The Essence of Evil: Sex with Children Has Become Big Business in America,” by John W. Whitehead

Interesting article. I do not think much of Mr. Whitehead or his lousy institute. I believe he is a fundamentalist Christian, and his institute is of that ilk.

Anyway, this is an interesting piece. However, I am getting a bit tired of hearing about this. The seems to be some sort of background evil in many capitalist societies. In fact, I know a man who became a Communist solely because of sex trafficking. He said that sex trafficking is an essential feature of capitalism. I would be inclined to believe. If you have capitalism, it seems that you have sex trafficking. They go together like peanut butter and jelly.

The usual propaganda that appears in all such articles in well on display in this piece. That includes the typical feminist lie of conflating adult women with minor teenage girls and little girls (They’re all the same – didn’t you know?) and especially conflating teenage girls with little girls (Didn’t you know that a 17 year old girl is exactly the same as a 7 year old girl?). I would wager that most of the “little girls” in this article are actually teenage girls.

That doesn’t mean it’s not horrible, but still, let’s be fair. Exactly how many little girl children are being trafficked in the US to pedophiles or child molesters? Exactly how many men who buy sex in the US want to be a damned little girl? I would say few.

Unfortunately, a Hell of a lot of male sex buyers would love to purchase a teenage girl, but that’s a bird of a different feather.

We also have the usual feminist crap about going after pimps (fine) and going after johns, while leaving the whores alone. Yeah, let’s prosecute the men who buy whores and let the whores off the hook! That’s the ticket. Because if it wasn’t for these evil men buying whores, there would be no such thing as whores. Haha.

There have probably been whores as long as there have been human females. Whoredom is an essential component of the Feminine Spirit for a variety of reasons that we need not go into here.

Wars on Prostitution strikes me as about as stupid as Wars on Drugs,Terror, Crime, Violence against Women, and other hopeless conflicts that cannot be won. None of these things are going to go away in the forseeable future, and they will probably not go away in any future I would imagine. At any rate, if the future looks about like today, surely all of these things will always be with us.

And this is the problem with female thinking. Women actually believe that we can wipe out terrorism, drugs, crime, and especially violence against women. All we need do is declare war on it and wa-la!

Every woman I know thinks we can wipe violence against women off the face of the Earth. How moronic. See how simple-minded women are? This is because women are utopians who more or less live in a fantasy world of gingerbread houses, princes and princesses, and everyone living happily ever after.

If women need to believe this to get through the day, that’s just fine. We all have our crutches. But when female thinking becomes public policy and law, all Hell breaks loose, and society descends into chaos. Which is exactly what is happening in the West now that we are living in a Matriarchy where female values, codes, rules, and ethics are set in stone in public policy and law.

Given that this  sex trafficking garbage has been going on for so long, how come we can’t get rid of it? Isn’t there any way to reduce the incidence of this nasty stuff – sex trafficking of minors?

The article at least gets the term sex trafficking right. A lot of feminist kooks are describing all prostitution as sex trafficking. The recent Epstein court case involved some pretty shady definitions of sex trafficking.

Sex trafficking is pretty much sex slavery, and it typically involves pimps. If you have been forced into prostitution or especially if you can’t leave any time you want to due to coercion, threats, or imprisonment, you are being trafficked. Any female prostitute who is free to go at any time is not being sex trafficked, period.

This article also tries to make the case that this is a new thing. It’s not.

It also tries to say that this stuff is exploding due to porn and whatnot. I’ve not seen any evidence that sex trafficking is on the rise in the US. If someone can provide me with some figures, I would happy to look at them.

I suppose the world is pretty much a lousy place, and horrors like this are simply part of modern capitalist society. But this crap was going on with primitive tribes before there was any capitalism. In a typical war, the victorious tribe killed all the men and took all the women as sex slaves. See Mohammad’s victory over the Jewish tribes of Arabia. And he wasn’t the only one. This has been the traditional method of tribal warfare for as long as we can tell.

Probably the best conclusion is that we humans are not that great. Sure, we have a lot of good in us, but we also have a Hell of a lot of evil (especially us men). It seems to be part of the human condition, and there doesn’t seem to be any getting away from it. Perhaps it’s best to accept that certain horrors characteristic of humans are here to stay and move on. We only have one life after all. No point wasting it wailing at the sky when all your crying won’t change a thing.

The Essence of Evil: Sex with Children Has Become Big Business in America

Important article by John Whitehead first published by the Rutherford Institute and Global Research on April 24, 2019

Children are being targeted and sold for sex in America every day.”—John Ryan, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

Children, young girls—some as young as 9 years old—are being bought and sold for sex in America. The average age for a young woman being sold for sex is now 13 years old.

This is America’s dirty little secret.

Sex trafficking—especially when it comes to the buying and selling of young girls—has become big business in America, the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second most-lucrative commodity traded illegally after drugs and guns.

As investigative journalist Amy Fine Collins notes,

“It’s become more lucrative and much safer to sell malleable teens than drugs or guns. A pound of heroin or an AK-47 can be retailed once, but a young girl can be sold 10 to 15 times a day—and a ‘righteous’ pimp confiscates 100 percent of her earnings.”

Consider this: every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry.

According to USA Todayadults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.

Who buys a child for sex? Otherwise ordinary men from all walks of life.

They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse,” writes journalist Tim Swarens, who spent more than a year investigating the sex trade in America.

In Georgia alone, it is estimated that 7,200 men (half of them in their 30s) seek to purchase sex with adolescent girls each month, averaging roughly 300 a day.

On average, a child might be raped by 6,000 men during a five-year period of servitude.

It is estimated that at least 100,000 children—girls and boys—are bought and sold for sex in the U.S. every year, with as many as 300,000 children in danger of being trafficked each year. Some of these children are forcefully abducted, others are runaways, and still others are sold into the system by relatives and acquaintances.

“Human trafficking—the commercial sexual exploitation of American children and women, via the Internet, strip clubs, escort services, or street prostitution—is on its way to becoming one of the worst crimes in the U.S.,” said prosecutor Krishna Patel.

CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK

This is an industry that revolves around cheap sex on the fly, with young girls and women who are sold to 50 men each day for $25 apiece, while their handlers make $150,000 to $200,000 per child each year.

This is not a problem found only in big cities.

It’s happening everywhere, right under our noses, in suburbs, cities and towns across the nation.

As Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children points out,

The only way not to find this in any American city is simply not to look for it.”

Don’t fool yourselves into believing that this is merely a concern for lower income communities or immigrants.

It’s not.

It is estimated that there are 100,000 to 150,000 under-aged child sex workers in the U.S. These girls aren’t volunteering to be sex slaves. They’re being lured—forced—trafficked into it. In most cases, they have no choice.

In order to avoid detection (in some cases aided and abetted by the police) and cater to male buyers’ demand for sex with different women, pimps and the gangs and crime syndicates they work for have turned sex trafficking into a highly mobile enterprise, with trafficked girls, boys and women constantly being moved from city to city, state to state, and country to country.

For instance, the Baltimore-Washington area, referred to as The Circuit, with its I-95 corridor dotted with rest stops, bus stations and truck stops, is a hub for the sex trade.

No doubt about it: this is a highly profitable, highly organized and highly sophisticated sex trafficking business that operates in towns large and small, raking in upwards of $9.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone by abducting and selling young girls for sex.

Every year, the girls being bought and sold gets younger and younger.

The average age of those being trafficked is 13. Yet as the head of a group that combats trafficking pointed out,

“Let’s think about what average means. That means there are children younger than 13. That means 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds.

“For every 10 women rescued, there are 50 to 100 more women who are brought in by the traffickers. Unfortunately, they’re not 18- or 20-year-olds anymore,” noted a 25-year-old victim of trafficking. “They’re minors as young as 13 who are being trafficked. They’re little girls.”

Where did this appetite for young girls come from?

Look around you.

Young girls have been sexualized for years now in music videos, on billboards, in television ads, and in clothing stores. Marketers have created a demand for young flesh and a ready supply of over-sexualized children.

“All it takes is one look at MySpace photos of teens to see examples—if they aren’t imitating porn they’ve actually seen, they’re imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they’ve absorbed elsewhere,” writes Jessica Bennett for Newsweek. “Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school.”

This is what Bennett refers to as the “pornification of a generation.”

“In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn’t take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives,” concludes Bennett. “Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.”

In other words, the culture is grooming these young people to be preyed upon by sexual predators. And then we wonder why our young women are being preyed on, trafficked and abused?

Social media makes it all too easy. As one news center reported,

“Finding girls is easy for pimps. They look on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networks. They and their assistants cruise malls, high schools and middle schools. They pick them up at bus stops. On the trolley. Girl-to-girl recruitment sometimes happens.”

Foster homes and youth shelters have also become prime targets for traffickers.

Rarely do these girls enter into prostitution voluntarily. Many start out as runaways or throwaways, only to be snatched up by pimps or larger sex rings. Others, persuaded to meet up with a stranger after interacting online through one of the many social networking sites, find themselves quickly initiated into their new lives as sex slaves.

Debbie, a straight-A student who belonged to a close-knit Air Force family living in Phoenix, Ariz., is an example of this trading of flesh. Debbie was 15 when she was snatched from her driveway by an acquaintance-friend. Forced into a car, Debbie was bound and taken to an unknown location, held at gunpoint and raped by multiple men. She was then crammed into a small dog kennel and forced to eat dog biscuits. Debbie’s captors advertised her services on Craigslist. Those who responded were often married with children, and the money that Debbie “earned” for sex was given to her kidnappers. The gang raping continued. After searching the apartment where Debbie was held captive, police finally found Debbie stuffed in a drawer under a bed. Her harrowing ordeal lasted for 40 days.

While Debbie was fortunate enough to be rescued, others are not so lucky. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, nearly 800,000 children go missing every year (roughly 2,185 children a day).

With a growing demand for sexual slavery and an endless supply of girls and women who can be targeted for abduction, this is not a problem that’s going away anytime soon.

For those trafficked, it’s a nightmare from beginning to end.

Those being sold for sex have an average life expectancy of seven years, and those years are a living nightmare of endless rape, forced drugging, humiliation, degradation, threats, disease, pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages, torture, pain, and always the constant fear of being killed or, worse, having those you love hurt or killed.

Peter Landesman paints the full horrors of life for those victims of the sex trade in his New York Times article “The Girls Next Door”:

Andrea told me that she and the other children she was held with were frequently beaten to keep them off-balance and obedient. Sometimes they were videotaped while being forced to have sex with adults or one another. Often, she said, she was asked to play roles: the therapist patient or the obedient daughter. Her cell of sex traffickers offered three age ranges of sex partners–toddler to age 4, 5 to 12 and teens–as well as what she called a “damage group.” “In the damage group, they can hit you or do anything they want to,” she explained. “Though sex always hurts when you are little, so it’s always violent, everything was much more painful once you were placed in the damage group.”

What Andrea described next shows just how depraved some portions of American society have become.

“They’d get you hungry then to train you” to have oral sex. “They put honey on a man. For the littlest kids, you had to learn not to gag. And they would push things in you so you would open up better. We learned responses. Like if they wanted us to be sultry or sexy or scared. Most of them wanted you scared. When I got older, I’d teach the younger kids how to float away so things didn’t hurt.”

Immigration and customs enforcement agents at the Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax, Va., report that when it comes to sex, the appetites of many Americans have now changed. What was once considered abnormal is now the norm. These agents are tracking a clear spike in the demand for harder-core pornography on the Internet. As one agent noted,

“We’ve become desensitized by the soft stuff; now we need a harder and harder hit.”

This trend is reflected by the treatment many of the girls receive at the hands of the drug traffickers and the men who purchase them. Peter Landesman interviewed Rosario, a Mexican woman who had been trafficked to New York and held captive for a number of years. She said:

“In America, we had ‘special jobs.’ Oral sex, anal sex, often with many men. Sex is now more adventurous, harder.”

A common thread woven through most survivors’ experiences is being forced to go without sleep or food until they have met their sex quota of at least 40 men. One woman recounts how her trafficker made her lie face down on the floor when she was pregnant and then literally jumped on her back, forcing her to miscarry.

Holly Austin Smith (image on the right) was abducted when she was 14 years old, raped, and then forced to prostitute herself. Her pimp, when brought to trial, was only made to serve a year in prison.

Barbara Amaya was repeatedly sold between traffickers, abused, shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, trafficked, beaten, and jailed all before she was 18 years old.

“I had a quota that I was supposed to fill every night. And if I didn’t have that amount of money, I would get beat, thrown down the stairs. He beat me once with wire coat hangers, the kind you hang up clothes, he straightened it out and my whole back was bleeding.”

As David McSwane recounts in a chilling piece for the Herald-Tribune:

“In Oakland Park, an industrial Fort Lauderdale suburb, federal agents in 2011 encountered a brothel operated by a married couple. Inside ‘The Boom Boom Room,’ as it was known, customers paid a fee and were given a condom and a timer and left alone with one of the brothel’s eight teenagers, children as young as 13. A 16-year-old foster child testified that he acted as security, while a 17-year-old girl told a federal judge she was forced to have sex with as many as 20 men a night.”

One particular sex trafficking ring catered specifically to migrant workers employed seasonally on farms throughout the southeastern states, especially the Carolinas and Georgia, although it’s a flourishing business in every state in the country. Traffickers transport the women from farm to farm, where migrant workers would line up outside shacks, as many as 30 at a time, to have sex with them before they were transported to yet another farm where the process would begin all over again.

This growing evil is, for all intents and purposes, out in the open.

Trafficked women and children are advertised on the internet, transported on the interstate, and bought and sold in swanky hotels.

Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government’s war on sex trafficking—much like the government’s war on terrorism, drugs and crime—has become a perfect excuse for inflicting more police state tactics (police check points, searches, surveillance, and heightened security) on a vulnerable public, while doing little to make our communities safer.

So what can you do?

Educate yourselves and your children about this growing menace in our communities.

