never mind the death squads that just murdered 200,000 people and all the peaceful opposition, the election that was just stolen, the US sponsored coup to “restore democracy” that resulted in the 17 year long “democracy saving” dictatorship, the politicized police, army, judiciary, the rich owning all the media and rendering freedom of speech a sick joke, the money-based elections giving rise to the “democracy of the dollar” and the dictatorship over the people.
And if  you have any type of socialism, you automatically have a dictatorship. I suppose Norway and Sweden must be dictatorships then. Never mind that you have the freest and fairest elections on Earth as they have in Venezuela. No matter. Elections can never be free enough in a socialist country. Even if they are the freest and fairest elections on Earth, it’s automatically a dictatorship simply by dint of being socialist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.
You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.
There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.
Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.
For a degree, you only need an average IQ.
For a masters too, only an average.
Even for a PhD, you only need average.
Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.
Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.
You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.
Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.
I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.
I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.
After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.
Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.
An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.
I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.
I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.
You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.
Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

"Race and Psychopathic Personality," by Richard Lynn

I am getting rather tired about having this argument about whether Blacks, or Black males in particular, are more antisocial than men of other races. People are pushing back against this in the comments section. This really ought to be the final word on the subject.
Original here.
For as long as official statistics have been kept, blacks in white societies have been overrepresented in all indices of social pathology: crime, illegitimacy, poverty, school failure, and long-term unemployment. The conventional liberal explanation for this is white “racism,” past and present, which has forced blacks into self-destructive choices.
More clear-headed observers, however, have sought a partial explanation in the low average IQ of blacks. Low IQ can lead to crime because less intelligent children do poorly at school and fail to learn the skills needed to get well-paid jobs or even any job. Unemployment is therefore two to three times higher among blacks than whites. People without jobs need money, have relatively little to lose by robbery or burglary, and may therefore commit property crimes. The association between low intelligence and crime holds for whites as well, among whom the average IQ of criminals is about 84.
Nevertheless, as Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein showed in their book The Bell Curve, low IQ cannot entirely explain a black crime rate that is six-and-a-half times the white rate. When blacks and whites are matched for IQ, blacks still commit crimes at two-and-a-half times the white rate. This shows that blacks must have some other characteristic besides low intelligence that explains their high levels of criminality.
Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray found the same race and IQ relationship for social problems other than crime: unemployment, illegitimacy, poverty, and living on welfare. All of these are more frequent among blacks and are related to low IQ, and low IQ goes some way towards explaining them, but these social problems remain greater among blacks than among whites with the same IQ’s. Low intelligence is therefore not the whole explanation.
Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray did not offer any suggestions as to what the additional factors responsible for the greater prevalence of these social problems among blacks might be. They concluded only that “some ethnic differences are not washed away by controlling for either intelligence or for any other variables that we examined. We leave those remaining differences unexplained and look forward to learning from our colleagues where the explanations lie” (p. 340).

Psychopathic Personality

I propose that the variable that explains these differences is that blacks are more psychopathic than whites. Just as racial groups differ in average IQ, they can also differ in average levels of other psychological traits, and racial differences in the tendency towards psychopathic personality would explain virtually all the differences in black and white behavior left unexplained by differences in IQ.
Psychopathic personality is a personality disorder of which the central feature is lack of a moral sense. The condition was first identified in the early Nineteenth Century by the British physician John Pritchard, who proposed the term “moral imbecility” for those deficient in moral sense but of normal intelligence.
The term psychopathic personality was first used in 1915 by the German psychiatrist Emile Kraepelin and has been employed as a diagnostic label throughout the Twentieth Century.
In 1941 the condition was described by Hervey Cleckley in what has become a classic book, The Mask of Sanity. He described the condition as general poverty of emotional feelings, lack of remorse or shame, superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, a lack of insight, absence of nervousness, an inability to love, impulsive antisocial acts, failure to learn from experience, reckless behavior under the influence of alcohol, and a lack of long-term goals.
In 1984 the American Psychiatric Association dropped the term psychopathic personality and replaced it with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is an expression of the increasing sentimentality of the second half of the twentieth century in which terms that had acquired negative associations were replaced by euphemisms.
There are other examples. Mentally retarded children are now called “slow learners” or even “exceptional children;” aggressive children now have “externalizing behaviors;” prostitutes are “sex workers;” tramps are now “the homeless,” as if their houses were destroyed by earthquake; and people on welfare are “clients” of social workers. However, the term psychopathic personality remains useful.
While psychopathic personality is a psychiatric disorder, it has long been regarded as the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population. In this respect it is like other psychiatric disorders. For instance, severe depression is a psychiatric disorder, but everyone feels depressed sometimes, and some normal people are depressed more often and more severely than others. It is the same with psychopathic personality. There are degrees of moral sense throughout the population, and psychopaths are the extreme group.
There is a difference between blacks and whites—analogous to the difference in intelligence—in psychopathic personality considered as a personality trait. Both psychopathic personality and intelligence are bell curves with different means and distributions among blacks and whites. For intelligence, the mean and distribution are both lower among blacks. For psychopathic personality, the mean and distribution are higher among blacks. The effect of this is that there are more black psychopaths and more psychopathic behavior among blacks.
In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association issued a revised Diagnostic Manual listing 11 features of Antisocial Personality Disorder:
(1) inability to sustain consistent work behavior;
(2) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior [this is a euphemism for being a criminal];
(3) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by frequent physical fights and assaults;
(4) repeated failure to honor financial obligations;
(5) failure to plan ahead or impulsivity;
(6) no regard for truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or “conning” others;
(7) recklessness regarding one’s own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated or recurrent speeding;
(8) inability to function as a responsible parent;
(9) failure to sustain a monogamous relationship for more than one year;
(10) lacking remorse;
(11) the presence of conduct disorder in childhood.
This is a useful list. Curiously, however, it fails to include the deficiency of moral sense that is the core of the condition, although this is implicit in virtually every feature of the disorder. All of these behaviors are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and suggest that blacks have a higher average tendency towards psychopathic personality.
Questionnaires can be used to measure psychopathic personality in normal populations. The first to be constructed was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which was devised in the 1930’s. This instrument consists of a series of scales for the measurement of a variety of psychiatric conditions regarded as continuously distributed in the population, such as hysteria, mania and depression, and includes the Psychopathic Deviate Scale for the measurement of psychopathic personality.
During the 65 or so years following its publication, the MMPI has been administered to a great many groups. Mean scores have been published by different investigators for a number of samples of blacks, whites, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. All of these studies show a consistent pattern: Blacks and Indians have the highest psychopathic scores. Hispanics come next followed by whites. Ethnic Japanese and Chinese have the lowest scores. The same rank order of racial groups is found for all the expressions of psychopathic personality listed by the American Psychiatric Association, and these differences are found in both children and adults.

Conduct Disorder

The terms psychopathic personality and Anti-social Personality Disorder, however, are not used for children or young adolescents up to the age of 15 years. They are instead said to have conduct disorders. The principal criteria set out by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder are persistent stealing, lying, truancy, running away from home, fighting, arson, burglary, vandalism, sexual precocity, and cruelty. Childhood Conduct Disorder is therefore an analogue of psychopathic personality in older adolescents and adults. A number of studies have shown that Conduct Disorder in children is a frequent precursor of psychopathic behavior.
Studies have found that the prevalence of conduct disorders is about twice as high among blacks as among whites. This is the case not only in the United States but also in Britain and the Netherlands. Other racial groups also differ in the prevalence of conduct disorders among children. As with all the other expressions of psychopathic personality, conduct disorders are frequent among American Indians.
Children with conduct disorders are sometimes suspended or expelled from school because of constant misbehavior, particularly aggression. In both the United States and Britain, black children are disciplined in this way three or four times as frequently as white children, while East Asians have low discipline rates. In misbehavior in schools as in so much else, East Asians are the “model minority.” In the United States, Indians have a high discipline rate.
Lack of honesty is one of the core features of the psychopathic personality, and one measure of this characteristic is the default rates on student loans. About half of American college students take out loans, but not all graduates repay them. The 1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study consisting of 6,338 cases reports default rates as follows: whites—5 percent, Hispanics—20 percent, American Indians—45 percent, blacks—55 percent.
Bad credit ratings also reflect a failure to honor financial obligations. A report by Freddie Mac of 12,000 households in 1999 found the highest percentage of poor credit ratings was among blacks (48 percent). The next highest was among Hispanics (34 percent), while whites had the lowest at 27 percent.
Psychopathic personality is the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population.
A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is a high level of aggression, which is expressed in a number of ways including homicide, robbery, assault, and rape. All of these are crimes, so racial and ethnic differences appear in crime rates. High black crime rates have been documented by Jared Taylor and the late Glayde Whitney in The Color of Crime. For homicide, rates for black males are about six times the white rate, and for black females they are about four times higher. The homicide rate for East Asians is about half that of whites. The high homicide rate of blacks is also found in South Africa, and homicide is generally higher in black countries than in white and East Asian countries.
As regards other crimes, the robbery rate for blacks is about twelve times the white rate, while the assault rate is about five times higher. The high black rates for these crimes are followed in descending order by Hispanics, American Indians, whites and East Asians. The rate for rape is about five-and-a-half times greater for blacks than whites, and two to three times greater among Hispanics and Indians as compared to whites, while East Asians commit rape at about half the white rate.
Domestic violence shows the same race differences. Severe violence by husbands against wives is about four times more common among blacks as whites. Black wives assault their husbands at about twice the white rate. American Indians assault their spouses even more often than blacks do. High crime rates among blacks have been found not only in the United States but also in Britain, France, Canada and Sweden.
A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is an inability to form stable long-term loving relationships. David Lykken, a leading expert on psychopathic personalities, writes of the psychopath’s “undeveloped ability to love or affiliate with others,” and Robert Hare, another leading expert, writes that “psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification” and “equate love with sexual arousal.”
Marriage is the most explicit expression of long-term love, and a number of studies have shown that blacks attach less value to marriage than whites. Questionnaire surveys have found that blacks are less likely than whites to agree that “marriage is for life.” Two American sociologists, R. Staples and L. B. Johnson, write that “Blacks do not rank marriage as highly as whites” and that “Black Americans’ acceptance of this form of relationship is inconsistent with their African heritage.”
In a study of an American sample of 2,059 married people, C. L. Broman found that “blacks are significantly less likely to feel that their marriages are harmonious and are significantly less likely to be satisfied with their marriages.” Other studies of racial and ethnic differences in attitudes have found that whites think about marriage more often than blacks and have a stronger desire than blacks to find the right marriage partner. There are also racial differences in rates of cohabitation, which also reflects a commitment to a long-term relationship. A survey of 24-to 29-year-olds in Britain found that 68 percent of whites had cohabited but only 38 percent of blacks.
Blacks in the United States, Britain, France and the Caribbean are less likely than whites to marry or enter into stable relationships. In an American survey of 18-to 64-year-olds carried out from 1990 to 1996, 61 percent of whites were married but only 35 percent of blacks. The most likely to be married were East Asians (66 percent).
Fifty-five percent of Hispanics and 48 percent of American Indians were married. The same race differences are found in Britain. In a survey carried out in 1991, among 30-to 34-year-olds 68 percent of whites were married but only 34 percent of blacks. Studies of marriage rates for France in the 1990’s have also found that blacks are less likely to be married than whites. These differences are also found for cohabitation, with fewer blacks living in unmarried cohabitation relationships than whites.
Differences in marriage rates are reflected in differences in illegitimacy rates. In the United States, black illegitimacy rates are down slightly from their high in 1994, when 70.4 percent of black women who gave birth were unmarried. The 2000 figure of 68.7 is still the highest for any racial group and is followed by American Indians at 58.4 percent, Hispanics 42.7 percent, whites 22.1 percent, and Asians 14.8 percent. The Asian figure includes populations with greatly differing illegitimacy rates, with native Hawaiians for example at 50 percent, Japanese at 9.5 percent, and Chinese at 7.6 percent.
Low rates of stable relationships are found among blacks in the Caribbean islands. In a review of the literature the sociologists B. Ram and G. E. Ebanks write that “In the Caribbean in general . . . there is a substantial amount of movement from one sex partner to another and also a very high percentage of reproduction outside marriage.”
When they do marry, blacks are less tolerant than whites of monogamous constraints. An extreme form of intolerance is murder of one’s spouse. In Detroit in 1982-3, 63 percent of the population was black, but 90.5 percent of those who killed their spouses were black.
Less extreme forms of aversion to monogamy are adultery and divorce. The Kinsey data on college graduates collected in the 1940’s and 1950’s found that 51 percent of blacks were unfaithful to their spouses during the first two years of marriage compared with 23 percent of whites. Several other studies have confirmed that the incidence of marital infidelity is greater among blacks than among whites. Blacks cite infidelity more frequently than whites as a cause of divorce.
Blacks also have more sexual partners than whites. The Kinsey survey found that about twice as many black college graduates had had six or more partners before marriage than whites. Many later studies have confirmed this. A survey of 2,026 15-to-18-year-olds in Los Angeles in the mid-199’0s found that 38 percent of blacks had had five or more sexual partners, 26 percent of whites, 21 percent of Hispanics and eight percent of East Asians.
The same differences are found in Britain. In a study of a nationally representative sample of approximately 20,000 16-to 59-year-olds carried out in 1990, 36 percent of blacks had had two or more sexual partners during the previous five years, compared with 29 percent of whites and 18 percent of Asians.

Delay of Gratification

The impulsiveness component of psychopathic personality includes an inability or unwillingness to delay immediate gratification in the expectation of long-term advantage.
The first study to demonstrate differences between blacks and whites in the delay of gratification was carried out by W. Mischel in Trinidad in the late 1950’s. He offered black and white children the choice between a small candy bar now or a larger one in a week. He found black children were much more likely to ask for the small candy bar now, and this difference has been confirmed in three subsequent American studies.
This racial difference has been noted but given different names by different writers. In The Unheavenly City Revisited, Edward Banfield writes of the “extreme present-orientation” of blacks, and Michael Levin writes of “high time preference,” an economist’s term for preferring cash now rather than a greater sum in the future.
The APA Diagnostic Manual refers to the psychopathic personality’s “inability to sustain consistent work behavior,” and a number of studies have shown that blacks are less motivated to work than whites and Asians, while Hispanics are intermediate. For example, black students do fewer hours of homework than whites and Asians. Among college students with the same Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, blacks get poorer grades than whites, probably because they don’t work as hard.
This helps explain black unemployment. Several American ethnographic studies of inner city blacks have concluded that many are unwilling to work. Thus, E. Anderson writes that “there are many unemployed black youth who are unmotivated and uninterested in working for a living, particularly in the dead-end jobs they are likely to get.” The sociologist S. M. Petterson writes that “it is commonly contended that young black men experience more joblessness than their white counterparts because they are less willing to seek out low paying jobs.”
American Asians are the opposite of blacks in this respect. They have low rates of unemployment, and it has been shown by James Flynn that they achieve higher educational qualifications and earnings than would be predicted from their intelligence, suggesting they have strong work motivation.
In the United States, unemployment rates are highest among Indians followed in descending order by blacks, Hispanics, whites and ethnic Chinese and Japanese. These differences are frequently attributed to white racism, but it is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the lower rate of unemployment among East Asians as compared with whites and also with the higher rate of unemployment among Indians as compared to blacks.
Blacks in Britain, Canada, and France are frequently unemployed. In Britain, the 1991 census found that 26 percent of black men were unemployed compared with 11 percent of whites and ethnic Chinese. In Canada in 1991, 13 percent of black men were unemployed compared with seven percent of whites. In France in 1994, 11 percent of black men were unemployed compared with eight percent of whites.

Recklessness

Psychopaths appear to enjoy taking risks because it stimulates them, and there are several ways in which blacks show greater recklessness and risk taking than whites or Asians.
In the 1989-93 American Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, 9,135 youths aged 12 to 18 were asked to consider the question: “I get a kick out of doing things every now and then that are a little risky or dangerous.” Fifty-six point nine percent of blacks agreed, as compared with 38.6 percent of whites. Driving habits are an index of risk taking and recklessness. A number of studies have shown that blacks run red lights more often than whites and have more frequent accidents. Five studies have shown that blacks do not use seat belts as often as whites. Hispanics and Native Americans likewise have more accidents caused by recklessness and risk-taking than whites and East Asians.
Sexual behavior can be reckless. Among those who do not wish to have children, blacks are less likely to use contraception than whites, and this has been found in both the United States and Britain. One result is that black women have more unplanned babies than whites. In the United States in the 1990’s blacks had about twice the proportion of unplanned babies as whites and Asians. In Britain, a survey of teenage births carried out in 1994 found that these were three-and-a-half times more common among blacks than among whites and Asians.
The behavior of reckless men also causes unplanned pregnancies. Surveys have asked adolescent males if they would feel “very pleased” or whether they would care if they were responsible for an unplanned pregnancy. Twice as many blacks as whites say they would be very pleased or that they would not care. To be very pleased or not care about saddling a teenage girl with an unplanned pregnancy expresses a great degree of reckless regard for the well-being of others. In the United States, the percentage of teenage blacks who have fathered an illegitimate child is approximately three times greater than that of whites, with Hispanics intermediate.
Another consequence of reckless avoidance of contraceptives is that blacks are more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases—including HIV and AIDS—all of which are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and Asians. At the present time, about 80 percent of the word’s HIV carriers are blacks in sub-Saharan Africa.
A common expression of Conduct Disorder in children and young adolescents is sexual precocity. Many studies have shown that blacks are more sexually precocious than whites and Asians. Surveys in the United States in the 1990’s have found that 33 percent of black 13-year-olds have had sexual intercourse compared with 14 percent of whites and Hispanics and four percent of East Asians. Similarly, a survey in Britain in 1990 found that by the age of 16, 18 percent of blacks had had intercourse compared with 13 percent of whites and five percent of Asians.
We consider finally the psychopathic characteristic described by the American Psychiatric Association as “inability to function as a responsible parent.” One of the most straightforward measures of this is abuse and neglect.
The American Association for Protecting Children has found that black children constitute approximately 15 percent of the child population and about 22 percent of cases of child abuse and neglect. The First (1975) and Second (1985) National Family Violence Surveys carried out in America examined the use of violence towards children, defined as hitting them with the fist or with some object, and kicking, biting, and beating them up. It does not include slapping or spanking. It found that 1.2 percent of white parents and 2.1 percent of blacks inflict this kind of severe violence on their children.
Data published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for 1996 showed that maltreatment was about three times more common among blacks and about one-and-a-half times more common among Hispanics than among whites.
The most extreme expression of the inability to function as a responsible parent consists of killing a child. Racial differences in the homicide of infants in their first year of life were examined for approximately 35 million babies born in the United States between 1983-91. This study found that 2,776 of these had been murdered, the great majority by mothers or the mothers’ husbands or partners. The rate of infant homicides for blacks and Native Americans was 2 per 10,000, compared with 0.6 per 10,000 for whites and 0.4 per 10,000 for East Asians. In the early 1990’s the racial differences became even greater, with blacks having four-and-a-half times the infant homicide rate of whites and Hispanics.

Complete Consistency

There is almost complete consistency in the racial differences in outcomes that can be considered measures of psychopathic personality. In everything from child behavior to sexual precocity to adult crime rates, we find Asians at one extreme, blacks and American Indians at the other, and whites Hispanics in between. These differences are not only consistent through time but are found in countries such as France, Britain, Canada, and the United States, which have very different histories of what could be called “racism.” Indices of high psychopathic personality in blacks are likewise found in the virtually all-black societies of Africa and the Caribbean.
Racial differences in psychopathic behavior persist even when IQ is held constant, and the same racial differences are found in essentially every kind of measurable behavior that reflects psychopathic personality. The most plausible explanation for these differences is that just as there are racial differences in average IQ, there are racial differences in what could be called “average personality,” with blacks showing greater psychopathic tendencies. The argument that white “racism” is responsible for black social pathology is increasingly unconvincing.

Alt Left: Resolved: All Feminists Are Toxic

I just posted this question to Reddit r/feminists. I swear to God I tried to be as pro-feminist as possible. I went out of my way to try not to say anything antifeminist, though I nevertheless had to be honest. Every single thing I wrote in my comment is 100% fact. I got two comments, and I was immediately banned. I was shocked as I was not expecting that. I am still trying to figure out why they banned me. Was it because I mentioned that man-hatred was still a problem among feminists?
The percentages of feminists who are 2nd and 3rd Wavers is a good question, but feminists have no use for facts, science, truth or data like all Identity Politics scum, so it’s not surprising I did not get any answers. Actually you will probably never get any answers because feminists don’t like to argue hard factual questions about much of anything.
I don’t imagine there’s a feminist anywhere on Earth who would try to answer what the % of 2nd Wavers to 3rd Wavers are, although it’s an empirical question. Actually if you try to ask it now, you will get more handwaves saying there’s no such as 3rd Wave because we are now in the 4th Wave of this idiotic bullshit. Never mind that the 4th Wave differs in no important ways from the 3rd wave and that most feminists nowadays objectively appear to be 3rd Wavers.
Here’s the question:

My question is which group of feminists is stronger now, 2nd or 3rd Wave? And what percentages of feminism are divided into 2nd and 3rd wavers? I believe that the 3rd wave is more numerous now, but I am really interested in what % of feminists are 2nd wave radical feminists.
Definitions below:
2nd Wave feminists to be mostly radical feminists at the moment, if we define Second Wave as TERF and TESW’s opposed to among other things:

  • Legalization or decrim of sex work
  • All sex work (strippers, cam models, porn stars)
  • Sex dolls
  • Pornography
  • PIV sex
  • Anal sex
  • Fellatio (sometimes)
  • Romance (sending flowers, etc.)
  • Artificial birth control (too dangerous for women)
  • Beauty industry (to the point of deliberately advocating that woman make themselves appear ugly to oppose it)
  • Femininity (to the point of promoting women to act and dress like men)

And an extreme hostility towards men in general exemplified by:

  • A theory that eliminates the class struggle of proletarian workers versus ruling class capitalist owners and replacing it with a gender struggle with men as a ruling oppressor class and women as an oppressed “proletarian class.”
  • Extreme emphasis on Patriarchy and Rape Culture theory.
  • Extreme celebration of lesbianism and hostility to heterosexuality in general for women. General sex-negative and near-puritanical mindset.
  • Support for lesbian and female separatism.
  • Support for curfews for men, putting men in internment camps, reducing the male population to 10%, etc.