Stop feeding the monster: Sex trafficking is part of a larger continuum in America that runs the gamut from homelessness, poverty, and self-esteem issues to sexualized television, the glorification of a pimp/ho culture—what is often referred to as the pornification of America—and a billion dollar sex industry built on the back of pornography, music, entertainment, etc.

This epidemic is largely one of our own making, especially in a corporate age where the value placed on human life takes a backseat to profit. It is estimated that the porn industry brings in more money than Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Yahoo.

Call on your city councils, elected officials and police departments to make the battle against sex trafficking a top priority, more so even than the so-called war on terror and drugs and the militarization of law enforcement.

Stop prosecuting adults for victimless “crimes” such as growing lettuce in their front yard and focus on putting away the pimps and buyers who victimize these young women.

Finally, the police need to do a better job of training, identifying and responding to these issues; communities and social services need to do a better job of protecting runaways, who are the primary targets of traffickers; legislators need to pass legislation aimed at prosecuting traffickers and “johns,” the buyers who drive the demand for sex slaves; and hotels need to stop enabling these traffickers, by providing them with rooms and cover for their dirty deeds.

That so many women and children continue to be victimized, brutalized and treated like human cargo is due to three things: one, a consumer demand that is increasingly lucrative for everyone involved—except the victims; two, a level of corruption so invasive on both a local and international scale that there is little hope of working through established channels for change; and three, an eerie silence from individuals who fail to speak out against such atrocities.

But the truth is that we are all guilty of contributing to this human suffering. The traffickers are guilty. The consumers are guilty. The corrupt law enforcement officials are guilty. The women’s groups who do nothing are guilty. The foreign peacekeepers and aid workers who contribute to the demand for sex slaves are guilty. Most of all, every individual who does not raise a hue and cry over the atrocities being committed against women and children in almost every nation around the globe—including the United States—is guilty.

The Pete Townsend Child Porn Case and the Phenomenon of Adults Molested as Children Seeking out Child Porn to Watch

Greg Rambo: Since you’re on the subject of CP/pedos, whatever happened with the legal case against Pete Townsend of The Who for accessing child porno? The only reason I ask is because I understand he and Roger Daltrey are about to go out on another Who tour, but I don’t know if they have any U.S. dates planned.

The last time they tried to come here a few years ago and do a Super Bowl halftime gig, there were all kinds of protests to keep Townsend out of this country. Not that people are lined up to see a couple of 74, 75 year old guys get up on stage, but I thought the concert promoters would shun him due to his charges in England of accessing child porno online.

I’m not sure but I think Pete Townsend was pretty much innocent. I believe got molested himself as a kid and that’s why he was looking this stuff up.

Actually a fair number of people looking at CP on the web are females who were molested as girls, and due to that being done to them, go looking for CP of other girls getting that done to them. These women have no interest in molesting children. I have no idea what they are doing. Perhaps they are reliving their trauma in some way or another and perhaps Townsend was doing the same thing. I am certain that Pete Townsend is not a pedophile.

I remember there was a very famous CP case, probably the most famous series of CP videos ever made, of a girl’s father who made CP of him having sex with the daughter when she was quite young (9-13?).

Of course I haven’t seen any of these videos, but I have seen a minute or two of the clean part of one of them where she is sitting in a chair with all her clothes on fidgeting, and then introduces herself. She’s 9 years old and even though there’s no CP in the clip I saw, it still freaked the living Hell out of me because she’s such a young girl.

There’s nothing wrong with watching nonsexual parts of CP clips. You can go to the FBI site and watch clips of CP videos where nothing sexual is happening. They want to see if you recognize the girl or the man or man’s voice in the video. It’s still creepy though because the girls are so young that it freaks you out. In one that I saw, you can only hear the guy’s voice, and that combined with such a young girl on the screen has a very creepy effect.

I believe they estimate that 4-5 million people have watched at least one of those famous videos. Do you see what I am talking about when I say that LE is swamped by this stuff? Suppose LE went on a goose chase to hunt down 4-5 million mostly men who watched those videos?

They don’t have the resources or time to hunt down even 10% or probably even 1% of those guys. The prison and jail population would double or triple. That’s what I mean when I say they have triage this stuff and only go after the worst.

If anyone remembers the girl’s name, tell me in the comments. Those videos were famous all over the world.

I’ve never seen the videos, but I have been told that the girl is clearly enjoying it, and it’s also clear that she deeply loves her father and vice versa. I told you the morality of this stuff is complicated, right? In fact there are quite a few people out there who think there is nothing wrong with these videos as they simply show a girl and her father showing their deep love for each other. I don’t think that’s a good argument.

However, child porn star became an adult and had a change of heart and decided that she got molested and that this was not ok at all. Anyway she became very angry about what was done to her considering that lots of copies of this video were floating around the Net.

A lot of people had nicknamed her the child porn star and teased or made fun of her about this. This wasn’t exactly the sort of fame she wanted to have in life. She decided to file a lawsuit against some  men who had downloaded her videos. Along with her investigators, she found many men who had downloaded these videos. I don’t believe police were involved.

Out of this large number, they selected out the 1,500 wealthiest and sued them for everything they had under “deep pockets” legal doctrine. And she won. I believe she got $1.5 million out of one man. I thought it was a bit ridiculous, but my Mom vociferously defended the lawsuit and had no sympathy for the guy. No one went to jail. It was a civil case.

So one reason you might not want to download real CP onto your drive is that the girl might grow up to be a woman and she might sue you for everything you’ve got for saving the video she was in to your drive. Something to think about.

There are discussions of these videos on the Net among people who have seen it. At one time I read a number of these discussions. Most of the people discussing the videos were young men, and few of them seemed to be actual pedos. Mostly they just seemed to be curiosity seekers or men driven by the lure of the forbidden.

But I was surprised at how many women who had been molested as girls had watched these very famous CP videos. There were quite a women like this on the threads making  thoughtful comments about the videos. I have no idea why women who got molested as girls go look at CP. Perhaps as with Townsend above, they are reliving their trauma and see this is as somehow therapeutic.

So not everyone looking at CP is a bad person. A lot of them are, but not all of them.

There Must Be Millions of Pedos and Pedo Offenders on the Internet

Question 7 – We are discussing what many consider an inappropriate topic, the kind that sets off bells and whistles among the SJW moral crusaders.

We may not actively endorse CP but are suspects simply due to the huge interest we have on this topic.

From a legal standpoint, are we potential pedophile suspects?

YES or NO

No, not at all. Anyway, looking at this conversation, it’s obvious that no one here is an actual pedophile or even has an inordinate interest in sex with minors.

Just on Tumblr pages alone I saw so much blatant and open pedo-type stuff as discussed below that it blew my mind.

I saw people openly claiming to be pedophiles, screaming that they distribute and collect CP, blatantly looking for Moms with little kids that they can molest, etc. I saw an awful lot of weirdo Moms with little kids out there wanting to be “pedo Moms” and hook up with a pedo and let him molest their kid, probably for money.

There were couples who openly stated that they were a “loving family” and were looking for others. That means that they had some kids and the mother and father were having sex with the kids – that’s what a loving family is. There was a woman who said she caught her husband molesting her 5 year old daughter and at first she was mad, but then she started doing it too.

None of the many people posting said anything about being investigated, much less arrested, based on their Net posting. They were all just getting away with it. All of those people had known Tumblr handles, and it would not have been difficult to get warrants to investigate them based on what they posted, but I guess LE has better things to do.

If the cops wanted to even investigate those people, they could be looking at hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of cases. If you go on to accessing CP, you are looking at hundreds of thousands or millions of suspects. I was stunned at how much of this pedo bullshit there was out there. It made me realize that there’s no way that cops can go after all these people. You would have to launch an investigation into each one.

You can’t arrest someone for posting on the Net that they collect or distribute CP, that they want to be a pedo Mom, that they are a pedo, that they want to get with a pedo Mom, that they have a loving family or that they are currently molesting their kids. I think you would need more evidence than just someone shooting off their mouths. The person could always say they were talking crap, lying, or fantasizing.

A confession doesn’t mean much. People make false confessions all the time. I could confess right now that I am a serial killer who has killed 20 people, raped 50 women, mugged 75 people, held up 100 liquor stores, and have been selling heroin and meth for the last 15 years. I could even make up names of the victims, dates and locations when the crimes happened, etc. I could even describe the crimes in detail.

Of course I have never done any of these things, but that doesn’t stop me from confessing  to crimes I have never done. See why confessions aren’t necessarily worth a hill of beans?

Obviously the cops have to completely triage this whole mess and only go after the worst offenders. If they went after everyone breaking the pedo laws, I believe they would not have enough manpower, they would never sleep, and the jails, prisons, and courts would be flooded. There are too many people breaking the pedo laws. They can even only arrest maybe 5-10% of them.

So as you can see, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of pedo offenders, child molesters, and CP distributors, collectors and accessers out there, a bunch of obviously normal guys with no pedo interests at all (us on this blog) talking about how not to stumble on this bullshit or download it out of curiosity is pretty much a zero on the cops’ Pedo-Meter.

On the weird Tumblr pages alone there seemed to be thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pedo types or people breaking CP laws. I almost fell out of my chair when I grasped the extent of this bullshit.

Have You Ever Accessed CP Knowingly or Unknowingly? Take the CP Test Today!

SHI: OK, so just to clarify things one last time. You know I really must dot the i’s and cross the t’s, otherwise I can’t ease my mind. A very simple question really. Simply answer whether I am guilty or not guilty of CP in the following situations. OK?

A) I I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl on an Internet browser/mobile app. But, it does not display her vagina. I do not immediately close the browser.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

B) Same thing as above but I save the pic on my computer/phone. Not due to pornographic intent but only because I feel it’s “cute”.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

C) I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl but it displays her vagina. I immediately shut down the browser and erase all my cookies.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

D) Same as above. But, I look at the pics with keen interest and even save it on my PC/mobile.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

E) I accidentally see the pic of a 12-year old boy flashing his penis. Maybe I save the pic on my computer because it’s funny. Reminds me of my own 12-year old self.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

F) I accidentally see the nude pic of a 7-year old girl along with her vagina. But, I have no negative intention. I’d treat her like it’s my daughter. It is just a child after all. I save the pic on my computer.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Correct answers only, please. To clarify, I’m not a pedophile. These are hypothetical questions. I strongly believe that children below 16 years should not be disturbed or accosted by adults. They should be left alone to enjoy their childhoods.

The question is at what point does one draw the line?

If you’re turned on by teenage girls, you’re not a pedophile anyway.  There’s only one word for men who are turned on by teenage girls: normal! If you are a man and teenage girls don’t turn you on, there’s two possibilities: You’re either gay or you’re dead.

All these living men who claim that teenage girls don’t turn them on and that all men turned on by teenage girls are pedophiles are simply faggots! They’re gay.  They’re homosexuals. They put men’s cocks in their mouths and suck on them until the cocks spurt cum down their fag throats. They take men’s hard cocks up their anuses until they ejaculate.

I mean you can argue if a man who does that is a man, but I don’t think any man who sucks on penises and lets penises penetrate his anus is not much of a man. Not any man I would want to know anyway! Real men don’t suck cocks! Real men don’t take cock up the ass! I mean is that point even open for debate?

Even if little girls turn you on, you’re not abnormal. 90% of adult men are aroused by preteen girls. 24% of all men are aroused by preteen girls as much as they are aroused by mature females.

In  other words, 24% of all men score “pedophilic” in the lab. Do you understand now why I don’t care if some guy gets turned on by little girls? I mean if that’s the case, he’s almost normal.

So if you are a man, I don’t really care if little girls turn you on. I am a lot more interested if little girls turn you on and mature females do not: that means you are a pedophile.  There’s no shame in being a biological pedophile, but I think it is cause for concern in a sense because I think you are at risk of committing a sex crime.

Keep in mind that I have done actual counseling with pedophilic men who had no attraction to mature adults and were only attracted to minors. I  liked both of them a lot, and I thought they were great people. Neither had offended. One man was so wracked with guilt that he was going  to cut his penis off in order not put kids at risk – that’s how deeply wrong he felt messing with kids was. He kept saying over and over, “I cannot hurt a kid…”

People have the wrong idea about pedophiles. However, I do think that all actual pedophiles should be in some sort of therapy designed to keep them from offending. Either that or put them all on an island where everyone is over 18. Why is that such a bad idea? I really like that idea.

I will go over  your hypothetical  scenarios:

A) I I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl on an Internet browser/mobile app. But, it does not display her vagina. I do not immediately close the browser.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Not guilty. There’s no CP.

B) Same thing as above but I save the pic on my computer/phone. Not due to pornographic intent but only because I feel it’s “cute”.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Same thing. There’s no CP.

C) I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl but it displays her vagina. I immediately shut down the browser and erase all my cookies.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY’

You stumbled upon it so you’re not guilty.

D) Same as above. But, I look at the pics with keen interest and even save it on my PC/mobile.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Unfortunately, let’s put it this way: you now have CP on your drive. I seriously request that you get that crap off your drive right now.

E) I accidentally see the pic of a 12-year old boy flashing his penis. Maybe I save the pic on my computer because it’s funny. Reminds me of my own 12-year old self.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

I don’t know if that’s illegal or not. If it was put up there as CP, then it might be illegal. If it’s put up there for some other reason, probably not. But I don’t know much about CP with males because I’m not into males. I only like females. Hell with males ha ha.

F) I accidentally see the nude pic of a 7-year old girl along with her vagina. But, I have no negative intention. I’d treat her like it’s my daughter. It is just a child after all. I save the pic on my computer.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Yeah, you now have CP on your drive. I don’t care if you saved it because it reminds you of your daughter. Get it off your drive right now.

The Case of the Blackcat Scans: Material Is Legal until the Cops Decide It’s Not Legal

RL: A naked 7 year old girl standing in the woods is legal. She has to be posed in some erotic position for it to be illegal.

Jason: Never trust the law cause it’s vague. Even the laws making adult porn legal are vague. If you’re in a Bible Belt or semi-Bible Belt state, it could be a scary ordeal. So the best rule of thumb is to avoid cops like Jews avoiding the SS.