All of these view are extremely common among radical feminism. There are few who do not go along with all or nearly all of these positions.
So that’s 2nd Wave.
Everything else is now 3rd Wave. Even Socialist and Marxist feminism, formerly 2nd wavers, are now 3rd Wavers. Most other strains are also 3rd Wavers with the exception of New Feminism (unclassifiable?) and some strains of Liberal Feminism like Equity Feminism, which are best described as 1st wavers, the descendants of the suffragettes.
3rd Wave differs from 2nd Wave in the following ways:

  • Sex positive.
  • Pro-porn, pro-BD/SM, pro-prostitution, and other sex work
  • Reduced celebration of lesbianism
  • Support for heterosexuality for women
  • Pro-PIV sex, fellatio, anal sex, etc.
  • educed emphasis on rape culture, patriarchy, etc.
  • Reduced hatred for men, although it is definitely still there
  • Much more open to dating, relationships, and marriage with men
  • No support for separatism
  • Support for sex dolls
  • Opposition to male curfews and internment camps, reduction of male population, etc.
  • Pro-romance
  • Pro-artificial birth control
  • For socialist and Marxist feminists, rejection of radfem replacement of class struggle with gender struggle and replacement or owners and workers with men and women as oppressor and oppressed groups. Extreme emphasis on class roots of women’s oppression in capitalism and a recognition that male workers are also oppressed under capitalism.
  • Pro-transgender
  • Pro-femininity
  • Pro-beauty industry (makeup, tight clothes, heels, spandex, etc.)

First answer: Hard to answer something when the question seems way off. Where are you getting these definitions from?
Me: The definition of radical feminist beliefs comes from me being on their websites and studying them for long periods of time. Although I am open to any rational people who want to tell me where I am wrong about them. My definition of 3rd wavers should not be controversial, or it is, I want to know why.
Male curfews and internment camps…? Who have you been reading?
Me: Major radical feminist thinkers have advocated curfews for men in articles. Although the articles was later said to be satire, it did not seem so at first and they always say that everything inflammatory they write is satire. All of the comments that followed for months after those articles were published treated the articles as if they were serious. Commenters even offered their own serious takes on the subject, with one man suggesting that cities be divided into male halves and female halves with mingling allowed during the daylight hours but after dark, each sex would have to retire to its own section of town.
Numerous radical feminists have suggested that men and sometimes even boys be placed into internment camps and be kept there “until they can learn to behave themselves in a civilized fashion.” Radical feminist Julie Bindel recently wrote an article in the Guardian suggesting this in all seriousness. The article promoted a scandal, but she is still on the staff.

Alt Left: The Huge Blurred Line Between Female Prostitutes and Female "Non-Prostitutes"

Everyone thinks there is this huge black and white difference. You see, there are two types of women:
Prostitutes: They charge men money to have sex with them.
Non-prostitutes: They do not charge men money to have sex with them.
Tell you what. I had a date last weekend. She was pretty sleazy but she was hot and down, so I said ok. I went over there and the sex was going to be transactional. We could have a date all evening no problem, but if there would be any sex later on, I had to buy her something. I agreed on dinner and a bottle of whiskey. If I had not bought her that, she wanted cash! So she’s a prostitute or what?!
Do you have any idea how much “dating” is like this? You have any idea how many women pretty much demand some monetary exchange (buy me dinner, buy me this, etc.) in exchange for sex?
Feminists want to pass anti-john laws to fight prostitution. With these viciously anti-male hate laws, only the male buyer of sex (the john) is arrested, while the cause of the whole problem, the whore who is selling her ass on the street shamelessly, is allowed to walk free. These anti-male hate laws are called the Nordic Model. Radical feminists and other viciously misandric women and their girly male feminist enablers are behind these hate law. Now I have a question. About these anti-john laws. Are you going to put men in jail for buying women a bottle and dinner for sex as I did? What if I  didn’t buy her those things and instead forked over some cash to her in her apartment? I’m going to jail?
Feminists say that prostitutes are exploited. A female friend of mine worked as a cam model. She’s a stripper – she strips on cam. She made $230/hour. She told me that 1/2 of the cam models worked as call girls on the side. She told me that they made very good money as call girls. She also knew women who had gotten into sugar daddy – sugar baby arrangements with wealthy older men. This is sort of a form of prostitution – in fact, feminists say it is straight up prostitution. One of her friends who did this in New York City was given a $35,000 handbag by her rich sugar daddy.
The feminist line is that all prostitutes of all types, apparently including other sex workers like strippers, get into it as survival because they are poor and desperate. It’s either whore themselves out to men or die of starvation on the streets I suppose. The truth is that many street prostitutes are just drug addicts and most call girls, sugar babies, and strippers make extremely good money. It is perfectly possible to make $100,000/yr as a high priced call girl in an expensive big city. My friend had a perfectly reasonable income and just did the camming on the side as a way to make extra money to take overseas vacations and whatnot.
Now this woman that I dated the other night. Feminists say this woman was viciously exploited. Except she didn’t sound very exploited to me. Just another greedy woman with a price tag on her vagina, like ~50% of the women out there. In fact, that evening she even pointed to her vagina and referred to it as a money-making organ.
Feminists also despise the idea of men taking women out on dates and spending money on them.  According to feminists, men invented these rules, to waste huge sums of money throwing  it down the drain to women to buy sex from the via dating, in order to keep the evil process of purchasing women’s bodies going because apparently we get something out of given women all our money so we can get laid. All I have to say is that if it was a man who thought up that idea, he was the dumbest man who ever lived.
Here is a quote from an insane feminist opposed to the idea of men taking women out, spending money on them, etc. Apparently this is just glorified prostitution, which is what we men have been saying forever now.

It normalizes the idea that women are bought and paid for … by taking them out to dinner, buying them flowers, being nice to them.
– Some ridiculous feminist

You know who thought up those rules? Women. You think we men would think up stupid rules like that? Hell, we want free sex. We don’t want to pay a nickel for it. It was and is women who decided to put a price tag on their vaginas and charge men to rent them out for a period of time.
Why did women do this? Simple. Because they are greedy. They also think their vaginas are worth money, and it’s cheap and stupid to give them away for free.

“If my vagina is worth money, why give it away for free? Why not charge for it?”

This is the mindset of tens of millions of American women, and they like it just fine that way. Why? Because they want the moneyyyyyyy.
Women are so noble.
 

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

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

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

An absolutely essential piece by Ernest Everhard from the Alternative Left website sums up perfectly an Alt Left position on SJWism, Intersectionality or Intersectional Feminism. It’s a bit hard to read, but I understood 90%+ of it, so maybe you can understand a lot of it too. This is us. This is really us. This is an immaculate summary of exactly what the Alternative Left is all about. Please feel free to comment on this: this is a very important topic in this great movement we are trying to build here.

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

Intersectionality is itself a system of power. It upholds the status quo and protects the powerful and privileged.
Recognizing this is the key difference between the alternative left and other current forms of political thought.
A fan of the Alternative Left Facebook page recently posed this question to me:

Have you considered that you might be postmodernist? The actual meaning of the term, not Peterson’s ridiculous conflation and confusion of it. It seems as if a lot of your philosophy relies on the rejections of meta-narratives.

At a glance, this seems an absurd question. Isn’t rejection of postmodernism integral to the alt-left? Doesn’t all that deconstruction and bafflegab distract from the hard and real work of class struggle? Isn’t a return to some semblance of economic realism, if not historical materialism, what we’re all about at the end of the day?
Not so fast. While I don’t think postmodernism is a tenable philosophy long term, it does make some good points. It’s like nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism. They’re nice places to visit, and doing so is a sign of intellectual growth, but you wouldn’t want to live there.
My quarrel with postmodernism is how it tends to be cherry picked by the intersectional left, the feminist theorists in particular. They’re quite good at using deconstruction to pick apart the texts of their opponents, and will exploit other postmodernist concepts such as “the death of the author” – the idea that textual interpretation by authorial intent is flawed – to license their tendency to simply read their own narrative into ideas that threaten them.
They use such notions as science being a western, patriarchal “way of knowing” as a legitimizing excuse to handwave otherwise proven claims of some biological basis in gender differences, for example.
Deconstruction, cognitive framing and other advanced linguistic concepts are devastating ideological weapons against those who are not aware of them. Intersectional theorists get a unique education in these concepts in the academic institutions wherein their views dominate. Institutions that are not cheap to attend and require significant baseline intelligence to be successful in. They’re therefore able to win debates against their less privileged opponents simply through framing and linguistic and cognitive gimmicks of this nature.
Ultimately, however, feminist theory’s apparent embrace of postmodernism is self serving pretense. Notice how their own theories are presented as if they were eternal truths, universally binding on all people under all circumstances. Cultural relativism is fine when it’s used to impose multiculturalism and diversity upon western cultural spaces, but has a funny way of disappearing when similar demands of tolerance are made of feminist theorists in turn.
Fixed and objective meaning of text based on authorial intent is not authoritative, since the author no doubt lives in a network of socially constructed systems of which he is barely aware. But not so the feminist critic.
Her views, and her views alone apparently, somehow transcend the context of the society that gave rise to them, and so are above questions of this nature and constitute an ultimate authority on par with divine revelation. No one is faster to declare epistemic superiority for their own points of view – standpoint theories so called – than college feminists who’ve studied the poststructuralists closer than anyone. If feminist theory is not a metanarrative, you tell me what is.
Who deconstructs feminist theory, one must ask?
Yeah, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
Herein lies a very central tenet of alternative leftism: that the brands of postmodern critical theory so prevalent on college campuses and that are the underlying ideologies of the SJW’s are actually conservative, not radical. They are in fact themselves systems of power, like the very notions of patriarchy and colonialism they so love to deconstruct.
This is quite naturally a counter intuitive concept when first exposed to it. Feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and so on – Intersectionality serving as a kind of one ring to rule them all and thus a useful term for referring to them collectively – is interpreted either as official party line and not to be questioned, in the case of the mainstream left.
Or else condemned as “Cultural Marxism” and taken at face value as advocacy for an artificial egalitarianism, in the case of the right. Neoreaction comes quite strangely closest to the truth in its denouncing of progressive ideology as “the Cathedral” – a vast Matrix like social construct comparable to the Christian church in the middle ages – the state religion to which everyone must pay homage, hence the term.

The Cathedral: It doesn’t challenge the aristocracy.
It is the aristocracy.