Case in point: I’ve read people put in jail over anime of all things. That stuff and the toon CP are not real, but the laws are so vague and in some countries (Canada, Australia) that  matter is explicitly illegal.

Anime CP and cartoon CP? No one’s ever gone down on that in the US. Where did you hear about people going down on that? Did they go down on it in some other country? However, the US has gone after some of the artists who draw the toon CP, which I think is totally messed up. The FBI says toon CP is legal, no one will go after you for accessing or even possessing toon CP, but the guys who draw CP go to prison. WTF?

Jason is correct. The CP laws are insanely vague. Supposedly there are guidelines and some stuff is pretty much legal, other stuff is definitely illegal, and apparently there is material in between, whatever the Hell that means. As I pointed out, a 7 year old naked girl standing on a beach with her naked family has long been said to be perfectly legal. She has to be posed erotically, typically with “lascivious display of the genitalia” as the law puts it, for a photo like that to be CP.

Nevertheless, pigs have gone after parents for taking nude pics of their little 2-3 year old kids romping in the bathtub. You got that right. There were attempts to prosecute these parents. The  parents had sent the photos to a photo developer to be developed, and some moralfag employee at the developing business had noticed the photos and called the cops like an idiot.

The pigs were moralfags too for even going after these poor parents in the first place. I believe all of the parents were eventually let off, but they were put through a lot of Hell before their names were cleared. I believe their names were even published in the paper.

The CP laws are insane. Stuff is perfectly legal until the day it’s not.

The Blackcat scans were a “clothed model” series of very young girls, maybe 11-12 years old, posing fully clothed but wearing very dirty outfits and posed in extremely erotic poses.

I have seen a lot of those scans, and I really don’t like them. I find them disturbing and upsetting for some reason. They feel creepy to me.

Those are children – little girls – and I don’t like the idea of sexualizing children and little girls. Little girls don’t even have a sex drive.

I know this is controversial, but I am certain that it is true. No children have actual sex drives in the way that grown men and women do. Pedophiles insist that children have raging sex drives and are dying to have sex with the pedos, but to me this is just a huge pedo lie.

I did some research to look into this. By the way, this research was very hard to do as the topic of child sexuality – even the fact that it apparently does not exist – is so completely verboten and stigmatized that almost no one writes about it.  ]

If you are interested, the actual female sex drive comes out ~4-5 months before menarche, which nowadays is 13 years old. At least that was my conclusion. So the onset of the female sex drive in the USA right now is 13. You wonder why your 13 year old daughter is boy-crazy. Well, there ya go.

Teenage girls? Fine. They’re already sexualized. Just look at them. They’re sexualized on account of merely existing in the manner that they do. Plus most of them have raging sex drives nowadays, and a majority of even young teenage girls are are masturbating like maniacs. This seems to be a new thing. I don’t remember girls or even women in my generation being like this. Is this the early sexualization that everyone talks about? What’s up with that? Is it all the online porn?

I realize that the Blackcat girls are very pretty, but to me an 11-12 year old girl, no matter how beautiful she is, is simply not a sexual object. She’s beautiful in the way that a waterfall or rainbow is beautiful. Ever wanted to fuck a rainbow? See what I mean?

The girls in the Blackcat scans were all gotten into doing the sessions by their Moms. Both the Moms and the girls were impoverished, typically from rural Russia.

The men who did the Blackcat scans had researched the law very carefully, and at the time they started their business, all indications were that this stuff was perfectly legal. It was borderline CP – sure – but lots of stuff is borderline CP. There’s  borderline CP all over the Net – big deal.

Even the FBI said it was legal. The FBI said, “They’ve got their clothes on, so it’s legal.” Makes sense, right?

That was the known guideline, so the webpage owner went up and set up his Blackcat website, and the photographer took all the Blackcat photos on the basis that LE had said they were legal. Then one day some pigs woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided the Blackcat scans were not legal after all. Instead some pigs in Florida decided to interpret the law in such a way that it was actually illegal! Even though the FBI said it was legal!

Florida courts went after the guy who ran the webpage (he was a Jew of course – duh!) and the photographer, and both were put in prison. There had been millions of men visiting that site and downloading that stuff, so millions of men had Blackcat stuff on their drives, but not a thing was done to any of them.

The girls were 100% willing. No girl was harmed. After the photographer went to prison, all of the former girl models, now grown women, raised an uproar, saying that they were not harmed by the shoots, and they were very happy that they did them. The Moms all joined in and reiterated the points the daughters had made. All of the former girl models and their Moms had nothing but good things to say about the photographer.

I guess he was not creepy, and he was doing the whole thing respectfully and by the book. I believe he went to great lengths to make sure that both the girls and their Moms were 100% ok with the shoots. The former girl models made Youtube videos about how outraged they were that the photographer went down. At one time there were ~20 Youtube videos from different women, all former child models, decrying the photographer’s conviction.

15 Years Ago, a Friend of Mine Went Looking for CP on the Net – This Is His Report

Stuff like Bang Bros etc.. Shady looking sites should be avoided even if they have good adult-aged stuff. Could be a trap, but I guess most don’t run into stuff.

Haha. I guess I look at shady-looking porn pages all the time, except I don’t even know what that even is.

There aren’t any obvious porn pages on the web with real deal little girl CP (under age 13).

There used to be pages like that out there, but they were extremely hard to find. You really had to go looking for them.

15 years ago a friend of mine is not a pedo (but watch the moralfags call him one anyway) went searching for CP on the Net. He was just curious about CP. Wanted to see what all the fuss is about. Actually I have heard that a high percentage of people on some poorly hidden CP pages are just curiosity seekers wondering what all the fuss is about. A lot of people are also driven by the appeal of the forbidden. Not everyone on a CP page is a pedophile!

He told me he had to bang away at a search engine for two weeks until he found real CP. A lot of it was on Yahoo groups explicitly set up for that purpose. They would pop up like mushrooms, get 8,000 members in a few days, and then disappear. And then a new one would pop up with a new name and the same thing would happen all over again. It was wack-a-mole.

He even talked to a guy running one of the Yahoo group page. He was Bulgarian Organized Crime. The guy said, “Here everything is illegal and everything is illegal.” The guy was absolutely not a pedo in any way. He was just a criminal.

Back in the days when CP was legal (yep it was in the 1970’s) it was all being sold by Organized Crime. Mostly a (((certain type of people))) by the way. Yep, (((they))) had a monopoly on CP in the 1970’s. A lot of them were (((Orthodox))), too.

He also talked to a few guys who were visiting the page. They were often terrified, and most of them just seemed to be curiosity-seekers seeing what all the fuss was about or in search of the forbidden. He said none of them seemed to be actual pedos.

As far as the actual content, he said it was weird but not necessarily extremely disturbing. You have a photo of a gorgeous little girl sucking some adult man’s cock, and it might as well be Seka, you know? However, he did say that some of it was disturbing, even extremely disturbing.

But this was 15 years ago, and there was a lot more CP on the web than there is now. I understand now almost all of it is on the Deep Web. There’s no real CP on the actual Internet. Worries about “CP pages on the Internet” are a big moralfag fuss over nothing – there’s literally nothing there. As far as the Deep Web goes, I have never been there, and not sure if I want to go there. I have heard that ~25-33% of the Dark Web is CP though. Not sure if that figure is good.

“Fake CP” Pages on the Net: Real Thing and JB

There’s actually a lot of this, or maybe there used to be 15 years ago. When my friend went looking for CP out of curiosity, he kept running into these pages over and over. They either hinted they were CP or they out and out stated that they were CP. A lot of just said “young” or “teens.”

He saw literally hundreds of pages like that, and he didn’t think any of them had real little girl CP on them. He described them to me as fake CP pages pretending to have CP just to get you to go to their site and pay money to join. Almost none of the pages advertised or hinted at that way were actually real.

As far as JB CP, that’s almost impossible to spot anyway, and my friend said didn’t seem to be what they were claiming.

Dirty little secret: when people talk about CP, they are almost always referring to the real deal – little girls. No one is out there on peer to peer networks trading “CP” with 17 year old girls. It’s ridiculous. If you go to the Dark Web, you don’t find all these sites with hardcore porn with 16 year old girls.

You wouldn’t be able to tell they were that age anyway, so there’s no way it would even be illegal to look at it. The only person getting busted would be the guy who put the site up if he knew their ages or if he failed to get the releases he needed.

I have been told that JB CP is all over the real Internet – everywhere, videos, photos, you name it. It’s mostly unmarked so you don’t even know what it is.

I will tell you what. I’ve seen a ton of porn on the web and of course a ton of “teen porn” amongst that. I have almost never seen any teen porn labeled as being underage.

There are some shady Russian sites I have been that were unlabeled, and the girls appeared underage, but that all legal. It was just JB’s shooting selfies in front of mirrors, in their bedrooms, romping on the beach, or in the waves. That stuff’s all legal.

Nudity is not necessarily CP. As long as the nudity is not explicitly erotic, it’s not illegal. Some 14 year old girl taking a nude selfie in front of a mirror is probably not illegal. A naked 16 year old girl romping in the waves at the beach is not illegal.

All of the photos on nudist sites of JB’s strolling around in the woods, standing on the beach, or standing around some campground are all legal.

In fact, on those nudist sites there are many photos of naked little girls under age 13 who are all doing all of the above things, often with the JB’s and maybe even with some nudist adults around. That’s all legal. Photos of naked kids are often legal as long as they are not erotic. A naked 7 year old girl standing in the woods is legal. She has to be posed in some erotic position for it to be illegal.

So if the Internet is actually flooded with JB porn, I would imagine that most of it is not marked as such. It’s just marked as “teen” or “18 year old girl” or whatever. If it’s not marked and she could be 18, it’s perfectly legal.

I did watch a porn video once from Germany with an older man and a teenage girl in it. I watched it because I’m a sick fuck who likes “older man young woman”, “older man teenage girl”, “old man young girl” videos. Sue me. It’s all legal anyway.

She looked pretty young. It was tagged “16 year old girl,” but there was no way of knowing if that was true or not. There were lots of comments after the video. Some of the men were saying things like, “This video is really hot, but I sure hope she’s 18.”

I have heard that a lot of people put legal videos of young looking legal girls up and then tag them as “16 year old girl” or “15 year old girl” just to get lots of views. Just because someone puts up some teenage girl porn and  puts “16 year old girl!” on it doesn’t mean it’s illegal!

If she’s over 18, you could call it “5 year old girl,” and it still wouldn’t be illegal. It’s not illegal unless she’s really underage. And for viewers, it’s probably not illegal unless it’s dead obvious that she’s not 18 or else you know her and know she’s underage.

I did see some shady Tumblr pages with photos and videos that were marked as underage teenage girls, but that’s the only place I’ve ever seen anything like that on the Net, and I’ve seen enough Net porn for 50 lifetimes. Probably nobody ever goes down for looking at that stuff. I wouldn’t put it on my drive though.

I guess you could always say you thought that the people who put up the video were lying and the “15 year old girl” was really 18 .

Conclusion: The whole idea that the Net is full of CP is asinine. The real thing is as good as nonexistent on the Web anymore. Head to the Dark Web if that’s your thing.

The notion that the Net is full of JB CP is also nonsensical. If it’s out there, 99% of it is unmarked, so it’s legal. There’s virtually nothing out there that’s marketed as JB CP, and no one’s ever going down for looking at stuff like that anyway.

This is all just hysteria from Normie idiots, feminist nutcases, and moralfag fucktards.

So You Met an Underage Teenage Girl on the Web and She Sent You Dirty Pics of Her Own Free Will

A girl says she’s underage and sends you dirty pics on the Net? This actually happens, trust me. Even in the last couple of years, I have have had teenage girls aged 14-17 come right up to me on the Net out of nowhere, ask me to have sex with them, start talking dirty to me, and try to send me all sorts of dirty pictures of themselves, mostly nudes.

Well I had a page up on the Net. Maybe it was a porn page. Anyone can make their own porn pages or porn blogs on the Net you know. Maybe they came to me from the porn page.

The 17 year old came up to me out of nowhere and said, “Hey sexy old man! Why don’t you show me what you’ve got!” She was an insanely hot blue eyed blond with a thin body but awesome tits.

The other was a 14 year old girl and described what kind of porn she liked and what sort of twisted, deviant sex she liked. She asked me, “What’s wrong with me? I’m a 14 year old girl? Why am I so sick, fucked up, and perverted?”

Even though she was only 14, she had an insane older man or even old man fetish and she only had sex with men in their 40’s and 50’s who were 30-40 years older than she was. So she not only had a Daddy fetish like a lot of girls and young women, but this poor thing had an out and out Grandpa fetish!

Also she was seriously into degrading sex, as in she liked to crawl on the ground with dog bone in her mouth, dress up like a little girl with a pacifier in her mouth, and all sorts of depraved nonsense. In her conversations with me, she referred to herself as “teenage rapedoll.” Haha.

All I am going to say about these incidents is that no way in Hell am I storing any of that crap on my drive. Even if she sends it to me, I’m deleting that stuff, I’m deleting that stuff right quick.

If you ever receive anything like that, do not store that on your drive. If you have anything like that on your drive, I advise to get it off.

I don’t think pigs would ever prosecute for something this chickenshit and retarded, but you never know.

Assuming the stars aligned and they went after you, I suppose you could always just say, “I assumed she was lying when she said she was underage. I thought she was joking.” If there’s no way to look at her and say there’s no way she could be 18, you might get away with it. On the other hand, they might consider the girl’s word probative as probable cause for her not being of age.

In the case of Weiner, etc., he knew that girl and he knew full well how old she was. So no excuse. But if she’s 3,000 miles away or halfway around the world, it might be hard to argue that you knew her age for sure. The Weiner case was a pathetic chickenshit prosecution anyway. But he sent her a picture of his dick. That’s more serious.

If you even suspect she’s underage, do not under any circumstances send her dick pics or make dirty videos of yourself for her. That’s how almost all men are going down for “CP” when they interact with these teenage girls.

No one’s going to arrest her for receiving some BS picture of her pussy she sent you out of her own free will. But once you start making porn of yourself and sending it to underage teenage girls, you’ve turned the whole world upside down and it’s a whole new ballgame.