Neoreaction’s flaw, however, lies in the irony of its denunciation of progressivism in those terms. Isn’t a medieval form of social organization exactly what they want? The Church of the middle ages, far from being an institution for egalitarian social leveling, had a long history of supporting the aristocracy and running interference on behalf of the status quo, despite a good portion of what Christ actually taught, which may be where the confusion arises.
So it is with intersectionality. Despite its pretenses, and despite what were likely genuinely radical critiques at one time, current year intersectionality does not challenge privilege. It upholds privilege.
Do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I do not condone racism towards minorities, misogyny and homophobia. The left spearheaded the fight against those things for all the right reasons. And not merely because prejudice undermines working class solidarity, thought that is reason enough. To be left is to value equality, to some degree or another, and fair treatment regardless of what one is by accident of birth. Intersectionality itself was intended to be a manner of looking at how various different forms of oppression reinforce one another. This is not in itself a bad idea.
The problem is that intersectionality has evolved into something does not actually promote real social justice. Its lack of tolerance for dissent made it vulnerable to abuse on part of the unscrupulous, who were thereby attracted to intersectional feminist spaces.
They’ve co-opted social justice movements, and used them as tools to oppress people. It’s like Marxist Leninism 2.0 – a popular movement is appropriated and exploited by an elite vanguard professing to represent the interests of marginalized people, and using that to consolidate their own power. Cultural rather than political power this time, but the underlying mechanisms are quite a bit alike.
It’s also quite different from Marxism in one key aspect, and this is often overlooked by those on the right who equate intersectional ideas with Marxian leftism: intersectionality’s lack of emphasis on political economy. It is not merely that they simply don’t care about or are ignorant of the internal workings of the international economy or the political machines of the G7 nations.
Intersectionalists are rewarded by capital for framing privilege in terms of racial and sexual identity rather than in terms of wealth and political power. These rewards include expansion in academia, access to agenda setting mass media and favorable policy service. Ideological systems that truly threaten the status quo do not enjoy universally favorable media bias, moderator bias on major corporate social media platforms and an exalted status in academic institutions.
The state religion does not advocate for the truly marginalized within the polity.
It’s important that you divest yourself of the notion that intersectionalists truly represent the underclasses, including most women and people of color. They occupy a very different world than that of working single mothers or unemployed minority youths in the ghetto, or on their way to prison.
They occasionally will use real oppressions suffered by women and minorities while making the case for an increase in their own influence, but that is the only reason for which they ever seem to do so. If one takes their standpoint theories at all seriously, the plush halls of the academy and major media outlets are not the places we should be seeing credible voices of the oppressed and marginalized. Those voices are kept quite intentionally silent, because their demands will be for redressment of their economic hardships and lack of political representation.
Women who are turned off of men and family as a result of feminism, and men who are turned off of religion, community and nationalism as a result of anti western critical theory find themselves completely atomized and without an identity. This is central to the alt-right’s critique of modern liberalism and the abolition of borders.
But the real question is: who is the real beneficiary of all this? The far right will tell you that this is “cultural Marxism” and is necessary in order to groom the populace for the embrace of socialism.
That’s not what happened. If you do not believe that, observe how neoliberalism increased apace just as this so called cultural Marxism did. The emergence of political correctness coincided with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. If the idea was for feminism and multiculturalism to precede socialism, they could not have failed more miserably.
Atomized individuals turn to careerism and consumerism to fill the void, and they’re more easily replaced when cheaper cogs for the machine are found. So they’re more obedient and easily used in the workforce and more responsive to consumer trends. When other vectors of identity are removed, do the brands we work for and consume become the way we identify ourselves?
This seems to me to be the triumph of capitalism, and quite in line with the manner in which Marx believed capitalism would progress, abolishing relations based on kinship and reducing all human interaction to commodity exchange, rather than the triumph of Marxism itself that it’s so often described as by reactionaries.
Hard Fact: Social liberalism is the handmaiden of capital, not of revolution. And so capital became socially liberal when national economies became fully saturated and capital had to go global in order to keep up its expansion. The alt-right is hated in the capitalist press because capital must always seek new markets, and it was therefore in capital’s interest to globalize and promote diversity.
Observe one of the methods whereby Intersectionality preserves its hegemony: by seeking to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs. Often with no recourse or due process whatsoever. In what world does leveraging the power of capital over labor so flagrantly and directly constitute anything that could be at all called left wing?
This is what was done to socialists and trade unionists back in the bad old days of blacklisting. This isn’t to say that removal of an offensive or hateful person from a workplace isn’t sometimes appropriate or necessary, but to use the threat of employment loss as a means of enforcing ideological conformity more broadly is something the left should not be supporting. We can question the rationality of workers supporting conservatism all we want. It won’t seem quite so irrational now that this ugly tactic has been normalized.
Another hard fact: Intersectionality relies on the absolute power that capital has over labor and consumers in order to successfully impose its will on the population, as it’s doing in geek culture, for instance. The capacity for populations to resist cultural and moral relativism imposed from above would be greatly increased if cultural and economic as well as political institutions were democratized and under some or another kind of social ownership.
Intersectionalists are a safe and nerfed form of “leftism.” One that attacks white male “neckbeards” and “dudebros” in places like 4chan while leaving the State Department, the military industrial complex and Wall Street lobbyists unscrutinized.
Activists and even radicals who truly want to challenge the status quo find their anger and vigor channeled into safe outlets that do not truly threaten the powers that be. Offensive statements by white male celebrities are made front page news by an intersectionalist movement that’s presented in the headlines as being radical and subversive – the resistance, so called. Offensives launched by the US military on the other side of the world in defense of petrodollar interests are kept more safely out of the public eye.
Intersectionality is a tool used by an educated elite to police the culture of the underclass, and to undermine the solidarity of that underclass by dividing it along racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this done time and again now: with Occupy Wall Street, with Bernie Sander’s campaign for the White House, now with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most leftist spaces on social media are completely overrun by intersectional dominance, even ones that profess to be Marxist or anarchist.
Intersectional activists have a curious way of coming to dominate leftist spaces, and maintain their power through dividing the left against itself and redirecting popular anger towards other segments of the left. Sometimes the target is white male leftists – brocialists, so called. Sometimes it’s white feminism, or TERF’s or straight feminism. Sometimes straight black males are called the white people of black people.
Sometimes cisgender gay males are driven out of LGBT spaces. Some or another activist has run afoul of the intersectionalist overlords and is publicly shamed, like in a Maoist struggle session or the young kids being banished from polygamous fundamentalist communities for the most trivial reasons.
But the real reasons aren’t so trivial: to maintain the power of the leadership over the flock. Ceaseless purity spiraling destroys the cohesiveness of the left. J. Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO could not have done a better job if they tried. Perhaps the FBI still is, and that’s what all this really is.
Like a puritanical religion, intersectionality promotes a guilt based morality that ceaselessly berates its followers for their ideological and lifestyle shortcomings. Theories of inherited privilege based on what people are by accident of birth become a moral burden comparable to original sin. People with a lot of internalized guilt do not take action to challenge their leaders. They punch down, not up.
Nearly any action a person may commit or even a thought they might think can be construed as oppressive in some way or anther. That combined with intersectionality’s taboo on questioning claims of oppression made by its activist leadership – who are above any kind of ethical or moral standards due to their supposed “marginalization” – results in a near cult like atmosphere in intersectional spaces. Not surprisingly, most people want nothing to do with this and thus nothing to do with the left overall. Who does that benefit, in the long run?
As mentioned previously, considerable education is needed to really understand their theories, and the intersectionalists themselves conveniently have a near hegemony within the academy itself. Hence, the relative absence of working class people in these self styled radical movements.
Which in turn makes the whole of the left easy for the right to denounce as “limousine liberals”, “champagne socialists” or the like. No more effective means of turning the working class off of the political left could be contrived. This makes McCarthyism look clumsy and amateurish. People who are rightly put off by intersectionality then defect quite willingly to conservatism as a protest against it. One almost wonders if this wasn’t the intent all along.
The problem is not with education itself, which is perfectly fine and good. But rather with the co-optation of education to serve elite interests. Something that the left was much more willing and able to call out prior to the capture of the humanities and social sciences by intersectionalists.
The ideology of intersectionality itself is constructed to be a closed system of thought, wherein disagreement with it is likened to actual oppressive behavior against a marginalized person. Allegations of racism or sexism – made with the backing of powerful media outlets – against lone individuals without recourse and no due process are effective and currently socially legitimate ways of marginalizing people. It’s a good way of removing someone who’s bringing up facts and ideas that the truly powerful don’t want publicly legitimized.
Far from emboldening the resistance, intersectionality keeps protest culture in line and ensures its continuity as a controlled opposition. One that allows the powers that be to claim that they allow and legitimize dissent – so long as it doesn’t really threaten them. One oligarch or another might get thrown under the bus due to his alleged racism or sexism here and there.
The oligarchy itself is thus made safer, for it submits itself to the appearance that it really is held to scrutiny and made accountable for its abuses. Surely the absurdity of a racist or sexist comment ruining a CEO while his abuse of his workers, defrauding of his shareholders and pollution of the environment as a matter of course going completely unnoticed highlights the absurd nature of intersectionality as a form of radicalism.
With leftism like intersectionality, who needs conservatism? It’s the ultimate metanarrative, and if the postmodernist techniques of deconstruction can be turned against it, that can only be a good thing. An essential thing, as a matter of fact.

"They’re Not Oysters," by Alpha Unit

Connecticut, West Virginia, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nebraska, and Alaska have at least one thing in common: each has a Panhandle (WV has two). The Nebraska Panhandle is the westernmost part of Nebraska, where the prairie turns into rocky mesas, buttes, and pillars, such as Chimney Rock. It’s where the Midwest becomes the West.

Cattle outnumber people by about three to one in Nebraska. While Eastern Nebraska has excellent cropland for corn, the rest of the state is abundant with grassland for cattle grazing. In the semi-arid Panhandle, cattle ranching dominates. That means Rocky Mountain Oysters are a celebrated delicacy.

This past April the Sidney Shooting Park held its 8th Annual Rocky Mountain Oyster Fry and Fundraiser at the Cheyenne County Fairgrounds west of Sidney, Nebraska. At the Silver Dollar Bar and Grill, also in Sidney, you can stop in for cold beer, onion rings, and Rocky Mountain Oysters – described by one satisfied customer as hot, fresh, and tender.

They might have been hot, fresh, and tender, but you and I know that there aren’t any oyster reefs in Nebraska. These Oysters are bull testicles – or, more accurately, calf testicles. In spring or early summer, ranchers dehorn and castrate bull calves that they won’t be using as breeding stock. They call these non-breeding stock steers. The males that keep their testicles and are later used as breeding stock they call bulls. The main purpose of castration is to calm their tempers, says Dr. Jake Geis, cattle rancher and veterinarian.

Simply put, bulls like to fight. They fight to establish dominance and even after they settle the hierarchy, they fight to re-assert dominance. Dr. Geis says that he’s worked on bulls that have been banged up fighting each other; sometimes the animal is so badly injured that a rancher has no choice but to put it down. Breeding bulls are essential so the problem can’t be entirely avoided, but castrating the non-breeding animals reduces the number of bulls from half the calf crop to three or four.

Also, bulls are more aggressive toward people than steers. Castrating bulls makes them mellower and safer to work with. A herdsman could be seriously injured or killed by a bull while loading or unloading them via trailers.

Another problem, says Dr. Geis, is that when bull calves reach puberty, they want to start breeding. Young females, or heifers, on the other hand, aren’t ready to breed. They can get pregnant but they can’t yet safely deliver and raise a calf. Castration eliminates this problem.