Mostly just stay away from JB’s. Even if you love females, sex, and porn, there’s absolutely no reason for a grown man past his early 20’s to have anything to do with JB’s. As far as 18-23, that’s illegal too, but it’s a lot more normal. I will only point out how dangerous even an 18 year old man and a 17 year old girl is nowadays. The feminists and moralfags have truly blown this world of ours to Hell.

The world is crawling with grown women, 18+, who are crazed horny out of their minds. Go for them instead. Why mess with dangerous JB’s? What’s the point? Is there something special about them? I don’t get the attraction.

15 Year Old Girl Commits a Crime and Rapes Herself by Masturbating, Then You Rape Her All Over Again When You Watch It!

On the Tumblr pages, the majority of it was webcam videos made by girls themselves. So it appears that there are a lot of teenage girls, mostly above 13, who are making dirty solo videos of themselves on webcams and then putting it out there for all to see.

So a lot of this “teenage girl CP” is being made by the girls themselves! Which opens up a lot of questions.

A 15 year old girl makes solo webcam porn of herself in front of a webcam. No one’s ever going down for looking at that unless they know her and she sent it to them.

However, according to the law, that girl is “manufacturing and distributing child porn.” Isn’t that insane? On what basis is that illegal?

The whole idea of CP laws is “CP is the portrayal of a crime!“, “CP shows a girl being raped!“, and “By watching it, you are raping her all over again!” Ok, so when a 14 year old girl makes a webcam video of herself jilling off, this is a portrayal of a crime? No it isn’t. It’s not illegal (yet) for 14 year old girls to masturbate. But I’m sure the feminists and moralfags are getting around to it real soon. Ok, it’s not a portrayal of a crime.

Maybe she’s being raped. Ok, so whenever a 14 year old girl masturbates, she’s actually raping herself, right? Come on.

So what are  you doing when you look at it? Witnessing a crime? Nope. Raping her all over again? Nope.

She’s not being harmed in any way, shape, or form by making that video.

You’re not hurting her in any way, shape, or form (even mystically as in raping her all over again).

In fact, she made that damned video for the expressed purpose! She made that video for the expressed purpose of having as many grown men on the Internet look at it as possible. Trust me, there’s no other reason.

See how fucktarded this “teenage girl CP” BS is?

There Are No “CP Traps” on the Internet

Stuff like Bang Bros etc.. Shady looking sites should be avoided – even if they have good adult-aged stuff – could be a trap – but I guess most don’t run into stuff.

Also there’s no such thing as a trap. There are no pages with teenage girl CP that claim the girls are over 18. Even if they existed, no one who visited those pages would go down as long as the girls look like they could have been 18. Think about it again. Why in God’s name would anyone put underage teenage girls on a porn site and then claim they were adults? What would be the point? How would that get you more traffic? It doesn’t even make sense.

If the site says they’re all over 18, quit worrying and look at that stuff all you want. There’s no such thing as “CP traps” on the Net. Entrapment is illegal anyway.

Proving Possession of Teenage Girl “Child Porn” – Easier Said Than Done

It is very difficult to prove that someone has videos or photos of 13-17 year old girls on their drive. You look at the material, but how can you prove that she’s underage? Maybe she’s 18 and looks really young? There are legions of porn stars out there who were chosen specifically because they looked really young.

I mean when you get down to 13 and maybe some 14 year old girls, there might be some where you think “No way in Hell could she be 18.” Perhaps you could even call in physicians who would testify that there is no way on Earth that girl could be over 18. But would that even be true? Are there not such things as slow developers?

Anyway, if she looks like she’s 13 or 14, get it the Hell off your drive anyway. That stuff is dangerous because could say that any reasonable person could assume she could not be 18.

But I’ve seen quite a bit of this stuff on the web – nudes and porn with 13-17 year old girls. I don’t go looking for such things, and porn advertised as such is quite difficult to find, but at one point, I was searching through Tumblr porn pages for child porn so I could report it. That’s where I have seen most of this stuff.

I stumbled on some “CP” Tumblr blogs, which mostly consisted of borderline but legal material. You would be surprised what sort of “CP” is actually legal. A lot of “CP” is legal! The pages pissed me off, and they linked to one another, so I went following them.

The material was not interesting at all in general, except for the teenage girls advertised as such. Some of that was ok, but it wasn’t any better than porn with an adult woman.

I didn’t turn in any of that teenage girl stuff anyway, though with one, I was almost tempted. I had been liked or reposted 373,000 times! It was a very young girl on a webcam, probably 13. So you have a direct record there of 373,000 people, almost all men,  who looked at that video. You going to arrest 370,000 men, moralfags?

And for every like or repost, there were probably 10 others who just watched it and didn’t like or repost. So easily 3.7 million people, mostly men, probably watched that rather silly webcam video.  You going to arrest 3.7 million men, pigs?

See how stupid this is?

However, every now and then, there was something that was absolutely illegal. I mean sick stuff with girls obviously under 13. And I turned all that stuff in. Some of it was pretty sickening.

One very interesting thing I will say is that after seeing a fair amount of obviously illegal bullshit is that you could probably make a prosecution simply on the appearance of the girl’s vagina. After age 14, a vagina is a vagina is a vagina.

Some of what appeared to be 13 year old vaginas did seem to look a bit weird. It’s very hard to describe them, but they don’t exactly look normal. Like they are underdeveloped somehow.

Under age 13 and vaginas just don’t look right. There’s something very wrong with a 12 year old vagina. It’s just not right. I turned in almost all of that stuff because I don’t want 12 year old girl CP on the web. Screw that stuff.

And then there are the little girl vaginas. Unfortunately, I saw quite a few of what appeared to be those. Most were not labeled but the girl was disastrously young, and at that age, a girl’s vagina is remarkably different looking.

It’s hard to describe again but I suppose if you were a cop, you could develop body stage photos, and at some certain age you could make the case that anyone could figure out that that’s not a mature vagina. Not to mention that the girl it is attached to is obviously a little girl.

Most of that crap isn’t actual sex, though there was one post with an adult man and a ~5 year old naked girl that was the most disturbing thing I saw that night. He was pressing his full adult hard-on right on the little girl’s mouth. Fucked up or what? And real deal CP gets way worse than that. Trust me, I’ve seen it. On very, very rare occasions, but yes I have seen it.

Mostly it was just closeup nudes, pussy shots. Which were also quite disturbing when you can see the face it is attached too.

I probably turned 50 posts in as illegal CP. I probably turned in 25 blogs for illegal CP. And even there, over 95% of the “CP” was completely legal, albeit highly borderline.

Just to show you how insane and evil our laws are, I can go to prison for “possession of child pornography” for turning in 50 instances of CP on the web to authorities. Because the law says if you so much as look at this stuff – if it even hits your eyeballs – you have “possessed” CP.

Even if you delete the page right away, you “possessed CP” in that one instant when you saw it and it hit your eyeballs. Isn’t that insane? Now if you can prove that you stumbled upon it by accident, you are off the hook. But if you went looking for the stuff and found it and were surfing webpages of it, you can easily go down. That is because the definition of “possession of CP” that moralfags, sanctimonious shits, and pigs thought up is completely insane.

You see, every time you see anything on the web for even one microsecond, you have “downloaded” that page or image onto your computer. If you surf 1,000 pages on the web tonight, the law claims that you “downloaded” those 1,000 webpages onto your computer, even if you were there for less than a second. Isn’t that stupid?

Now what about me? I suppose if pigs wanted to be complete pieces of shit, they could go after good Samaritans like me out there surfing around dangerous parts of the web looking for CP pages to report to the authorities. There are groups of people called “pedophile hunters” who are doing this all over the web. They even have webpages and Facebook pages.

I suppose theoretically pigs could go after those people too. They probably would for a political prosecution, and pigs launch political prosecutions against people all the time in this country. Go against hotshots like the CIA, the FBI, and the Deep State, and you might definitely get a political prosecution filed against you. The FBI files blatantly political cases against Americans all the time simply because the Agency doesn’t like those people. You wonder why I hate the FBI?

Assuming it was advertised correctly, with 90% of it, there was no way on Earth you could tell if she was over or under 18. It’s almost impossible to look at a naked 15-17 year old girl and determine for certain that she is under 18. Almost all of them could easily be of age. Girls that age barely look different from barely adult females.

Usually you have to prove that the man knew what age the girl was. Almost no man goes down for underage teenage girl CP unless he knows her, mostly because you had to prove that he knew for sure she was under 18. How the Hell do you prove that?

Almost all men going down on this have photos of girls they knew. They were either having sex with them or they were sexting with them. Presumably, the girls told the men how old they were. Legally, that’s all you need. If you aren’t doing that, I don’t see how you are going down on any teenage girl “CP.” Because how the Hell do they know it’s “CP” or not? How do they know the girl’s age? How do they know that you know the girl’s age? See?

I still very much recommend that you do not store any nudes or porn of known underage teenage girls on your drive. Maybe you already know her? Get it off your drive? Maybe someone you know posted it as underage teenage girl CP and you have reason to believe, maybe because you know the guy, that he’s not lying.

There are girls out there who try to send that stuff to men. I’ve met them. I’m not going to say what happened but I sure as Hell don’t have any nudes on my drive from girls I met who told me they were underage. Hell if I am storing that stuff.

All I have got to say is don’t store that on your drive and get it the Hell off your drive if you have any. And even if you don’t know her and you have any reasonable suspicion that she’s underage (like she just looks so young that there’s no way she could be 18), just get it off your drive.

So go ahead and raid me all you want. I really doubt if you will find anything you can charge me with. Go for it, pigs. Raid away.

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Judicial System So Much

I despise cops, DA’s, courts, jails, prisons, probation officers and the whole vile, despicable system.

Of the above, I think I hate DA’s most of all. I also really hate federal police, even the FBI. The FBI is not cool at all. If they just focused on arresting very bad criminals it would be one thing. But they undertake blatantly political prosecutions all the time, indicting foreign citizens on US charges solely for further US foreign policy, as these are citizens of the countries who we say are enemies.

Check out COINTELPRO if you think the FBI is ok. And they never stopped doing that either. They said they shut it down, but it’s really still going on but underground. In these cases, the government pursued blatantly political prosecutions of US dissidents all the way up executing them (check out Fred Hampton). The FBI also covers up for the crimes that the CIA commits on US soil, including homicide.

Yes, I know we need the people above sometimes to protect us from criminals who actually harm us, but we have far too many laws, and 70% of them should be wiped off the books. Every year there is a whole slate of new laws on the books to criminalize more and more of our lives. They’ve already made half of normal daily life illegal. I guess that’s not enough as they aren’t satisfied.

The government needs to butt the Hell out of our lives, in particular our sex lives. Far too much of our normal sex lives is open to prosecution by the judicial system. That’s ridiculous. What business is it of theirs? I feel that for most problems (70% of laws) people simply ought to be left to sort out their problems on their own. Why are police involved in interpersonal disputes between one person and another? What business is this of the state’s? Butt out.

In particular, many of those either do not victimize anyone or is quite dubious that the “victim” was harmed in the slightest bit by the crime.

In some cases, the “victim” is the government or society. Excuse me. I never realized that “the government” or “society” was a human being! Did “the government” or “society” get PTSD as a result of this crime against it? Did it need therapy for decades as a result of the crime? No? Then why is this even a law in the first place.

In this sense, I am quasi-Libertarian, though I do want to keep many laws on the books, far more than the Libertarians do. I particularly do not agree with complete decriminalization of drug laws and a complete deregulation of business or the capitalists. And this would also be the Alt Left position. We are in a sense Left-Libertarians.

NSFW: Some Women Actually Enjoyed Getting Molested As Girls

NSFW!

Warning: This post contains a lot of highly disturbing material adults having sex minors, including the child molestation of little girls. If you find this sort of thing disturbing and upsetting, then don’t read. If you do read don’t come back and tell what a horrible person I am for writing about this sort of thing.

Also, a caveat: I am not saying it is a good thing for men to molest girls when they are young. Clearly, many girls are harmed by this practice. In quite a few cases, they get over it quickly, but one can argue that there was still harm. If someone robs me and I get over my trauma soon enough, but I still got harmed, let’s face it. And many girls are harmed long term by being molested, and in quite a few cases, the damage lingers into adulthood.

Some of the sequelae of getting molested are Borderline Personality Disorder, involved in the sex trade, masochism, addiction to abusive men, low to zero desire for sex, difficulty in maintaining sexual relationships, and PTSD.  There may be others but these are the only ones I can think of. Some studies have even visually mapped this damage on brain scans.

Now it’s quite obvious that women who get molested vary. Many suffer long term damage, but for many others, the damage is short term. An unknown group of others actually regard the experience as positive.

For those who regard the experience as positive, the sequelae are nonetheless similar to those who got harmed: involved in the sex trade, masochism or a desire for abusive sex, addiction to older men, and the most prominent of all – promiscuity, often extreme promiscuity.

It’s not PC to say that some women liked it and were not harmed at all, but that’s the science, so that’s the conclusion that we need to go with. Such outcomes may have discussed in the famous paper by Judith Reiner et al around 1999 which said that harm from molestation stemmed whether it was consensual or not.

Girls who went along with and agreed to it experienced short term or no harm at all. Those who were coerced (the majority) often experienced long term harm. Pedophiles have been using  this study to justify the molestation of children, which was to be expected. Nevertheless, the science is the science and we must support the truth in all cases, which by the way is an Alt Left position.

The fact that even many women who were harmed nevertheless enjoyed the sex is well-known and this is part of the therapy of the problem.

I knew one woman who was molested at age 8 and got over it. However she said the experience was confusing because it felt good but it was wrong.

Girls and later women wrestle with this internal contradiction. Many of those seriously harmed often experience extreme guilt over the fact that they felt pleasure in being molested. This is one of the main issues that needs to be addressed in  any therapy.

Any man who intends to molest a girl, regardless of the legality of the matter, ought to think of the consequences for the girl. That girl may well be harmed very long-term, for decades or maybe for life. In that sense it is like stealing from her, beating her up, or out and out raping her. Maybe you should think twice about that.