Arguably the most important reason for castrating bull calves is that Americans prefer the taste of steer meat to that of bull meat. The hormone profile of steers with their reduced testosterone changes the flavor of the meat. Dr. Geis says that not all cultures share this preference. He mentions that in Italian culture bull meat is preferred. This means they raise the bulls to harvest weight but have to manage all the problems with aggressiveness and fighting.

With a pair of organs coming off each calf, ranchers could easily end up with scores of them in a day’s work. The dogs get their share before the ranchers, herdsmen, and their families cook the rest just as they would any other part of the animal. The same as cattlemen have done for centuries all over the world.

When they’re not castrating bulls, beef cattle herdsmen are doing various other things with cattle such as feeding, giving vaccinations, tagging or branding, trimming hooves, assisting with births, performing artificial insemination, loading animals onto trailers, driving feed trucks, maintaining pastures, mending fences, and just about anything else that needs to be done on the ranch or feedlot.

Most Women Do Not Support Feminism (Only 14% of US Women Say They Are Feminists)

Sisera: A lot of women don’t identify as feminist because of the baggage it carries.
They want to impress men, but actually believe feminist ideology 90%+.
I would’ve thought you were smarter than to take what women say at face value 😉

That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth (WSTM), Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth, Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.
Trust me when I say that your average feminist on WSTM and radfems in particular does not sound ANYTHING like your average woman. Your average woman buys into about 0% of what those feminists want and sounds nothing like them at all. All feminists are crazed SJW’s and most average women don’t care about that. Most average women don’t care about “predator” men, in fact, since they are Alphas, they mostly want to fuck them.
They think boys act awful, but they think it is funny. Feminists think womanizers abuse women, but most women just think they are hilarious and want to date them. Feminists think seduction is evil. Most women laugh about seduction, realize what it is all about and mostly just think it is funny. They are wise and they figure it is just a game where they have to go head to head with men.
Most women don’t care that most guys just want to fuck them. When they get 40-55 in fact, they think that’s pretty awesome. I know 18 year old girls who are very happy that some boy was staring at them in a club. They thought it was “hot.” A feminist would call him a sexually harassing creep. This same girl went to a dance club and did not care that some guy put his hand on her ass. She thought it was a bit weird though.
Most women just think PUA’s are funny if not hilarious. Women tell me that women need a Game for Women. They are fascinated to hear how seducers operate and female friends of seducers will often introduce these men to their girlfriends in hopes of fixing them up with the seducer. His female friends will give him all sorts of seduction tips and will even help him out on dates to try to get the woman into bed.
Most women think seducers are hilarious. This includes females of all ages, even teenage girls all the way up to elderly women.  Even elderly women think seducers are hilarious. Most women know that seduction is a scam but they don’t care will just laugh their heads off if you tell them all the tricks you use on women. Most women will say men are basically just pigs who will fuck anything but that they love men for that. They generally say that men cannot be fixed and just are the way that they are and that’s that. Even women on Jezebel think that P
Feminists say there are almost no good men at all – radfems are especially adamant about this, but your average woman will tell you that she has met many very good men in her life who were very good and kind to her. Most women are addicted to cock and love sex and men. A lot especially radfems have given up on men or gone over to political lesbianism.
A lot of feminists openly admit to hating men and say they have a right to feel this way, I suppose because we are evil. Others like on Jezebel are very angry at us, often furious. That is the difference between feminists and non-feminist women. Most non-feminist women do not say that they hate men. They openly admit that they love men or they even take pride in loving men.
They don’t man-bash and you don’t hear them going on about how bad we are. They don’t even complain about us much. You don’t hear regular woman saying, “Men are always _______!” They just don’t bitch about us much at all. They will definitely bitch about certain men, but they usually don’t generalize it out to all of us. To normal women, there are good men and bad men.
In addition, most normal women do not go on and on about how oppressed they are by men or patriarchy or how victimized they are as women. They don’t think the world is out to get them as women.
Many normal men place very high priority on men in their lives and in fact many revolve their whole lives around men, getting men, dating men, sex, etc. I have talked to women all over the world and it seems to be quite normal for women everywhere to revolve much of their lives around men, getting a man, keeping a man, dating men, sex with men, being in love, relationships with men, etc. It’s all just men, men, men. They may voice some frustration or even laugh at us – one woman I know laughs at us and calls us “silly men.” Another told me that most women think men are idiots. She laughed when she told me that.
Most normal women think sex with men is fun and think men are good at sex. Feminists tend to think men are lousy in bed and sex with men is no fun. Feminists also often say that all of their relationships with men have been lousy. Surely this is why they went to feminism in the first place.
Normal women don’t say that. They often talk dreamily over wonderful love affairs they had in the past, lovers, boyfriends and husbands of the past, sex with men they had in the past. I have had girlfriends who regaled me with wild tales of their sexual exploits, having s ex with their husband’s friends, having sex with two men at once, having sex with a woman, on and on. They smile when they talk about these sexual experiences and have fond memories of them. Feminists often think all of their sex with men has been crap and wonder why they should keep doing it anymore.
There is a deep sense of grievance with feminists. Feminism is a politics of grievance, grievance and revenge. Normal women do not have a deep sense of grievance about them and they usually don’t want revenge. Normal women tend to be pretty satisfied with their lives, while feminists are often unhappy.
Feminists have some crazy prescriptions for men.  Some want to reduce our population to 10% of all humans. Others want to put us in detention camps until we can learn to behave ourselves in society. Others recommend sex-selective abortion to reduce the number of men. I have seen radfems on a forum talking about how much they wanted to murder their sons.
Normal women don’t want any such things. Normal women know very little about feminism. If you ask them about feminism, they act confused and shrug their shoulders. Most normal women say, correctly, that feminists are nothing but a bunch of short-haired man-hating dykes. This is largely true and it is quite unappealing to your average woman. Feminists tend to be deeply unhappy and dissatisfied people. That is why they are in feminism in the first place. Normal women often say that they are happy or fairly happy with life.
Feminists want to ban porn. Normal women don’t care about porn and most even watch it sometimes. If you ask them if they like it, they usually say they do even if they do not like it much.
Feminists want to get rid of prostitution and say all prostitutes are victims. Normal women don’t seem to care much about prostitutes other than that they do not want to be one.
Feminists say that porn stars and prostitutes have horrible lives. Normal women will  say that many porn stars are happy and a lot of prostitutes, especially call girls, are doing what they want and making a lot of money in the process. I have had normal women who  told me they had considered being call girls.
Normal women hardly ever bring up the pay gap. Feminists can’t stop talking about it. Normal women do not talk about getting more girls and women into engineering and math because they don’t care. They don’t care about Title 9 either. These things are the obsessions of feminists.

The White Whale of Affirmative Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Trump Is a Disaster: Principled Liberals, Progressives and Leftists Never Vote for the Right, Period, for any Reason, Ever

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

I am a man of the Left. I always have been and always will be. I never vote conservative or reactionary ever for any reason. I am practically a Marxist. I would rather eat a bullet than vote for the Right. They are my class enemies. I vote my class interests. I vote populist. I vote for the people, for the workers. The rich can go walk off a cliff. The corporations are the enemy, and they need to drop dead.
The Democrats are incredibly better on most of these things.
I don’t care about my cultural heritage and my biology. Why is muh cultural heritage important? It’s silly and it means nothing. Why is muh biology important? That’s nonsense too.
See, this support for Trump is all flowing from race or maybe racism stuff. I said earlier than everyone who gets on this race train will vote Republican for the rest of their lives.

Trump is Terrible on: Abortion, Guns, Gays, Transsexuals, Guns, the Left, Workers, Unions, Regulations, Taxes, Democracy, and the Courts

In short, Trump is our worst nightmare.

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

When you look at all the outrageous stuff Trump does on a day to day basis, I mean my God, he’s not for us. Trump’s just for the rich and corporations. Trump’s hurting over everyone else.
On abortion? Outrageous.
He’s anti-gay too, he’s fucking them over.
Trump’s position on guns is outrageous. We now have regular massacres at our schools! We are turning into a banana republic in that sense too.
Trump hates the left; he hates the workers. Trump has rolled back worker protections dramatically. Trump hates unions and wants to destroy them all.
They’ve radically rolled back regulation of business, which is an utter necessity. Talk about economic conservatism. That’s all the Republican Party is all about. The tax bill was an outrage.
Trump is radically anti-democratic. He’s dismantling what’s left of our democracy, which is not much. His Supreme Court pick was horrific and the Republicans literally out and out stole that seat from the Democrats, to whom it was owed.

The (((Cartoon Version of the Lebanese Civil War))) Most Americans Have Heard Is Wrong

Sisera: And naturally Hezbollah was arch rivals of Israel, who was defending the Christians.

But now the tides have turned because Israel’s pet Jihadis genocide Christians.

Israel didn’t invade to rescue any Christians and they were not defending any Christians. They didn’t participate in the Civil War much. They invaded to conquer the PLO in Lebanon.

This is a cartoon (((evil Muslim Islamist Christian haters trying to genocide good Christians minding their own business version of the Civil War))). This version that most Americans believe was concocted in Israel. So the knowledge most Americans have about that war is just Israeli propaganda.

The war was pretty much rightwing or fascist Maronite Christian groups versus Leftist and Arab nationalist secular Palestinians. That was the war in a nutshell. Later others allied with one side or the other. Most of the groups who allied with the Palestinians were secular. Religious Muslims were mostly not involved in the war.

There was no Hezbollah until 1985. They were caused by the Israeli invasion. And you have it backwards. When Israel invaded, the Shia in the South (Hezbollah’s territory) welcomed them with flowers. They turned on them when the Israelis started being shits like they always do.There was no Hezbollah until 1985. They were caused by the Israeli invasion. And you have it backwards. When Israel invaded, the Shia in the South (Hezbollah’s territory) welcomed them with flowers. They turned on them when the Israelis started being shits like they always do.
The Christians didn’t need any rescuing. They started the Civil War in the first place. They stopped buses full of Palestinians and ordered everyone out and shot everyone in the head.  They did this a few times and the PLO took up arms. But left-wingers were on the side of the PLO too, and the Greek Orthodox were always fighting with the Muslims, etc. against the Maronites. And the leftwing movement of the Druze, a non-Christian, non-Muslim religion, fought alongside the Muslims. Socialists, Communists and Arab nationalists all fought with the Muslims.
The Maronites were sick and tired of the Palestinians living in their country. That’s why they started the war.
The Christians have always run Lebanon. They’re no poor victims. More like minority rule thugs.
The war started with Leftists, Syrian nationalists and Arab nationalists against the Phalange fascist Christian militia modeled after the Nazi party (your heroes). None of the former were very religious. Those were secular groups. Sunni Muslims and Armenian Christians sat out the war. The people who took up arms against the Maronites were secular Arab nationalist types. The Shia sat out the war for a very long time. They did not want to get involved. But they had sympathies with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians set up refugee cams all over Southern Lebanon to attack Israel. During this time, the Shia hated them. The Palestinians ruled like thugs and the religious Shia saw them as a bunch of Commies. They were so sick of Palestinian rule that they welcomed conquering Israelis with flowers as I mentioned.
The main Shia movement, the Amal, fought against the Palestinians alongside the Maronites at the start of the war. The Shia only turned against Israel due to Israeli abuses. They formed Hezbollah, but they spent most of their time fighting Israel. An Armenian Communist organization fought the Maronites for most of the war. These were Christians.
The war actually started when the Maronite President of Lebanon tried to force a fishing monopoly for his group along the coast. Fishermen in Sidon objected and there were popular demonstrations. Palestinians joined these demos. A sniper killed the former mayor of Sidon. To this day no one knows who killed him or why. The sniper fired at the  end of a demonstration and appeared to try to start a conflagration. The situation soon spiraled out of control and the Maronite government lost control of the situation.
The actual beginning of the war was fighting versus Maronite and Palestinian militias. The Maronite government was not involved.
You are going by the (((officially narrative))) of the war of evil Muslim Islamist Christian haters trying to genocide the good Christians of Lebanon. Except most of the “Muslims” were not even religious and the Christian militias were objectively fascist and in particular opposed to democratic rule via a census which would have made them a minority.
The war was secular Palestinians versus fascist Maronite Christians. Most religious Muslims sat out the war. There was no “evil Muslims trying to exterminate good Christians out of religious hatred” bullshit. Hezbollah never took part in the civil war itself. All they did was fight against Israel and its puppet Maronite army in the south. However, most of the soldiers in this “Maronite” army were Shia Muslims! So the war in the South was Shia Muslims in the SLA versus Shia Muslims in Hezbollah. Also there were many Palestinian Christians in the PLO fighting against the Maronites.