Besides, if you get caught, your life will be pretty much ruined. If you go to jail or prison, you will be in serious danger there and may well be attacked or possibly even killed. You will be on the Sex Offender List for the rest of your life with all the consequences that flow from that. I would say think about it.

This nonsense has been going on too long. Earlier we could plead innocence of cultural values, but now we know better.

The practice is widespread across cultures and is very common even in some primitive tribes in places like Australia and New Guinea. It was very common in ancient Rome and among the poor in  the West during the 18th and  19th centuries when it was associated with crowded conditions. Even today in India, 53% of Indian women get molested as girls.

My own position is that we men have been having sex with those little girls forever now. Isn’t about time that we knocked it off! It’s a human rights issue.

Some women who were molested as girls found the experience positive. Not only were they not harmed but they claimed it was positive and beneficial.

I know it goes against everything you heard, but it’s true.

Some molesters are simply extreme libertines or trysexuals. They have no particular interest in kids and instead are just the types who “try anything” sexually.

I have talked to a couple of women who were raised in “loving families.”

I talked to one who spent half the year in Hong Kong and the other half in the Caribbean and started having sex with her mother and stepfather at age 6. This continued all through teenage years when she was known as the blow job queen at the local junior high (White boys only).

She was a Black woman with a White man fetish, as her stepfather was White, and her Mom was Black. She continued to have sex with her stepfather and maybe Mom to this very day. These “pedo families” are fairly common. It was all a big secret, and she didn’t want to give me too much information, as she was worried I might go to the police and get the mother and stepfather in trouble.

I also talked to an 18 year old girl from the US Northeast who was in one of these families. I guess it was the cousins and the uncles or just the males in the family. They started having sex with her at age 8. She had two sisters, one 14 and another…I forget…9? Both of the girls were also having sex with each other and with the males. It  was all a big secret. I am not sure if any of these men were actual pedophiles or not.

I talked to a British woman age 24 who started getting molested by her uncle at age 9. They apparently “trained” her to be a total slut. From age 13-on she regularly had sex with the uncle and his older man friends, including gangbangs with groups of these older men. She told me about one gangbang when she was 13. They made her recite some line from “Harry Potter” when they came on her.

At some point she got really fucked up about all this as is typical, but then she decided that if this happened, I may as well make the best of it and learn to enjoy it and label it is a positive experience.

She now had a serious older man fetish, and she regularly has sex with older men in hotel rooms, etc. Other than that, her sexual interests were pretty normal.

These older men who had sex with her as a teen took a ton of photos and videos of her getting gangbanged and whatnot. She admitted that it would turn her on to see this stuff and she had been asking around the underground community to try to find the videos of herself, if they ever got distributed that is.

She said people had sent her a bunch of teenage girl CP, and she had looked at it but didn’t find any of herself. She wasn’t really worried about getting caught.

She called me “Mister” and had sort of a strange robotic, emotionless way about her. I saw her pic and she is really hot. Apparently neither her uncle nor the other older men were pedophiles.

I met another woman about 40 who had grown up in one of these “sex families,” and she thought it was a very positive experience. Her father had started having sex with her at age 5. Her sexual interests were pretty normal. Her father was apparently not a pedophile.

I met an 18 year old girl college student from the Midwest who worked as a stripper. She was really nice but she didn’t talk all that much. Her uncle raped her when she was 12.

After that he turned her into some sort of a total sex slave. He trained her to deep throat, and she was also a toilet slave (yuck). She liked some one aspect the latter but not the other part of it.

He tied her to the bed all day when he was gone and put diapers on her if she pissed or shit when she was tied up. He also made her wear diapers when they went out. That’s all pretty gross to me, but she told me that now she had a serious diaper fetish as a result.

He also stuck a dildo her in mouth and taped it in, and she would have to have this thing in her throat all day. This was deep throat training. I asked her if she vomited but she said if that thing is in your throat you can’t puke, which is probably correct. This was all to train her to deep throat.

He also made her have sex with another 12 year old girl at age 12. I asked her why she continued this abusive activity for years, and she said she felt she did not have a choice, and she thought he owned her, which I guess is what he told her.

The uncle also took a ton of photos and film. He got caught when she was 17, and after a trial was sentenced to a long prison term. I asked her what she thought of that, and she had no opinion. All of the photos and videos were confiscated, and there was a ton of it.

Mom was a severe alcoholic and the girl had a lock on her door as a teenage girl to keep the raging mother from coming in and beating her. I guess the mother either allowed the sex with the uncle to happen or she was too wasted to care. The uncle was not a pedophile at all, as he started having sex with her at age 12 and continued til age 17.

She was a total submissive into perverted, abusive sex involving degradation, humiliation, etc. She wanted to be dominated or dommed big-time. I actually liked her and thought she was a good person. She was vaguely bisexual but mostly into men.

I met another who was as Berber woman from Northeastern Mali. Her Dad had started having sex with her at age 9. She and her father were in love. She was 23 years old now and still having sex with the father.

The father pimped her out as a prostitute, and this is what she did all day – got fucked by men. She was into some sort of male worship and said she was put on this Earth to serve and be a slave to men, and she didn’t want any pleasure herself. She was also heavy into degrading sex – the more degrading, the better.

She had sex with women but considered herself straight because she got no pleasure from it. Some of the johns would bring in a girl or a woman and pay for a lesbian show. She told me that she had been “cut” via genital mutilation, and she said all the girls there got cut this way.

I argued that this was bad, and she was very defensive of it and thought it was great because she thought females should just be slaves to and serve men and not get any pleasure themselves.

She was a rather curt and unfriendly person with a list of 100 rules about stuff you could not talk to her about or what sort of tone you had to have with her. She was pretty arrogant about this and quit talking to me after I complained. She was bitchy, difficult, curt, short, and in a chronically annoyed mood.

She thought she was better than other people – she had some narcissism. She got a college education in London and then went back to Mali. She said it was a difficult neighborhood around there with Al Qaeda Islamist types out and about.

She most of these people were apolitical. There were all sorts of warlords and organized crime/smuggler types who were in the area, and these Al Qaeda guys were just another group of gangsters and warlords and really had no particular political or even religious philosophy. Her father was not a pedophile.

Alt Left: The Extreme Abuse of Sex Trafficking Laws

Here.

A Florida man was convicted of “sex trafficking” for buying the services of a 14 year old girl prostitute. He apparently knew she was 14, as she was advertised as being that age in the ads. Well, buying an underage whore is illegal. Especially if you know she’s underage.

If you don’t know and you think she’s over 18, the pigs may well prosecute you for buying her anyway, which is garbage. Now you know why I hate cops so much. I don’t even call them cops. I call them pigs most of the time.

What is happening here is that radical feminism, an insane philosophy pushed by people who appear psychotic, is now the ruling mentality of the US on prostitution. Here we have an alliance because feminist nutcases and the socially conservative Right around the issue of prostitution. MRA’s are right when they attack what they call the Feminist-Conservative Alliance which is waging war on men in so many ways.

Radical feminists make the insane case that all prostitutes are somehow victims of human trafficking. Ever buy a prostitute? Well, you not only bought a whore but you actually sex-trafficked that woman by doing that! The phrase sex trafficking itself is being radically abused so much that every time I read it I have read further to make sure this is real sex trafficking and not something else.

Jeffrey Epstein was said to be “trafficking” his little teen whores that he employed, apparently by having them come to his house and have sex with him for $300. Afterwards they were free to leave. When they got home they could go anywhere they wanted to.

Victims of sex trafficking are in a sense being kidnapped. They’re not free to leave. Sometimes they are literally enslaved but most of the time they are simply under the control of a pimp who is forcing them to prostitute themselves under the threat that if they leave the pimp, he will assault them violently or even kill them.

Sex trafficking is basically pimping and it’s all about women being prisoners forced to have sex with men by their captors.

Epstein was a pimp? Not most of the time he wasn’t. Epstein recruited teenage prostitutes, often from the bad sides of towns. Their families had little money and they were often in desperate straits.

All of these girls leapt at the thought of making $300 for the simple act of giving Epstein a handjob, something most of these teenies were probably already giving boys anyway.

News stories describe these little teen whores as “victims.” That’s laughable. It was their choice to come over or not. If Epstein called and she didn’t want to come over, all she had to do was say no. If she kept turning him down, she  got no more calls and hence, no more visits to Epstein.

Epstein could not have cared less. He’s just find a new little teenie whore. After all, Epstein was such a monstrous abuser that he was being deluged with requests from teenage girls dying at a chance to suffer horrible abuse by him.

Yet some of these poor, scarred womanchildren “victims” (actually just a bunch of crybabies), were so horribly damaged and ruined by this silly teenage whoring that they kept coming back for more. Many voluntarily returned to Epstein to  make another $300 for a handie. Some returned 20 or more times.

They must have been being horribly abused if they kept coming for more 20 or more times, huh? Poor girls!  Poor women! Women are crying! Others were so devastated by this horrible sexual abuse that they went out and recruited many new  girls to serve as little teen whores to be horribly abused for Epstein just like they were. Wow!

The abuse was so horrific that they came back more than 20 times for more and they even went out recruiting new girls for the money-train. My heart bleeds for those girls!

In a few cases, Epstein did appear to traffic women, as there were a few women who felt that they were stuck and could not leave. Many had their passports confiscated by Epstein’s partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell after being flown here from Europe. One girl tried to swim away from Epstein’s island only to be caught and forcibly brought back to shore where Epstein and Maxwell verbally abused her and threatened her about what would happen if she tried to run away again.

Ok, that counts as trafficking or pimping. She’s being trafficked if she cannot leave any time she wants. Everything else, no matter what it might be, is not sex trafficking.

Alt Left: All [Hetero]Sex Is Harmful – Janice Fiamengo

Janice Fiamengo, a fantastic anti-feminist Youtuber, doing a great episode on #metoo culture and its roots in radical feminism.

I had started down that road in my thinking in that I recognized that the whole theory of sexual harassment was dreamed up by two evil feminist bitches mentioned in this video – Katharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

Dworkin was a fat, ugly Jewish dyke, but McKinnon has always been an attractive or even hot straight women, an extreme manhater nevertheless. What do these women do for sex anyway if they hate men so much? Invest in nice dildos?

The original sexual harassment was all about the workplace only, and it focused only on quid pro quo harassment, which actually made sense. Later, Dworkin and McKinnon brilliantly tied “hostile workplace” theory on to the original theory, and now we have a still workplace-dominated civil law with two prongs – “quid pro quo” and “hostile workplace.”

By throwing in hostile workplace these two bitches opened up a can of worms that is still overflowing at the top in the Current Year. And the #metoo thing went right back to McKinnon and Dworkin, two near-psychotic manhating bitches, and the hostile workplace theory that they concocted.

So I knew that the roots of #metoo were deep in radical feminist manhating dyke theory, and I thought it was important to point out that this was the foul seed from which this diseased vine sprouted and continues to wind its way across our land, with the infestation only getting worse as time goes by.

But Fiamengo takes my idea and goes much further with it into some very new interesting places along the same lines. She also points out some recent developments in #metoo theory which bode very ill for the future in that they are predicated on extending #metoo and rape theory into some very dystopian places.

Great stuff!

Alt Left: Fake News: The Whole Brock Turner Case

You may be aware of the case of Brock Turner, the Stanford athlete swimmer headed for the Olympic Games who was arrested for raping a young woman on campus. He was given a brief term of three months by the judge, a sentence which caused extreme outrage. The judge said he didn’t want to ruin this young man’s life.

But there is a lot more to this case than meets the eye. First of all this is no ordinary rape case. It’s a date rape case and even beyond that, it’s fraught will all sorts of problems.

Now I am not arguing that Turner did not commit the crime of rape (actually sexual assault) according to the letter of the law. According to a close reading of the law, he indeed committed the crime of sexual assault. And I have no problem with his arrest or even his sentence, which I regard as appropriate.

But even rape cases, as in any other cases, need to be examined individually according to the spirit and not the letter of the law. Females are incapable of enforcing laws according to the spirit of the law and not the letter because of their extreme emotional and irrational brains, which are not their fault by the way.

But I don’t see why we should put a bunch of humans with extreme emotional and irrational brains in charge of making and enforcing our laws, sorry. Anyone with a lick of sense can tell  you that that’s a bad idea.

The sordid saga unfolds thus:

The young woman in question, in her early 20’s, was not a student but instead lived nearby and sometimes went to campus parties and hung out with some of the  university students.

She hears about the party via her younger sister. I believe that her younger sister goes with her to the party. They leave around 10 PM and showed up at the party soon after. This is a pretty wild bash, and this young lady proceeds to get positively smashed falling down drunk on alcohol via her own free choice, and in my opinion, bad decisions.

At some point around 11:30 AM, she gets together with Turner at the party. They more or less pick up on each other as is often the case in human mating. A wild 90 minute kissing, etc. makeout session follows all through the party for quite some time and then outside the party, which they leave around 12:30. The couple are seen outside the party around this time and the young woman is described as “all over Brock” just about consensually raping him.

Somehow or other they end up behind a large trash container on campus around 1 AM. They are still making out and apparently Brock is finger-banging her.

Already this is not rape because in California, a man must use his penis to commit rape. You can’t rape a woman with your finger. Apparently you can commit some other crime with your finger called sexual assault or something along those lines. So he never raped her. He sexually assaulted her. Not a big difference but still.

All of this was fine and dandy and consensual, and the charge against Turner was not some BS rape charge for having sex with a drunken woman. He was blasted himself so logically she was raping him too, right? She couldn’t consent so he was raping her, but he couldn’t consent either, so she was raping him. She how these Female Rule laws end up making no sense?

Anyway, at some point in this rutting on the ground behind trashcans like pigs in shit behavior, this poor young woman passes out due to extreme drunkenness. Apparently Turner realizes that she’s unconscious, but he keeps banging her anyway because…I have no idea? He has necrophilic tendencies? He’s a normally horny and totally wasted young male with few self-controls?

At any rate, he finger bangs her for 1 1/2 minutes before some students find the couple behind the trash cans and figure out that he’s sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. I believe the students originally think that the woman might be dead and Turner might have killed her.

There were some males in the group, and they pull Turner off, manhandle him into some sort of griplock imprisonment, and march him off to meet the nearest police officer. Turner cooperates. The officer returns to the scene and sees the passed out half naked young woman. The witnesses say they saw him fingering her while she was passed out cold. Turner is placed under arrest.

Well there  you have it, folks. Not exactly the way it was made out to be, right? I agree that he sexually assaulted her, but given the nature of the case, I have no problem with a few months in jail, which is Hell anyway if you want to know for anyone who’s never been there. Especially for a nice upper middle class White boy like him.

The young woman is very shaken up by all this. She wakes up the next morning in her house. Her clothes and body are dirty – she has dirt all over her. There are dead leaves stuck all over her clothing. She looks in the mirror, hungover the next day, and she’s a wasted, ravaged mess of a young lady. She more or less PTSD’s out as a result of this trauma.

I read her extremely angry and disgusted eight page account, and I actually felt very sorry for this young lass. Clearly she was very much harmed by this event.

Nevertheless, crimes must be judged on what exactly the perpetrator did, not on how the victim reacted to it because victims, especially female victims, tend to overreact. I mean I grab some woman’s ass, and she has a heart attack.

So I need to get 20 years? Maybe I need a few weeks in jail to think about it, or maybe I don’t even deserve cuffs at all, but what’s important here is what I did, which was not much. Her overreaction is frankly her problem, and I had no role in how her body chose to react.

So even reading this poor woman’s very moving account, I am still happy with a three month sentence for Turner. Keep in mind he now has a felony on his record for life. And don’t forget that he will be registering on sex offender lists until his dying day. For a clean-cut young college boy of his ilk, those are a couple of crushing blows and certainly serve as major punishment.

Ok, now you all see why the Brock Turner case was complicated?

 

Alt Left: The Serious Logical Lapses in the Enforcement of Rape Cases under Female Rule (with an Emphasis on Campus Craziness)

The If She Was Intoxicated, It’s Rape Bullshit

An examination of the insanity of what Female Rule has done to the enforcement of rape laws is in order. First of all, almost all women state that sex with an intoxicated woman is always rape. Well, what if she smoked some weed? What if she did some lines of coke? What if she shot some heroin? Why if she was flying on acid? What is intoxicated? One drink? Three drinks? Six drinks?

Lot of questions, huh?

Oh you silly person! You’re probably a man. What’s up with all this crazy logic stuff, anyway?

As usual this crazy law under Female Rule is vague, and in general you have no idea how to avoid breaking the law because you can’t even make sense of what the law even means and what the line is between legal and illegal behavior.

Fortunately Male Rule is still preponderant in most police departments, attorney general’s offices, and courts of law, and the legal system has decided “intoxicated” means in the case of alcohol that she is so drunk that she’s either passed on cold or she’s passing in and out of consciousness.

So boys, if you are even being sexual with a drunken woman and she fades into this sort of quasi-consciousness, it’s best to end the sex when she starts passing out. Just stop.  Because whatever it was before, now it’s rape, and even a pig like me approves of that definition.

The They Were Raping Each Other Bullshit, or Something, or Whatever

For the sake of the idiot feminist version of this law, let’s say a man and  a woman are both blasted on alcohol. He’s wasted so he can’t consent, right? So she’s raping him, right? Legally that’s correct.

But she’s totalled too, no? She sure is. This poor damsel in distress can’t consent either now that she’s a typical female who lacks agency. So he’s raping her, right? Legally that is indeed so.

So what makes sense?  Arrest one and not the other? Which one and why? Arrest them both and idiotically charge these two lushes with raping each other both at the same time?

See how insane Female Rule is?

In the case of the above, rest assured that feminists confidently inform us that it’s always only the man ever raping the female, who is always a childlike helpless maiden with no agency, and the man, no matter how plastered, is always the rapist because men are evil or something. Or whatever. Or bla bla.

Don’t bother confusing feminists or any riled up woman about anything to do with logic or sense because their aroused emotional state will blind them to such things. Which is why most feminist theory is nonsense and why most of what feminists say is not even true.

The Drunken Female Sexual Aggressors Who Attack Men Are Actually Getting Raped Themselves Somehow in some  Alternate Universe Bullshit

There was actually a case at a university recently of a totally plastered female student who more or less ripped the clothes off a sober male student she was with and thereupon gave him a blowjob. Nevertheless, this poor helpless female creature experienced regret rape when she woke up with a hangover and probably a sore jaw, so she screamed rape.

The Kafkaesque Feminist Kangaroo Rape Tribunals on Campus Bullshit

The man was tried before a feminist kangaroo court rape tribunal with the Kafkaesque madness that typifies these proceedings.

He had no right to presumption of innocence because females think presumption of innocence in rape cases is “unfair”.

He also had no right to attorney or an advocate to represent his side, and he even had no right to present his side of the story at all! Once again because women say that in rape cases, it would be “unfair” for the man to have such rights.

He also had no right to confront his accuser on the stand or even to see her at all in court. Once again because women think that in rape cases, this is “only fair.”

Furthermore in the latter matter, women are hot and bothered by the fact that we are subjecting this poor womanchild “rape victim” to a traumatic experience on the stand confronting  her accuser because she might PTSD out, and nothing that harms a precious but extremely fragile female can be allowed.

Some sane people, probably men, have suggested that the poor forever child female “rape victims” could be allowed in court via video, and the accused could confront his accuser in that manner. But no go. Females are such fragile wildflower-type creatures that even showing up in court via video would wilt and traumatize them and cause them to PTSD out again as they wont to do for various reasons or probably even for no reasons.

Anyway, of course the feminist kangaroo court found him guilty of rape and decided to throw this poor shmuck out of the university. The case later became a bit of a cause celebre when sane people pointed out just how lunatic Female Rule actually is.

The Regret Rape Bullshit

Females experience “regret rape” all the time. Th regret rape realization usually hits the next hungover morning, but it can be up to two years later, or for females with exceptionally fine memories, now 17 years later in the latest Matt Lauer case.

Many rape cases the police investigate of women against men are just regret rape nonsense where she consents at the time but then wakes up guilty with a bad memory the next morning and decides that the consensual sex she had the night before was actually rape now that she’s (mis)remembering it correctly. So she retroactively withdraws her consent that she freely gave that previous rollicking night.

Feminists claim that women reserve to right to yell regret rape anytime they want, presumably even on their deathbeds when you would think they had better things to worry about.

Feminists also say that regret rape is real rape when any sane person, like a typical male, knows that all regret rape is garbage, but we’re not ruled by sane people anymore. We are ruled by women, and women are frankly not sane. Not sane enough to write and enforce laws at any rate.

Now maybe you can understand my issues with Female Rule and why I talk about it a lot.

Alt Left: The Teenage Girl Bullshit

Bumface and I having a conversation in the comments section. I don’t normally like to talk about girls that young because that’s way too young for me to even want to look at, but Bumface is our resident hebephile, so I will indulge him.

Bumface: Eva Ionesco is the youngest model ever to appear in a Playboy nude pictorial, since she was featured at age 11 in the October 1976 issue of the Italian edition of the magazine in a set by Bourboulon. In that picture, she was at a beach posing in nude exposing all female anatomy.

Another of her nude pictorials in the November 1978 issue of the Spanish edition of Penthouse, was a selection of her mother’s photographs. She made also appeared on the cover page of Der Spiegel at the age of 12 completely nude.The issue was later expunged from the magazine’s records.

What was it like living in such sexually liberal times?

RL: LOL no one cared. I can’t even remember any sort of furor about any of this BS. I can’t remember if there was any discussion at all of what this girl did, much less a furor. A Cream album had a topless 11 year old girl on it and it was actually allowed to be sold because no one cared and who gets turned on by a topless 11 year old human female anyway?

It was another era. Basically feminism, Female Rule, #metoo, rape/sexual assault paranoia, and all of the feminist insanity of the Current Year for all intents and purposes didn’t even exist.

And believe it or not, everyone was happy. Women never complained about any of this BS. People mostly just thought it was funny. Men and women liked each other and liked to fuck each other.

Totally unlike this insane Feminist Hell we live in now! As far as sex with children, most people were very much against it, but there was a huge firewall between little children and teenage girls which has been torn down by a bunch of drooling lunatics in the Current Year.

Bumface: Do you think it can ever happen again?

Things have gone so far downhill. I do not think that the mores of the 1970’s will ever come back.  Society has been too damaged by this puritanical feminist sex-hatred that even if the disease goes away (dubious) scars will remain for a long time.

Maybe 15 years ago, hundreds of millions of deranged, drooling, moronic pin-headed human beings got it in their head that anyone having sex with a teenage girl was a PETAFILEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I am not sure how this mass insanity and nonsense started. Some say it was with the Internet. It also might have started with Sex Offender Lists, which began about 30 years ago after a few very serious cases in which young girls were murdered by sex offenders.

In the Current Year, the Teenage Girl Bullshit is being promoted by almost all women to their eternal discredit, a large % of the Christian Right, a lot of completely cucked married men who may in fact be eunuchs, and almost all liberal men, since a vast percentage of liberal men are PC nowadays. A friend calls it the Fundamentalist Feminist Alliance. There are a lot of complete dingbats, often married women, who are best called femiservitives.

I guess PETAFILE!!!!!! includes the teenage boys who do them too. Any man, even one aged 18-20, who has sex with an underage teenage girl is also a PETAFILLLLEEEE!!! I am a PETAFILLLLLEEEE!!! myself because I had tons of sex with underage teenage girls from age 16-20. That was 40 years ago when everyone did such things matters not. I am still a PETAFILLLLLEEE!!! for the rest of my life.

Back then, 40 years ago, it was nothing. No one really cared about this sort of thing. It was considered normal for teenage boys to fuck teenage girls (which is basically the only reason they even exist at all – so we males can fuck them) and vast numbers of young men continued to fuck girls aged 14-17 when they were 18-20.

Yes, some went beyond that, and not much happened to them. I could tell you a number of stories of my friends having sex with 14-16 year old girls at ages 23-30.

But after age 21, the word was out that you really had to watch it or knock it off or you might go to jail. All this Current Year Teenage Girl Bullshit was called “statutory rape,” and it was the subject of much giggling, laughing, and joking.

Everyone knew that teenage girls were horny as rabbits and that it was impossible to keep them from fucking males. So most Moms just slipped their teenage daughters birth control pills. Almost all sexually active high school girls were on the Pill, and most of them got them from their own mothers. Fathers tried to stop it but they were ineffectual like they always are.

The whole idea was that it was a well-known fact that teenage girls were as horny as women if not moreso, and teenage boys were as horny or even hornier than most men. The idea was that teenagers fucking was just fine, just don’t get pregnant. And if you get pregnant, get an abortion. So that is what happened.

It was also recognized that teenage girls, in addition to being horny as cats in heat, looked exactly like women and hence were attractive to not only all boys but to all men who were not gay or dead. People actually used to say that, “The only men not turned on by teenage girls are gay men and dead men.”

The attraction was acknowledged but men were urged to restrain themselves or they might get a statutory rape charge. No one thought statutory rape was really rape. Everyone just thought it was illegal intercourse, which is exactly what it is. Absolutely no human beings anywhere on Earth thought that fucking teenage girls was PETAFILLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!!!! or CHIILD MALESTABATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very idea that anyone would think that “statutory” was real rape or pedophilia or child molestation was laughable. No one said anything that retarded and if anyone ever did, I assume that everyone just laughed in their face, called them a prude, and told them they needed to get laid.

Teachers were periodically caught with girls and would for the most part just get fired. A very popular Black teacher, the only one at the school, got caught fucking a 15 year old student. I believe he was simply fired. It was a longstanding joke at the school and everyone just laughed about.

Generally not much was done to the men if they were still fairly young. Of course the girls always refused to prosecute the man as they do to this very day. This shows the absurdity of the crime – the victim herself even states that she is not a victim!

In many to most cases, the girl seduced the man, as these things usually unfold. I am not justifying these men falling into these girls spiderwebs. Instead I am pointing out that it takes two to tango and the girls are usually more instigators than victims in these cases.

Of course people had a low opinion of actual pedophiles and child molesters but those terms were reserved for men who had sex with children under the age of 13.

In other words, back then, everyone was sane. The world was sane. Most humans you met were sane people instead of the dangerous wild-eyed retards of the Current Year. You could wake up in the morning, look up at the ceiling and smile, knowing that you lived in a world that was run and populated by sane people.

There were lots of jokes about jailbait and whatnot with the recognition that this is exactly what these girls were – a very tempting bait that if men fell for it, could land them in jail.

I do remember one case of a man in my area in his 50’s who lived alone. He had pot and cocaine and he had teenage girls from the neighborhood coming around all the time. He would give them free pot and coke if they fucked him. So of course teenage temptresses came from next door all the way to Timbuktu to fuck this guy and get their free dope. I believe this went on for some time.

Well, he got caught and I remember that he got three years in prison for fucking some 15 year old girls. I remember reading about it in the paper and talking to my family about it, but everyone mostly just starting laughing because the whole idea of jailbaits and statutory was considered hilarious, which of course it is.

But this guy went down though because of the huge age discrepancy. He was 53 years old so society reacted rather harshly. It would have been different if he was 33 and if he was 23, most people might just say leave the poor alone, dammit. Because back then people believed in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Male thinking, not female thinking, ruled society, and both sexes were better off for it.

Alt Left: Female Rule Imposes the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law

Back in the 70’s and 80’s (you know, back when people were sane?) then people believed in something called the spirit of the law, not the letter of law, and this is how cops, judges, and juries also saw things. Plus lots of people didn’t like cops much and society in general thought that police, courts, judges and the whole carceral system needed to pretty much butt out of a lot human affairs and focus on the important stuff.

A preference for the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law was because society was still ruled the by the values, rules, and mores of rational and fair men. Now men no longer rule and we live under Female Rule or Feminism. We no longer believe in the spirit of the law because that’s male thinking and male thinking is evil, oppressive, and especially hurts poor suffering girls and women, who are all eternal children with no agency.