Should I Open Up a Patreon?

Apparently a lot of content creators, thinkers, public intellectuals, writers and video creators are setting up Patreons so people can pay them to write, create videos, and be public intellectuals. Jordan Peterson is making $80,000/month doing this. This is perfectly acceptable to me. After all, if the person is working 20-40 hours a week or more writing or creating videos, why in God’s name shouldn’t they get paid for their labor?
I will never understand Normie scum who call this begging. If you are working 40 hours a week creating content, what’s wrong with asking to be paid for it?
Further, many online magazines, journals, and even newspapers are asking for donations to fund their journalism. And why not? Say folks at NACLA or The New Internationalist people are working 40 hours a week  putting out their journal, are they somehow begging if they ask their readers to fund their work? How is that begging? They’re working 40 hours a week, working their asses off, and asking to be paid for working their asses off is begging?
WTF sort of world do Normies live in anyway? Or is it just writers, unlike all other workers, who have to work for free like slaves while everyone else gets paid for their work? I will never understand Normies. Normies are shit. Pure shit. If every Normie on Earth died tomorrow, I would sing and dance for 100 days, that’s how much I hate them.
More and more sites are going pay now or at least donation, and why not? Most online papers might let you read five articles a week and then they ask for a subscription. All of the larger blogs such as Moon of Alabama and Vinyard of the Saker have regular aggressive fund drives. And why not? It’s’ surely a full-time running such a large site.
I think as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer free sites. Slavery just doesn’t appeal to most people.
Thing is, you guys aren’t funding me here on this site, why should I expect you pikers to fund me on Patreon? I’m not getting this. Is there something magical about Patreon that will cause people to fund me as opposed to this site. One thing I could do is buy an upgraded WordPress subscription that would allow me to put a Patreon button at the end of every post. I think most people don’t realize that the site runs on donations.
Asking regular commenters to donate $10 to keep commenting isn’t working very well. Lately, requests for regular commenters to fund the site have been met with the commenters simply going away. I think I have been embarrassing them in the threads by asking though, so in the future, I will ask by email.
If I could ever get a Patreon stream going, I would quit hitting up commenters altogether. Alpha thinks it is terrible that all these commenters are taking off after I hit them up, but I don’t really care. If I quit doing hitting commenters up, I get even less money than I do now. And really, if you won’t pay ten bucks to comment here regularly, I’m sorry. You’re not my friend. Any friend of mine would gladly do such a thing. So you can go bye bye, and it’s not a worry of mine.
Another part of asking regular commenters to contribute to the site is that by commenting regularly you are becoming part of a team that this site represents. The value of this site lies not only in my posts but in the many fantastic and brilliant comments that the posts generate from my gifted and learned commenters. The commenters and I, along with Alpha, are all part of a team that in effect produce this site. So if you don’t want to join our team, well bye bye. I’m not particularly bothered.
One thing I would like to know is who is getting funded by Patreon? Are there any writers getting funded that way? Or is it mostly content creators like vlog creators? Keep in mind that these folks are essentially writers too. They are simply communicating via voice what others communicate with a keyboard. And a lot of vlogs are very smart and knowledgeable, often as good as the best journalistic prose on the web.

Are Most Male Flight Attendants Gay?

Answered on Quora:
Absolutely.
Anecdotal evidence (see below) shows that at least 50% of male flight attendants are gay and possibly a majority of them are. One commenter says 95% of the male flight attendants he knew were gay and another says that 50% of the ones she knew were gay. So call it 70–75% for now.
It’s just one of those jobs that attracts a lot of gay men. And for that same reason, it being a job associated with gay men, it probably scares a lot of straight men away from it.
That said, one of my best friends went off to be a flight attendant a few years after high school and he was straight as Hell and quite homophobic too, I might add.

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents.
The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party.
The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class.
Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature.
Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs?
Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left.
I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades.
In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class.
A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country.
The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious.
Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are?
Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places.
The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia.
I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness.
In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported.
A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US?
The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed.
She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that?
The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated.
Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people.
The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness.
Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Why the US Working Class Is Not Radicalized

Radicalized meaning having any sort of working class or class consciousness at all. Radicalized meaning pro-worker. Yes, believe it or not, the US working class is not even pro-worker. The US working class is actually anti-worker!
The problem is that we do not have a tradition of working class radicalism here as in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Working class people in all of those countries are radicalized and pro-worker with a high state of class consciousness and they usually vote for pro-worker political parties.
Mexicans, however, are profoundly depoliticized.
Nevertheless, you can argue as my mother does when I asked her why the Central American revolutions were not spreading to Mexico, to which she responded that “The Mexicans already had their revolution.” And though the Left neglects to see it this way, the Mexican Revolution was definitely one of the great leftwing revolutions of the 20th Century, at least as good as the Russian Revolution and without many of the problems. Most people don’t realize how horrible feudal life was in Mexico before the Mexican Revolution. If I told you what it was like, you would quit reading and call me a liar. It was that bad.
In Latin America, your average proletarian, working class person, who, let’s face it, is not real smart, is often ideologically Leftist, as they have been politicized by powerful leftwing movements. There are no powerful leftwing movements in the US to do this, so the non-White working classes are not radicalized. They are liberalized but not radicalized.
The White working classes are actually ideologically Rightist, which makes no sense at all of course.
However, I have met many Salvadorans here. I tell them that I used to support the FMLN revolutionaries down there and that I even used to contribute to their weapons fund. It’s actually true. I would meet a guy in a sleazy Salvadoran bar in Lafayette Park and give him a check to some weird cryptic organization. They are hesitant at first but then they break into wide smiles. Even those who did not support the FMLN don’t really care that I did. That movement was radical Left but had huge support across society because Salvadoran society is very unfair.

Mexicans, a Portrait of a Depoliticized People

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

Are Most Male Flight Attendants Gay?

Answered on Quora.
Absolutely.
Anecdotal evidence (see other responses) shows that at least 50% of male flight attendants are gay and possibly a majority of them are. One commenter says 95% of the male flight attendants he knew were gay, and another says that 50% of the ones she knew were gay. So call it 70–75% for now.
It’s just one of those jobs that attracts a lot of gay men. And for that same reason, the fact that it is a job associated with gay men, it probably scares a lot of straight men away from it.
That said, one of my best friends went off to be a flight attendant a few years after high school, and he was straight as Hell and quite homophobic too, I might add.

"From the Mississippi Delta to South Australia," by Alpha Unit

Don Morrison salvages old galvanized sheet metal from sheds and farms throughout Australia. The older the metal, the better, he says; some of this reclaimed metal is over 100 years old. He takes it to his workshop in Summertown, South Australia, where he fashions it into metal-bodied acoustic guitars. Of his material he says:

Galvanised iron, or Galvo, is now an integral part of the Australian landscape and it seemed natural (to me at least!) to try it in a resonator guitar. The result is a truly awesome sound, very loud but with a surprisingly rounded tone. I should call it the Transcontinental guitar – genuine Aussie material, genuine Delta sound!

That “Delta sound” refers to Delta blues, one of the early forms of blues. This music arose in the Mississippi Delta, which, despite its name, is not a part of the actual delta of the Mississippi River. Rather, it is located in the northwestern part of Mississippi, bounded by the Mississippi River on the west and the Yazoo River on the east.

This alluvial floodplain is one of the most fertile agricultural regions in the world. It was here that Black field hands created the music we call blues, using chants, “field hollers,” and songs to make their work go faster. Ed Kopp writes:

While blues lyrics often deal with personal adversity, the music itself goes far beyond self-pity. The blues is also about overcoming hard luck, saying what you feel, ridding yourself of frustration, letting your hair down, and simply having fun.
The best blues is visceral, cathartic, and starkly emotional. From unbridled joy to deep sadness, no form of music communicates more genuine emotion.

Although the sound of a resonator guitar is iconic to blues, blues musicians didn’t start out playing the resonator. The earliest bluesmen played an instrument called the diddley bow.
The diddley bow has been called “the godfather of American roots instruments.” It is the simplest form of the guitar and is the first type of slide guitar used in America. It was very easy to make, consisting of a string of wire tensioned between two nails on a board. A bottle or can wedged under the wire would create tension for pitch. The player would pluck the string while sliding a piece of metal or glass on it to produce notes.

One-stringed bow instruments date back to antiquity and developed in various parts of East Asia and in the west coast and Congo regions of Africa. Rural Black Southerners crafted these instruments and taught their children to play them. They would sometimes build one-stringed zithers on a wall, “with a strand of baling wire, two thread spools for bridges, and a half-pint whiskey bottle for a slider,” as slide guitar player Big Joe Williams recalled to one researcher.

Boys who showed promise on the diddley bow could graduate to a guitar if they were lucky enough to get a hold of one. Musicians such as Lightnin’ Hopkins, Elmore James, and B. B. King all first learned to play on the diddley bow.

Once musicians could afford guitars they quickly abandoned the diddley bow. And when the resonator guitar came along, they had a way to present their music to even larger audiences. The resonator, with its crisp metallic ring, created the signature sound of Delta blues. When you listen to Charley Patton, Robert Johnson, Son House, or Bukka White – among many others – you’re listening to Delta blues. Others, such as John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters, started out playing Delta blues.

This Delta sound is what craftsmen like Don Morrison aim to re-create. His resonators, like the very first of their kind, have built-in amplification – a feature that came about by demand.

Back in the early 1920s guitar players performing with dance orchestras couldn’t really stand out from the other players. Since there were no amplifiers, guitars were considered a part of the rhythm section instead of lead instruments. A vaudeville performer and promoter named George Beauchamp wanted an acoustic guitar that could play melodies over the orchestral instruments. He turned to John Dopyera, a violin repairman and luthier whose workshop was close to Beauchamp’s Los Angeles home.

John Dopyera and his brother Rudy experimented with various designs to achieve a smooth and balanced amplified sound and decided to mount cone-like aluminum resonators, similar to speaker cones, inside a metal guitar body. Dopyera found that using three smaller cones instead of one big cone gave the guitar the sound he’d been looking for. The tri-cone resonator guitar was born.