In the Current Year, it’s all about the letter of the law because this is exactly how females think. Police, judges, courts and society at large has become completely pussified, faggotized and cucked because nowadays a majority of American “men.” What used to be called Man World is now Cuck World or even Fag World.

Most American “men” have adopted female ways of thinking and female rules, mores, and value systems. Any “man” who adopts a female way of thinking is obviously no longer a real man. At best he’s a pathetic cuck and at worst he’s a screaming faggot.

I don’t just blame women for this. Women can hardly help thinking like women even if there are issues with this way of thinking. Blaming women for thinking like women is like blaming fish for swimming. Fish swim because that’s what fish do. Women think like women because that’s what women do naturally and normally.

Alt Left: Terrorism, a Garbage Word with Absolutely No Meaning Whatsoever

Of course Wars on Terrorism are retarded wars packaged for idiots and dunces. So why do people keep falling for it? Why is the other side always made up of terrorists? Why is your side never made up of terrorists? The word terrorism belongs in a trash can. It literally has no meaning anymore.

This idiot word terrorism is new to us. Before we had other dumb words, not that any come off the top of my head at the moment.

Any non-state guerrilla actor who has taken up arms against you is automatically a terrorist. All armed groups that the US doesn’t like are terrorists. A few countries have been put on the supporters of terrorism list for no conceivable reason at all, as they don’t support any actual terrorists. They might support a few non-state armed groups, but so what? People actually believe that all armed non-state actors are terrorists?

And now even countries are “terrorists.” The IRGC, which is a branch of the Iranian military, has been listed as a terrorist organization by this idiot administration. IRGC is the Iranian government itself, so apparently the Iranian government itself is a terrorist organization!

The groups we don’t like all get called terrorists, and the ones we don’t like don’t get the designation and often get guns instead.

Furthermore, captured rebels are very frequently tortured by state armies.

Nowadays almost all states treat guerrillas as terrorists and try them in civil or military courts under terrorism statutes, mostly because they do not want to abide by the rules of war and treat them as POW’s. That’s if they don’t just out and out execute them. For instance, Syria may have executed 40-50,000 Syrian rebels at military prisons around Syria. And I say that as a supported of Assad.

Even the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are for the most part POW’s. If they’re not, then charge them with terrorism and try them in civilian courts.

The Bush Administration didn’t want to do that because they thought that civilian courts would let the jihadists go free. Bush also wanted to torture those in Guantanamo, probably to get more information out of them in order to prevent future attacks.

Hence a completely fake bullshit category called “illegal combatants” was created in order to accomplish this goal. I spoke to one of the country’s top experts on this, and he laughed and told me that there is no such thing as an illegal combatant under international law, and it was just some fake category the Bush people made up.

Alt Left: We Humans Have Always Been Terrorists from the Very Start

Of course Wars on Terrorism are retarded wars packaged for idiots and dunces. So why do people keep falling for it? Why is the other side always made up of terrorists? Why is your side never made up of terrorists? The word terrorism belongs in a trash can. It literally has no meaning anymore.

This idiot word terrorism is new to us. Before we had other dumb words, not that any come off the top of my head at the moment.

Any non-state guerrilla actor who has taken up arms against you is automatically a terrorist. All armed groups that the US doesn’t like are terrorists. A few countries have been put on the supporters of terrorism list for no conceivable reason at all, as they don’t support any actual terrorists. They might support a few non-state armed groups, but so what? People actually believe that all armed non-state actors are terrorists?

And now even countries are “terrorists.” The IRGC, which is a branch of the Iranian military, has been listed as a terrorist organization by this idiot administration. IRGC is the Iranian government itself, so apparently the Iranian government itself is a terrorist organization!

The groups we don’t like all get called terrorists and the ones we don’t like don’t get the designation and often get guns instead. Everything surrounding this crap word is nothing but political bullshit.

First let’s think up a sane definition for this bullshit word that ought to be put in the grave. How about terrorism is any targeting and killing of unarmed civilians of the opposing group for any reason, ethnic, religious, racial, or due to the fact that they are giving support to the opposing side.

You don’t get to deliberately kill the civilians of the other side. We did a Hell of a lot of it in World War 2 and it was a very bad thing. The Axis was obviously terrorist from Day One. The British engaged in a lot of terrorism. And the Soviets committed a lot of terrorism in their drive to Berlin from the East.

Furthermore, going back in time, apparently most if not all groups of humans were actually terrorists! The US practiced terrorism in most of its wars, certainly in WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Panama. We also practiced terrorism in the 2003 Gulf War and in the 2001 Afghanistan War.

And almost all governments are far worse then the US. We at least pretend to follow the rules. No one else even bothers. The Ukrainian rebellion of the early 30’s was put down by terrorism. The anti-Soviet guerrillas after the war were defeated by abject terrorism. In the Russian Civil War, both sides were horribly terroristic.

Thinking back to the armed conflicts of recent years, one side of the other has been practicing terrorism, and most of the states fighting armed groups have used terrorism to fight them.

The horrible conflicts in Europe from 1910-1925 were almost all terrorist. Most attempts by colonists to put down anti-colonial rebellions were heavily terroristic. On the other hand the independence fighters often committed a lot of terrorism themselves.

I don’t know much about how war was fought in Europe in the 1800’s and before, but it sounds like an awful lot of it was pretty terroristic. Most Roman conquests appear to have been seriously terroristic.

The Philippines insurgency was pure terrorism on the part of the US. Going back to the Indian Wars it seems clear that in at least some of the Indian Wars, we practiced terrorism against the Indians. The rest of the time we simply allowed non-Indian settlers to commit terrorism against. And the Indians were terrorists from Day One, as the Founders noted in their documents. Sherman’s March to the Sea was clearly sheer terrorism. Going back to the 1700’s and before it seems that a lot of wars were pretty terroristic. Maybe not all of them. China has been having horrible terrorist wars for centuries. Most settler-colonist invasions and occupations were accompanied by quite a bit of terrorism on the part of the settler-colonists.
That’s a fact by the way.

I do not know a lot about wars among primitive peoples but what we do know is not hopeful. For instance if you look at the list on uncontacted people in the world in Wikipedia, you will see that they are almost all in Brazil. A number of groups have vanished with a note saying “genocided in Year X”. These groups often had 50-100 people. They were genocided by some other Amazonian Indians in some tribal war.

But look at the word. Genocided. The tribe that won the tribal war went in and murdered every single one of the opposing tribe, including presumably children, old people and other noncombatants. This leads me to believe that primitive wars were typically viciously terroristic if not outright genocidal. And it also leads me to believe that we humans are basically not only a terrorist species but we are also a genocidal species.

Furthermore, captured rebels are very frequently tortured by state armies.

Nowadays almost all states treat guerrillas as terrorists and try them in civil or military courts under terrorism statutes, mostly because they do not want to abide by the rules of war and treat them as POW’s. That’s if they don’t just out and out execute them. For instance, Syria may have executed 40-50,000 Syrian rebels at military prisons around Syria. And I say that as a supported of Assad.

Even the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are for the most part POW’s. If they’re not, then charge them with terrorism and try them in civilian courts.

The Bush Administration didn’t want to do that because they thought that civilian courts would let the jihadists go free. Bush also wanted to torture those in Guantanamo, probably to get more information out of them in order to prevent future attacks.

Hence a completely fake bullshit category called “illegal combatants” was created in order to accomplish this goal. I spoke to one of the country’s top experts on this, and he laughed and told me that there is no such thing as an illegal combatant under international law, and it was just some fake category the Bush people made up.

Alt Left: Female Rule Always Fails – the Best Society Is a Benign Patriarchy

There are two different types of Masculism, a sort of male version of feminism without all the baggage and misogyny of the MRA’s.

From Wikipedia:

Christensen differentiates between “progressive masculism” and an “extremist version”. The former welcomes many of the societal changes promoted by feminists, while regretting that some measures reducing sexism against women have increased it against men.

The extremist version promotes male supremacy to some degree and is generally based on a belief in women’s inferiority. Nicholas Davidson, in his book The Failure of Feminism, describes an extremist version of masculism which he termed “virism”: “What ails society is ‘effeminacy’. The improvement of society requires that the influence of female values be decreased and the influence of male values increased….”

I do not like the extreme version’s belief in female inferiority, as I refuse to see women as inferior. I do not think the problem with society is effeminacy.

It is just that the Female Imperative has taken over, and women are imposing their feminized society and their Female Rule on us via laws and courts. That’s not acceptable at all. Women or at least their female values, rules, and mores cannot rule countries.

Women can serve as President, in Congress, anywhere in society and help us men run society, but society should not privilege the views, values, and mores of women over those of men. Female Rule imposes female emotionalism and irrationalism on society. This is how females work and that’s ok, as their brains work this way, and they can’t help it. But they shouldn’t impose their emotionally-driven, irrational female views on society via rules and laws.

Men believe in objectivity, hard rules, and cold logic. This is the best way to run society in terms of its laws, rules, and mores, especially in terms of courts and laws. We can call this Male Rule or Patriarchy.

A Benign Patriarchy, the only good kind, would emphasize logic, common sense, objectivity, un-emotionalism, and rationalism as the basis for the rules, mores, and especially laws of society. If imposed by good men in a benign way so as not to privilege men and oppress women, this is the best form of society.

We’ve already seen what happens in Female Rule. We are living it right now. What do you think all this PC and SJW madness is. It’s nothing less than Female Rule itself. This is what it looks like.

With Female Rule, you just get endless chaos, and eventually people will start clamoring for order and saneness to rule society again. They will clamor to bring back a form of Patriarchy, hopefully a benign one which would not resemble the type of Patriarchy that feminists complain about (an Oppressive Patriarchy).

Good, fair minded women can certainly help us men to implement this Benign Patriarchy and in fact the presence of many women at the upper rungs of this society will assure that the rule of logic and sense does not turn into men lording it over and oppressing women, which it often does.

“What Should the Captain Do?” by Alpha Unit

 

Look, Cromie,  this isn’t a ship. You don’t have to go down with it!

  • from “Reilly: Ace of Spies”

In the popular imagination, there has been the idea that a captain is supposed to do everything in his power to save his passengers or die trying. But the answer to the question is “No.”  If a ship is sinking, and everything possible has been done to evacuate crew and passengers, the captain is under no obligation to remain at the helm and go to a watery grave. So where does this idea that a captain goes down with the ship come from?

Throughout history ships’ masters have shown this resolve to stay with sinking vessels, and it had less to do with lofty principle than with concerns over salvage rights. Under ancient maritime law, an abandoned ship could be salvaged by anyone able to put a line on it and bring it safely into port, according to Craig Allen, a Professor of Maritime Studies at the US Coast Guard and at Yale Law School.

The salvor may then be entitled to a substantial salvage award from the owners, based on the value of the abandoned ship and its cargo. So long as the captain or crew remained on the stricken vessel, however, the terms of any salvage arrangement can be negotiated, likely resulting in a lower salvage award.

So traditionally the captain stayed with a damaged ship to protect the ship owners’ interests. Even in the absence of potential salvors, with a captain on the ship it was easier for owners to arrange a towing contract to get the vessel back to port.

Maritime law holds that a captain is responsible for his or her vessel no matter what its condition. If his ship is in imminent peril, his responsibility includes executing the evacuation plan, which requires his presence for the duration. Out of a sense of duty, captains have believed that they must, if it can be managed, be the last person to get off the ship.

Although captains feel a moral duty to do so, it is usually not written that a captain must be the last person to leave the ship. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), adopted in response to the sinking of the Titanic, does not specify that the captain remain on the ship throughout the emergency.

In 1948 the United Nations created the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Its International Safety Code has been adopted by most maritime nations (including the US), but it doesn’t mandate that a captain be the last one off the ship.

Individual countries pass their own laws about the conduct of ships’ masters during catastrophes within their jurisdictions. “Abandonment” of a ship can be prosecuted in some jurisdictions; other countries have prosecuted captains for negligence, or if there are deaths, manslaughter.

Some captains have defended leaving their vessels during evacuation by pointing out that nothing required them to stay until the end. Unsurprisingly, this doesn’t help.

Alt Left: The US Is Trying to Destroy a Foreign Company for Having the Gall to Out-compete Our Companies

It’s appalling that the US has even enlisted the Justice Department and the FBI in geopolitics and its disgusting squabbles with foreign countries in pursuit of our wicked and malign foreign policy. But it won’t be the first time.

For instance, the FBI has been enlisted in a war against Huawei. Huawei’s crime is that it is beating the crap out of our similar technology companies. Why is it beating our companies?  Because our companies are crap? I have no idea but they are. They’re beating us. Badly. Very badly. So badly that it’s pathetic.

Because a foreign company is badly outcompeting one of our industries, we have appallingly decided that this company is an enemy of the United States! I knew the government worked for the corporations, but I had no idea it was that bad.

We placed sanctions on this company for no damned reason at all and also put sanctions on any of our allies should they do business with this company. And we arrested one of their executives on utterly fake charges of violating sanctions against Iran. I had no idea that US law extended to Canada and China!  We have banned the use and sale of this company’s products in the US in spite of the fact that its products are the best in the field, far better than our garbage.

The fake news lie that’s been put out there by the lying US government and the lying media is that Huawei is a security risk because it is tied in with the Chinese government. And there might be security holes in Huawei’s software and hardware, just as there might be security holes in everything, especially our very own lives if you think about. Nothing’s secure in this world or life.

Yeah. There might be security holes in their stuff, but no one’s ever found any, but one might show up any day just the same. And a unicorn might show up any day too. So what? Absence of evidence isn’t proof of jack. So because their stuff might have security holes and because if these mysterious holes exist, the Chinese government might use them to spy on us, we have to ban our entire nation and all of our allies from using their technology.

A sick joke, right? Well, Americans are so retarded that everyone fell for this bullshit, especially 100% of the lying “experts” in the media and government, who you shouldn’t be listening to anyway.