Beauchamp was impressed with the new design and proposed a business venture to Dopyera, who agreed. They created the National String Instrument Corporation in 1927. National guitars quickly became best sellers. The company soon created a wood-bodied model.

There were differences, though, between Beauchamp and Dopyera. Beauchamp preferred a single-cone resonator, not only because it was louder but because it was cheaper to make. For Dopyera, excellent sound and quality were top priorities. The two men finally went their separate ways when Dopyera found out that Beauchamp had claimed the patent for the single-cone resonator. In 1928 Dopyera quit National, with the intention of manufacturing his own single-cone resonator. John and his brother Emil formed the Dobro Manufacturing Company (named for the Dopyera Brothers).

Because National held the patent for his single-cone resonator, John Dopyera had to develop a new style of single-cone resonator. The single biggest change that he made was to the bridge of the guitar.

On a standard acoustic guitar, the bridge is glued directly to the top of the guitar. It has several functions: it holds the strings securely, sets the spacing of the strings, and acts as an external brace to the guitar body. Its other important job is transferring vibrations from the strings to the soundboard of the guitar. On a resonator guitar, the bridge is a part of the resonator cone.
For single-cone resonators, the cone has either a “biscuit” bridge or a “spider” bridge.
The National resonator used a biscuit cone, which is convex (pointing outward). Inside the tip of the cone sits a round wooden bridge (the biscuit), and set into the bridge is a small piece typically found on a guitar bridge – the saddle. The saddle keeps the strings elevated at the preferred height above the fretboard. The saddle transfers the string vibrations to the bridge and the bridge transfers them to the cone. The cone in turn vibrates, moving the air volume inside the guitar out through the sound holes.

For his Dobro resonator, John Dopyera decided to make his cone concave (pointing inward) and used an eight-legged “spider” bridge which straddled the cone. The vibrations from the strings travel from the saddle and down the spider “legs,” providing the cone with eight contact rods for vibration. The result is a loud, full-bodied tone.

Resonator guitars became popular in both blues and bluegrass. Dobro-style guitars, especially wood-bodied ones, were preferred by many bluegrass players. Blues players tended toward National-style tri-cone resonators. But plenty of guitarists break with tradition and use resonators in their own preferred ways.

Players liked resonators because, being louder than regular acoustic guitars, they could play for larger crowds in rural areas that didn’t have electricity for amplifiers. Street musicians, who had to set up without amplifiers, liked resonator guitars for the same reason.

Don Morrison makes both single-cone and tri-cone resonators. For his popular Rustbucket model, he says he flattens the corrugated steel sheets by walking on them so he can fit them through his ancient set of sheet metal rollers. Some of this old metal will still bear the makers’ stamps: Trademark Redcliffe, for example, or Lysaght Queen’s Head Australia or Emu Best. You’ll see these stamps on the backs of his guitars.

On some Rustbuckets he takes naturally weathered Galvo and adds an artificially rusted cone and sound holes, giving the guitar a distinctive, vintage look.

When he isn’t building resonators, Don Morrison is performing music, often Delta blues. During the ’90s his band, The Elmores, played blues classics by Elmore James and John Lee Hooker. He and his band Prawnhead are also a part of a “roots revolution” in popular music.

We honed our style on the streets and markets of Adelaide. We found the faster we played, the more money we made. We don’t play blues or folk, we don’t play country, we don’t play bluegrass, nor do we play rockabilly. But we play a mixture of all of those. We call it bluebilly.

Image courtesy of Slide Guitar for Beginners

Sticky: Support Beyond Highbrow

This is not a free website.

Regular Commenters – $10 donation

Delphi Murder Info Forum – $20 donation (optional)

Reading this site is like reading a newspaper or a news magazine. If you give money to the site, it is like you are buying a newspaper or magazine copy or subscription. Think of it that way. Reading for free is like going over to the newspaper rack and opening up newspapers to read without paying for them. That said, no one has to donate, and people may read for free all they like, especially if they are poor. But even if you are poor, I would suggest that regular readers might want to donate $3 or so.

This site is independent media. We consistently go against the entire mainstream corporate media, and we regularly expose the lies and machinations of the media and the government. We also discuss the  lies and machinations of foreign governments. The motto here is, Let the Truth Shine. We are not going to knowingly lie to you about anything here. According to readers, this is the most “uncomfortably honest site on the Internet.” That’s the purpose of the site.

Although we are on the Left, and this is a socialist website, we will also expose the lies, machinations, and falsehoods being peddled by the Left. If the Right is correct and the Left is wrong on some particular issue, we may well side with the Right, as abhorrent and wicked as they are.

All controversial issues must be evaluated for their truthfulness. Truths need to be reported on even if they make my side look bad and the other side look good. All lies and misinformation needs to be called out, even if calling out the lies makes my side look bad and the other side look good.

Although this is not my only source of income, I do not have a regular job for health reasons. Nevertheless, I work for myself and earn money that way via various income streams, and this happens to be one of them. So this is one of the jobs I do in order to make money.

I don’t feel like writing for this site for free. If that’s the way it is going to be, I may well just shut down the site. If you don’t see me posting for more than a day, that means that I am on strike. On strike for more wages or any wages at all. By asking for donations from this site, I am requesting to be paid for more labor. I am a worker who is asking to be compensated for his labor and hard work. I am not a beggar. I work very hard on this site, and it’s very hard work to do.

You may worry that you are making me rich. I figure I got paid $5/hour at most to write for this site. That’s half of the California minimum wage. If you want to know my current financial situation and whether I am feeling flush or busted broke, email me and I will let you know what is going on. I don’t expect you to donate to a rich man, but that’s not what you are doing here.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/contribute/

Why Don't Tech Workers Form Worker-Owned Companies?

Nutella: Not only is there a class war, but it’s mostly jealous elites, “captains of industry” etc who get jealous when workers who build their companies start making “too much”. Nowhere is this more true than in IT where many workers are way smarter than bosses and execs. So bosses start to feel inferior that a worker is better or smarter or demands high pay for hard work, then the elites go into “slap down” mode and have to bring workers down.
Nowhere was this more visible than in the 90s when even greedy bankers got jealous of American tech workers. Of course almost no tech workers make $450K so we are all LOWER class according to them. Which is just what they want.
Gotta keep the slaves and ants in line, so they can make their billions off the backs of the people. In fact Apple now makes $1 million profit per year per worker.
http://www.rense.com/general75/skilled.htm

Tech workers don’t like to call themselves working class, but face it, tech workers are workers! Highly paid workers, but they are still workers. Most are not even self-employed. They are generally selling their labor time to some capitalist like any other worker.
What I think would be really cool would be tech companies that were owned by the workers. No bosses! Actually that’s not even capitalism, but it still works on the profit motive. It’s run as a worker collective and the workers run it to make a profit. They then divide the profits up among the workers and decide how much to sink back into the enterprise, etc. It works great! It’s not capitalism because there’s no exploitation. No exploitation, no capitalism. You can have a profit motive without capitalism.
And a worker run tech company would hardly be interested in hiring the cheapest possible workers or outsourcing jobs because there’s really no benefit to them in doing that. They would have to fire some of their own workers to replace them with overseas workers, and most collectives may not wish to do that. Of course there may need to be layoffs and some worker owned businesses will go out of business, and in that case you are all out of job. But hey, that’s life under the profit motive and a competitive market, right?
This is not a capitalist mode of development. It’s called the Cooperative Mode of Development and it is considered to be a non-capitalist or some would say a socialist mode of development.
I would be interested in what comrade Nutella and his fellow tech workers think about tech workers owning their own businesses.
PS We are socialists but we believe in a market. We are what’s called Market Socialists. It works great!

Amazon Is Out to Kill Your Business (and Your Job)

Here.
I am starting to think that this company is an out and out menace. Their CEO Jeff Bezos is a real piece of crap, a radical rightwing Libertarian like so many awful IT CEO’s.
But worst is that Amazon’s model is apparently to replace every business in US and become a single corporation, WorldCo apparently, that has a monopoly on most business in the US and maybe later on the world.
No matter what your business is in the US, Amazon probably has you in its sights sooner or later.
Amazon is a menace.
 
 
 

How Those Hip, Groovy, Cool IT Capitalists Are Actually Some of the Worst Capitalists Ever

There was this idea that the Internet capitalists were somehow going to be different from the rest of the capitalists. The Internet guys were cool, hip, groovy and right on.
The truth is that the IT capitalists have actually turned out to be some of the worst capitalists of them all!
The brick and mortar model is far better for consumers than horrific ecommerce, where consumer abuse is the name of the game, and customer service is a nonexistent concept.
Ever noticed that if you ever have a problem with a product, you can always take it back to the brick and mortar store and get the matter cleared up to your satisfaction? That’s customer service at the brick and mortar level. It’s almost always superb because in brick and mortar, the customer is always right.
Because ecommerce has severed the face to face ties that humanize and create the great customer service model at the brick mortar level, the motto in ecommerce is the customer is always a sucker to be milked, ripped off, and hung out to dry. Ever tried to get your money back on software? I have. Suppose your software simply does not work. It’s happened to me. Too bad there are no refunds! I mean maybe there are refunds, but good luck getting one because all software companies have destroyed the notion of customer service. There simply is no customer service desk at most IT corporations. There’s no such thing.