Hauwei’s technology is insecure (actually it might be insecure)! The evil ChiComs might use it to spy on us! Right. And tomorrow the sky might fall. I might not even be typing this. Perhaps this is all a dream. Perhaps this isn’t even real; it’s just a simulation in some matrix. Perhaps I am really dead but someone typing this anyway. Perhaps this. Perhaps that. Maybe anything. We can play this game forever.

And never mind that all Microsoft software has a huge back door in it for the National Security Agency super-spooks to come spying on your computer anytime they fancy, no matter what folly reason they may dream up.

Because some spook decided you were an “enemy combatant”, except no one even knows what an enemy combatant even is, and there’s no such definition as “enemy combatant” in international law. It’s an illegal term for an illegal offense for an illegal category you can be charge under by the state illegally. Not that any of that law stuff matters anyway. The state does what it wants. Leviathan never sleeps.

Because some fed decided you provided material support to a terrorist group”except no one even knows what that even means. How do I not provide material support to a terrorist group. I haven’t the faintest idea.

This sordid Huawei saga is pathetic and sickening. It’s like if I am losing a footrace to some guy and in order to stop him from beating me fair and square, I arrange to have his knees broken as he approaches the finish line so I can claim my fake title. That’s not how honest sportsmen, or fair, decent, or honorable men operate.  That’s how thugs, gangsters, criminals, psychopaths and dictators operate.

“He’s beating  me, so I am going  to break his legs!”

Alt Left: You Have No Idea the Sheer Volume of Vague, Nonsensical or Chickenshit Laws We Have

You would not believe how many laws, even crazy, insane, stupid, and vague laws there are out there. Laws so vague that you have no idea how not to break that law. Where you have no idea if you are breaking it or not. Where you have no idea what’s permissible behavior and what’s not permissible behavior.

Furthermore, with the sheer volume of laws, literally mountains of printed paper out there, no human can keep up with all of them.

Every week I learn of some stupid chickenshit law that I could probably go down on myself if I was so inclined. “Conspiracy to be an agent of a foreign power.” I just learned of that one today. What the Hell does that even mean? What am I permitted to do? What am I not allowed to do? No one knows!

“Harassment” is another one. What’s that? How do I know if I am harassing someone? What does harassment even mean? It could mean anything.

“Annoying or molesting a child” – the anti-grooming law. Literally you can go down on  this law for simply talking to anyone underage. A guy went down on it for a 15 minute conversation in a Pet Mart. I have no idea what they discussed.

“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” Even when a girl is perfectly legal, above the age of consent, they can still get you on contributing to delinquency if her parents get mad. Isn’t that stupid?

And if the age of consent in my state is 18, and I go to a state where the age of consent is 16 and have sex with a 17 year old girl, I committed committed the crime of “crossing state lines to assault a minor” or some BS. The age of consent in my state literally follows me around everywhere I go!

And say the age of consent is whatever in my state but I go to a foreign country where the age of consent is 15 and I live there for a while. I hook up with a 17 year old girl and I go down on sexual assault of a minor or some crap. That’s because when you leave the country, US laws continue to follow you everywhere you go like a nagging wife that won’t let go. And federal law puts the age of consent at 18.

So if you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, you can hook up with a 16 year old girl, but you leave the country and go to someplace where the age of consent is 12 and hook up with a 16 year old girl, and you committed sexual assault of a minor. These laws were put it to stop overseas pedophiles who were traveling to foreign lands where the age of consent was 12 or effectively nonexistent and molesting little children of both sexes, often for years on end. Look how they are being abused.

Suppose the age of consent is 16 in a state. You hook up with a 16 year old girl. Everything’s kosher. But now you take a picture of her naked or she sends you nudes on her phone like every woman I go out with nowadays does anyway. Now  you are “manufacturing child pornography” and “receiving child pornography.”

Suppose a 16 year old girl takes a picture of her own self and  keeps it on her phone. If the cops find it, she’s going down on “manufacturing child pornography” for taking a damned selfie.

If I engage in monetary transactions with anyone in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, or Cuba I can be arrested and look at serious jail time. I have no idea what sort of transactions are allowed if any and which are not allowed. You got me.

You can literally be arrested for traveling from the US to Cuba or North Korea. It is actually against the law to visit those countries as a tourist!

If you buy a gun you have to sign a statement that you don’t use illegal drugs. Well Hell, everyone uses illegal drugs. It’s actually normal to use dope and get high. And if you own a gun and happen to be using any illegal drugs during the time you owned that gun or lie on that form, you can be charged and serve 20 years in prison.

If you loan someone your gun for target practice and he uses it to commit a crime, you can go down for accessory to murder. That’s crazy. That’s like I loan someone my car and he kills someone and I go down on vehicular homicide.

Lie on a loan application? So what. Everyone does that. And anyway, it’s between you and the bank, right? Let the bank sue you. It’s no business of the state’s. But you can do serious time for this chickenshit offense.

You work for a company and you learn some of their trade secrets, whatever the Hell that even means. You quit and go work for some other company and you divulge some of the undefined trade secrets of your previous employer. You are looking at serious time now.

But what business is this of the state’s? It’s between you and the employer you violated the contract of, right?  And I don’t see why that contract should follow you around through the rest of your life after you quit the company. I mean while you still work there, fine. But after you leave? Twenty years down the road? Get real.

Did you realize that lying to a police officer is a crime? No one ever goes down on it because everyone lies to cops, especially criminals. I mean what do you expect them to do, tell the truth? I wouldn’t. Why should I? Only the stupidest criminal would tell the truth to a cop and get himself in trouble. No one ever goes down on it because obviously everyone lies to cops, but the law’s still there.

Lying in court is illegal. This is preposterous because everyone knows that people lie in court all the time. Most criminal defendants who plead innocent and go to trial lie on the stand. People lie on the stand all day, every day, year in and year out in this country. Everyone knows this guy is up there lying his fool head off. He’s often got his lawyer helping him lie like a rug.

Really 95% of the people who plead guilty should go down on perjury, but almost no one ever does. Perjury is a chickenshit offense that is only used on political white collar crimes such as we are seeing with this Russia affair.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to Congress? Why? Why should I tell the truth to those psychopathic lowlifes? They’re not deserving of my truthful statements. I’d lie to them just to show them how much I hate them.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to a Grand Jury? Why? Who the Hell are they? A bunch of citizen-cops? Why do I have to tell the truth to them? The Hell with them.

To Live Outside the Law, You Must Be Honest

Well, the moral of the Street is something called “Paybacks are a bitch.” You wrong people on the street like drug dealers or other Street-type people, and they have a tendency to get their revenge on you, and it can be pretty serious.

And the police probably will not get involved to protect you, as word will get out that you were badly wronging people, and they took revenge on you. Cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged some other scumbags, and they see these crimes as “NHI”, or No Humans Involved. If you got paid back, cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged people and got what you deserved.

People on the street do not let wrongs so unanswered. That’s why actually most Street-type people like users and dealers, especially of the soft stuff like pot, are downright honest people. There a code of honor among Street people. Dylan sang, “If you live outside the law, you must be honest,” and I swear it’s true.

This Code of Justice has a tendency to keep most low level Street type people (as long as they are not too bad) quite honest if only out of fear if nothing else. Another moral of the streets is “The Street Knows Everything.”

Street people know everything about everyone, all the underground types out there. You can’t really hide secrets from these people. Anything significant about you gets found out, and word of mouth travels like lightning. They even know who you are hanging around with, dating, or sleeping with.

So if you think you can do crimes against Street people and not have anyone figure it out, you are probably wrong. And when they get back at you, they will generally commit some sort of low level crimes against you when doing so, as most forms of revenge tend to be illegal.

Even if it’s only kicking your ass, it’s still against the law. You go to the cops because people took revenge on you, and now you are a snitch or a narc, the worst sort of snitch actually, the kind who wrongs people, gets revenged on, and then goes running to the Mommy Cop to whine about getting his much-deserved reckoning.

The person who got revenged on and his friends typically won’t got to the police because they are probably low level criminals too and criminals, especially drug dealers, simply don’t go to the cops because they don’t want to get caught themselves.

Another thing is that if other Street people find out that you revenged on some guy, as long as you didn’t kill him or something like that, most of them either nod their heads gravely or break out in a big smile, and in both cases, they say, “I won’t say a thing.”

You might be thinking, “Don’t these Street People worry when committing crimes to get revenge that  they might get caught and go to jail? Well, let’s face it. Street people are already criminals for the most part! They almost all committing at least some low-level crimes.

You think criminals worry about going to jail? Hell, they’re already making a career out of breaking the law. I mean they don’t want to go to jail, but criminals are usually a lot less afraid of jail than law-abiders, and

Alt Left: The American Injustice System

County jails used to be very easy-going here in California before the 2011 Realignment which shifted a lot of prison inmates into local county jails with disastrous affects.

Now California county jails are downright dangerous places and in addition, the conditions are often horrific. Cops and guards beat the Hell out of arrestees and inmates all the time and nothing ever happens to them.

You wonder why I don’t like cops too much. Well, they beat the living crap out of some of my best friends for doing nothing at all or for protesting jail conditions. We used to say back in the day that they want to beat up everyone they arrest. It’s just part of the arrest procedure. We’ve had quite a few lawsuits here in California to stop these maniacs from beating people up for no good reason, but they’re still doing it all the time.

I also have a very low opinion of jail guards and even the nurses who work in jails, as most of those people are either out and out sadists (the guards) or cold as ice with zero empathy (the nurses).

I basically hate the whole system, most laws (which are stupid and should be abolished), cops* in general (act like they hate me, beat me up a few times, hassle me  to this day, abuse their authority, lie in court, etc.), guards (see above), jails (see above), prisons (see above but a lot worse), courts (the heart of the wicked system), judges (mostly hanging judges), prosecutors (the worst of them all, generally with zero morals – basically super-cops), and bailiffs (mean as Hell).

The whole system is garbage and I hate every bit of it. I realize we need cops, courts, DA’s, judges, jails, prisons, etc. but the system is completely unfair, messes with way too many people, punishments are far too harsh, jail conditions are Medieval, and cops and guards are sadistic maniacs.

We need a judicial system but not like this. It’s got to be dramatically reformed. We have way too many laws. The cucks, women, cops, narcs, and police state types have succeeded in making just about half of life illegal. Seriously. Half of crimes should just be abolished because they’re chickenshit offenses.  For a lot of that stuff, just let people settle things among themselves.

The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street smart sort of way.

It is also very honest and moral. There is a Street Code of Honor, and you break it, and you’re going to be sorry. Be cool, be honest, don’t rip people off or wrong people, and for the most part, it’s all good. Start messing people around, and things are going to get ugly real fast.

*A lot of cops don’t like me and for some reason, for decades now, they act like they hate me on sight, something I never understood. But some cops are nice to me, and I like them. A lady cop came up to me in a  coffee shop recently and she was extremely friendly. I was almost wondering if it was a come-on. But she had met me before a few times around town and always acted like she hated me.

I’ve been a crime victim before, and cops are very, very nice when you are a victim. They act like angels. I’ve also worked with police a bit on some investigations. They called me in to interview me about suspects and crimes. These were detectives and at these times these detectives were very nice and friendly. I like detectives a lot more than cops really because they’re far smarter than ordinary cops and have a relatively relaxed moral code.

I mean homicide cops just want to solve homicides.  They don’t care if you smoked weed or even sold it. You’re there to help them solve a homicide or attempted homicide and the low level dope stuff is simply not important or germane to what they need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy reading!

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

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

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

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

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

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter I – The New Working Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such policies should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III – Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter V – Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Another Word for “Dating” Is “Sexual Assault”

The problem with sexual assault laws is that sexual assault and dating are pretty much the same thing, just as flirting and sexual harassment are basically the same thing and sex with affirmative consent is often rape.

Therefore this idiot Puritanical, Victorian #metoo movement has just effectively outlawed flirting, dating, and a lot of sex right off the bat. Well for straight men anyway. Straight women, lesbians, and gay men can go ahead and do all that stuff and nothing ever happens to them because the #metoo BS was always intended by the dykes and manhaters who created it to constrain, reduce, and ideally eliminate heterosexual sex altogether.

What is the enemy of the feminist movement? Heterosexual men. Women get maximal freedom and never get called on anything while heterosexual men have maximum restriction (as Roissy has correctly noted) and have to live in terror of being brought up on “sexual misconduct” (What is that anyway? It sounds like something the former USSR would invent. Does it even have a definition?) charges by a feminist kangaroo court and hanging jury.

A friend was telling me about how some chick rubbed up against him absolutely on purpose in a deliberate and sexual way in a bar. And it went on for about a minute too. He didn’t react to it in any way. He just let her do it with no reaction on his part other than passivity. I responded that if a woman does that to you, just grab her and start kissing her, just like that. He was alarmed and said, “That’s sexual assault, dude.”

I laughed in his face and called him a cuck and a pussy. I guess I’ve been “sexually assaulting” women my whole life then. Another word for “dating” is “sexual assault.” If you do not “sexually assault” females you date, you will die a virgin. I am serious.

Go in for the kiss. If she backs off, pushes you away, protests, or turns her cheek, then stop. If you keep doing it when she’s protesting or pushing you away, it’s getting rapey and moving into “sexual assault” territory, plus it’s rude and a dick move in general.

Pay no attention to this ridiculous #metoo “affirmative consent” folly about asking permission (“Mother, may I?”) every time you do something physical with a female. Nothing dries up a vagina faster than that. That’s pathetic.

Don’t ever ask permission to do anything physical with a female (with a few exceptions). Just start touching her body with yours physically, see how she reacts, escalate or de-escalate based on her reaction, and go from there.

95% of the time when I did what is described above (that feminists and cucks call sexual assault), the females just totally went for it, and then whatever happened, happened. I always got at least a hot makeout session.

If you do it sanely like a normal, decent person and man, you will never get the cops called on you, and you will never be arrested for sexual assault. Neither ever happened to me and I’ve done the unsolicited physical moves above with literally hundreds of females from age 14 to 59 over a period of 45 years.

The Lie of the Incompetent Black Affirmative Action Professional

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

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

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