A Rogue’s Gallery of IT CEO’s

Look at the examples.
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, and a truly horrible human being. Amazon’s corporate culture is one of the worst in the US and for the life of me, I do not know why anyone would work at this modern day IT salt mine there unless they were a masochist. Bezos orders all higher level employees to be at each other throats all the time, and everyone is trying to backstab and sabotage everyone else so they can steal that person’s job.
Quite a few people said that working for Amazon ruined their mental and physical health. The warehouse workers are horrifically abused, worked like whipped pack animals and forced to work in sweltering heat until they collapse. They are poorly paid and are frankly some of the worst-treated workers in America today. Psychopath Bezos delights in this dog eat dog law of the jungle atmosphere, as he feels that this is what has driven his company’s success. That’s dubious to me. At any rate, what of the human tool?
Bill Gates’ behavior when running his corporation was about as sociopathic as any career criminal.
(((Steve Ballmer))), his second in command, is an obvious psychopath and a terrifying man.
(((Ralph Ellison))), CEO of Oracle is an extreme narcissist and all-around lousy person. He’s basically a Libertarian like so many capitalists.
(((Mark Zuckerberg))) of Facebook out and out ripped off the idea for Facebook from a fellow college student he developed it with while never giving his partner a nickel.
If you study enough of these guys, you will notice how many of them stole their way to the top.
Microsoft stole just about every piece of software they ever developed. They violated endless patents. They cheated and backstabbed every single company that partnered with them. They tore up and violated every legal contract they ever signed. Bill Gates was the Ted Bundy of the IT corporate world.
Scott MacNealy, head of Sun Enterprises, was hero of the new geek Net culture. MacNealy slyly made use of monopoly law to go after Microsoft, and that was a very good thing. On the other hand, MacNealy was a Libertarian like so many capitalists, and it was clear to anyone that MacNealy was only anti-monopoly because a monopoly was ruining his business and would have loved nothing more than for Sun, victim of  monopoly, to become a monopoly itself and victimize its own rivals.
Even Steve Jobs was said to be an awful boss, a tyrant who terrorized all of his employees. He was an A-1 asshole of the first degree.
The founder of the Adultfriender dating site Andrew Conru ran an extremely amoral business, was an extreme psychopath and was hated by everyone who worked for him. His site, like most dating sites, is run on an organized crime model. For one thing, overbilling is standard practice and not an error. The FTC has issued at indictment against the company for systematic billing fraud. The overwhelming majority of dating sites and almost almost 100% of the sexually explicit ones are nothing but criminal enterprises run by organized crime masquerading as legitimate businesses. The vast majority of the CEO’s of dating sites belong in prison for fraud. The whole industry is incredibly enough run on an actual Fraud Model.
Former founder and CEO of Uber (((Travis Kalanick))) is a narcissistic psychopath and a sexist to boot. His corporate bro culture is horrible to their female employees, and the corporate environment is toxic and terrifying. Uber drivers are terribly abused, dishonestly called independent contractors, receive no benefits whatsoever, and are often paid below the minimum wage.
You could always boycott Uber and try Lyft, but Lyft is almost as bad as Uber.
Let’s hear it for the new sharing economy! Hip, hip, hooray!
Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, is a monster of a man with truly horrifying political views. He believes society should be ruled by an aristocratic elite, no doubt especially Internet billionaires, has a near-monarchical view of the state and displays a profound hatred for democracy, which he wants to phase out as it gets in the way of aristocratic royalist billionaire rule.
Elon Musk is no good. All you decent humans need to quit idolizing this capitalist POS right now. He’s the latest groovy businessman that everyone loves and idolizes.
He is very smart, this is true. He has some good ideas, this is true.
But have you seen how he runs his factories? Workers at his factories have long complained of severe abuse by management. The rot starts at the top with Musk and extends all the way down. They are poorly paid, seriously abused, and not allowed to from unions. Musk has arrogantly refused to even look at these problems and insists that they do not exist. He seems to have contempt for his own workers like so many capitalists. This guy is not the latest Tech Age groovy billionaire idol of humanity. He’s just another piece of crap capitalist like all the rest of them.
 

Website Going to a Subscription/Donation Model

To access the latest posts on the site, please scroll pasts the first two sticky posts. 
I am really getting sick and tired of this endless bashing of me by scumbags for trying to make some money off my website. It is really quite incredible.
So for now and into the future, the website will no longer be a free website. It will move to a donation model of many pay websites. However, like a lot of such sites, you will still be able to access a lot of content for free. For instance, all of the articles on the main site can be read for free forever! However, if you wish to comment on articles, there are now limits. If you become what I consider to be a regular commenter, you will have to give a minimum of $10 for a donation. After that, you can comment forever on the regular website’s thousands of articles forever!  You are certainly free to donate more than $10 if you wish, and many people do. I regularly get donations of $50, $100, $200, $250 and rarely up to $500.
People who like the site often give quite a bit of money to keep it going. I do not have a high income, as I have made ~$14,000/yr for the last several years. By donating/, you are mostly just helping me to survive.
Of course, when you go on those pay sites and read their free stuff, they hit you up to buy a subscription or buy whatever it is they are selling on a regular basis. It’s logical. Do you walk into a store and assume you are not going to buy anything? Of course not. You go into a store, and the owner assumes that you may well buy something. Same at the pay sites. So you get nag screens, pop-ups, limits on free viewing, etc. pretty regularly when you access their free content. And why not? Accessing the free content is like walking into a store fully intending not to buy a thing. The nag screens, requests to donate or buy a subscription, popups, etc. are like the owner repeatedly asking you if you want to buy something. The limits on free viewing are like when you spend an hour in some store not intending to buy anything, and the owner finally asks you to leave.
As this is now a pay site, it’s perfectly logical that I should have announcements or comments seeking people to donate to our services.
I am a journalist. I have a BA in Journalism from a good university. I have previously worked as an editor at a major magazine. I worked for a while as a freelance writer for money. And I am now a published author. Most authors don’t go to work for some newspaper or magazine and expect to work for free. They expect a wage or salary. Book authors don’t give their books away. No author who makes his living off writing gives his writing away for free. Why should he? Everyone else works for money. Why shouldn’t authors work for money too? Apparently my critics think I have no right to work for money! I have no right to offer my writing for sale instead of giving it away like an idiot. I am supposed to give all my material away for free and I guess starve or live on the streets and beg or something.
So if you hear, “Lindsay’s always hitting people up for donations,” first of all, this vicious lie of my critics is not even true. I only occasionally ask for money on here. A few site services now cost money, and people are told that if they wish to access that material, they must pay a fee.
Second, why they Hell can’t I ask people to give a donation?
You go to the New York Times, Washington Post or Guardian, and they hit you up for money all the time. The Times and Post only let you read a few articles for free a month, and then you are cut off. If you wish to comment on the Times or Post, you need to purchase some sort of subscription. The Guardian hits you up for donations at the end of every single article you read. And why not? Are the Times, Post, and Guardian supposed to give their product away for free? Why? How are they supposed to stay in business? How are they supposed to survive? They run a business. Why do you expect businesses to give their products away for free? They will all starve and live in the streets if that is the case.
Why should I be any different? This is also a news site run by an accredited, experienced, and published journalist/author. He doesn’t give his writing away for free. Not exactly anyway.
It is quite amazing what you can read on here for free. On the other hand, like many pay sites, to obtain full use of the site, you must make some sort of a purchase.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing idiots screeching that I ask for money. Damn right I do. This is a pay website, and like the rest of them, we will hit you up for donations like any other news outlet on the web. Why it is outrageous that I wish to work and survive and get paid for my labor in America is beyond me. This is something I will never understand.
If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

What Is Capitalism? What is Socialism? A Look at Some Noncapitalist Modes of Development

Mayur: I am all against uninhibited and all pervasive capitalism. Of course,the government enterprises should have an active role to play in the economy which should, however, vary from time to time. All the citizens should have access to the barest essentials, but strictly on need basis. Besides, I am all for giving teeth to the working class.
But communism, in my opinion, is a bit unnerving. In the societies which are quite addicted to liberty, people will find it unbearable to have the government’s boot on their throat everywhere,all the time. Capitalism existing side by side with socialism, that’s what I advocate. Wealth distribution and wealth creation both are important. There has to be a good incentive to create wealth, and, the economic inequalities have to be made tolerable. Enterprise, prosperity, and, the general well being of the masses. Something for everybody.

Yes this is what I want as a socialist.
To me socialism just means anything less than totally unregulated capitalism.
Socialists are people who are willing to limit the profits of the capitalists. Of course capitalists are people who believe in no limits their profits.So anyone who believes in limiting the profits of capital is anti-capitalist in a sense. Those people who want to let a market exist but to limit the profits of capital are called socialists.
Socialists also believe in redistribution. This means taking or even stealing money from the rich to give to the middle classes, working classes and the poor. This is antithetical to all models of capitalism. All models of capitalism call that theft.
Really what I am talking about here is social democracy.
Also, you can have workers running enterprises for themselves and keeping the profits. This is socialism to me.
Socialism to me is compatible for the profit motive. Capitalism to me is exploitation. No exploitation, no capitalism. Just because someone makes a profit, they are not necessarily capitalists.
One man businesses are not capitalist. This is simply a worker selling his labor power on the labor market to other workers. Labor markets are compatible with socialism as is single proprietorships.
The Cooperative Mode is a noncapitalist mode.
Actually the Japanese model, which is similar to the economics of Nazi Germany or National Socialism, is also a noncapitalist model.
My credit union is owned by the its consumers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.
Many nonprofits do extremely well and hire many workers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.
This thing that some call State Capitalism is actually a noncapitalist mode of development. Some call Russia State Capitalism.
The Chinese model is also a noncapitalist mode of development. This has also been called a form of State Capitalism.
City and town operated businesses can often be run very well especially if they compete against other cities and towns. This is the Chinese model. This is a noncapitalist mode of development.

DNC Democrats Burn in Hell

Here.
Take your studies and stick em where the sun don’t shine. They’re not in parallel markets anyway. ATT and Time Warner “compete” in the cable market. In a typical city, you have one DSL provider and one cable provider.  You also have one satellite provider. In truth,  none of them compete at all. They all offer extremely slow service and criminally usurious rates. High speed Internet is much faster and much cheaper in the rest of the world where the government often owns the lines. We capitalist retards in the US let the capitalist crooks build their own phone lines and lay their own cable, hence, every city has a monopoly DSL and phone carrier and a monopoly cable carrier. Cable service is horrific in most US cities. Comcast is usually rated as the worst company in the US.
Another Hillary clone. Jon Ossoff, who lost in Newt Gingrich’s district in Atlanta, was another Clinton/Obama corporate Democrat “Centrist.” There is really nothing Centrist whatsoever about this Clintonite cancer that has taken over the Democratic Party. It started under Bill Clinton when the DINO named Bill created the DLC to take over the DNC which had become too pro-people and not sufficiently pro-rich and pro-corporate. Hence the lead DINO himself engineered a coup in which the DLC basically took over the DNC. Around the same time, a similar tumor called “New Labour” grew in the UK, destroying the once pro-worker and pro-people Labour Party and leaving the UK with two Tory parties.
Corbyn’s recent victory in the last election is part of a brutal civil war in Labour between New Labour Tories and the real Labourites under Corbyn. The entire UK media, including the “leftwing” corporate Labour outlet The Guardian have come out ferociously against Corbyn. Similarly, the Guardian absolutely hates Bernie Sanders and has always supported the Clintonite usurpers and traitors. Surprise surprise it is also a leading member of the (((Western media))) that lies constantly about the war in Syria in order to start another War for the Jews in the Levant.
“Centrist” Dems and “Centrist” Labourites are frankly a cancer, mostly because there is nothing centrist about them. Or, if that’s centrism, let me off the bus please. I signed up for progress, not another party of the corporations and the rich.

In America, White Workers Think They Are Aristocrats

What boggles the mind is that how many of the American people (conservatives) accept aristocratic rule over rule by the people. This is a standard tenet of conservatism, so if you are a conservative, that means that you think that aristocrats should rule society, not the people as democracy demands. Conservatism by its very nature is anti-democratic because aristocratic rule can never be a democracy.
It is almost as if your average working class American thinks he is some sort of an aristocrat. Is that it? We Whites are all little rich people, little Trumps lording it over the inferior darkies? And it follows that US Whites connect popular rule or rule by the people with “Nigger and Beaner Rule.” Once again, this is exactly like Latin America, where Brown Rule automatically means Communism and is never democratic or legitimate while White rule is always democratic and just. The Latin American Whites follow the Straussian rule: the strong must rule the weak.
These White fools just don’t get the depth of their own folly. Their enemies are not the Blacks and the Mexicans and the immigrants and the Muslims like these tards think. Their enemies first and foremost are the White rich, their class enemies. So in order to form a common front against their racial enemies, White workers have lined up with their own class enemies who have proceeded to wage ferocious class war against the White workers while the workers stand up and cheer for how hard they are getting reamed. White workers are not only little aristocrats, they are masochists to boot!