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

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.

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.

Update: Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Updated post on the rape and sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh. New information is in italic.
My personal opinion is that Brett Kavanaugh is or was a serial rapist who raped women at least 14 times, sexually assaulted women three times, and tried to rape women at least once between ages 17-24, mostly between ages 17-21. His friend Mark Judge assisted in most of these rapes and attempted rapes.
The scorecard on Brett Kavanaugh. Between 1982-88, Kavanaugh, aged 17-24, committed:

  • 14 rapes
  • 3 sexual assaults
  • 1 attempted rape

Conclusion: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom. Brett Kavanaugh, age 17, grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into a bedroom where his friend Mark Judge was waiting.
Kavanaugh and Judge turned the music up loud so the others could not hear their planned rape of Ford. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, got on top of her, and tried to tear her swimsuit off. She screamed and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She fought him off the whole time, and after a bit of a struggle, managed to get out from under him. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her and began playing games with a fake penis, asking her to touch it. Brett Kavanaugh then stood up and pulled out his penis and waved it in front of her face, daring her to touch it. He then forced her to touch his penis. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 and 18 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

Is there anyone on my site who thinks this rape culture folly even exists at all? I mean I’ve never raped anyone in my life. None of my friends have ever raped anyone in their lives. I don’t know any men who have ever raped anyone in their lives, at least that I know of. Where’s the rape culture. If this was a rape culture I probably would have been raping all this time.
Rape culture theory says the US has a rape culture that encourages men to rape females, that lets males off the hook when they do it because police officers, DA’s, judges, juries and our fellow men in general all sympathize with the rapists and let them off the hook. This is madness. Most men don’t sympathize with real actual rapists, I mean males who break the actual laws against rape. I’m talking real rape here. Real rape is legal rape. There’s real rape and there’s feminist rape. Feminist rape is whenever some female says she got raped, it was rape, no matter what happened. Feminists expand the definition of  rape every year and make ever increasing and ever crazier demands in terms of consent.
The intention here is obvious. Many feminists hate men, hate masculinity and especially hate heterosexual men. This is especially true of radical feminists. I assure you that if radical feminists could make heterosexual sex illegal for men, they would do it. In fact the feminists who first made up these laws hated heterosexual men, said all heterosexual sex was rape, and seemed to be trying to make it as illegal as possible. I refer to Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon. All sexual harassment came directly from Dworkin and McKinnon, two of the most insane man-hating bitches that have ever lived. Robin Morgan also made some statements about shutting down heterosexual sex and forcing all women to be lesbians. They weren’t exactly shy about their goals.
Do male cops really sympathize with actual rapists, I mean stranger rapists like the guy with the ski mask and a can of mace types? Do male judges really sympathize with these guys? Male DA’s like rapists? We men in general like rapists and support them and try to get them off the hook?
This whole theory sounds completely insane. There is no rape culture in this country, for God’s sake. Now if you go down to Latin America or over to the Philippines, India, Egypt, or South Africa, now you are getting somewhere. If we had a rape culture, all of those men would not have lost their jobs for flirting with women (sexual harassment) or touching women (sexual assault). There would have been no #metoo nonsense. There would have been no #timesup crap. The Kavanaugh hearings would not be rocking the nation like they are. The fact that all these things are happening are arguments against the existence of a rape culture, not in favor of one.

Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom, and somehow she got into a room with Kavanaugh, age 17 at the time, and his friend Mark Judge. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and tried to tear her clothes off. She fought him off the whole time. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her, pulled out their penises, and forced her to touch them. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Kavanaugh was one of the men who stood over her, whipped out his penis and forced her to touch it. Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Game/PUA: Where Does "Seduction" End and "Sexual Assault" Begin?

Shi: While I agree with the remaining article, I beg to differ with the following paragraph.
RL: Males have this idea that if they just keep grabbing at her over and over, eventually she’s going to cave in. In my experience, it doesn’t work that way. Once she starts batting your hand away like that, you can touch her two, three, five, or 50 more times, and she will just keep pushing your hand away while getting increasingly angry. My experience has been that you won’t eventually break her by continuing to touch her. It doesn’t work that way. So if she’s batting your hand away, quit touching her.
If a girl allows me to touch her 50 frikking times, and still brushes me aside each and every time. Well, I’m definitely taking her to bed.
It is important that she yells at me and creates a scene. I get such an incredible hard-on by that.
HER: “I don’t want you to touch me, pervert. I’ll call my boyfriend/the cops if you do it again.”
ME: “I don’t mind your boyfriend. I’m drunk, baby. Just one more kiss and I will be gone from your life. Forever. Promise. Maybe two kisses.”
I have to be a little drunk or high on something to pull this stunt successfully.
Li’l naughty me expects to be smacked on the face or kicked in the groins before taking a hint.
50 cold shoulder rejections of my handsy self is a rather huge number. There IS A NUMBER OF TIMES by which she should cave in. It’s never gotten that far. Maybe 10-15 rejections on the dance floor at the most. But, not before I got my fingers wrapped around her waist, hips and boobies.
(p.s. – I don’t have much experience with American women as I’ve never been to USA. That might be an extra level of difficulty.)

You can’t do that here in the US. Shi advocates this stuff all the time, but if you try to do what Shi advocates here in the US, you are going to get accused of sexual assault. I am not sure what will happen to you, but most of the #metoo allegations that caused so many men lost jobs and destroyed careers were for doing exactly what Shi is talking about here. Or even less.
Every time you touch her without getting her consent beforehand, it is literally sexual assault. If she likes it, it’s not sexual assault anymore. In the present day US, if you keep grabbing at a woman, and she keeps knocking you away and getting increasingly angry, you are literally sexually assaulting her. And according to all this #metoo shit, you need to be arrested for that. Even after the first time she bats you away, feminists say that’s called “No means no,” and you literally have to not touch her even one more time.
So I am pretty scared to keep grabbing at them when they start pushing me away like that.
Actually it is much worse than that. If you touch her or grab at her even one time without getting permission first and she gets mad and bats you away, you literally just committed sexual assault right there. And the feminists say you need to be arrested on sexual assault charges for doing just that.
The problem is that one of the definitions of sexual assault is “dating.” So by defining sexual assault in this crazy way, the US feminists have succeeded in making dating effectively illegal.
Because at least on every date or similar seduction situation I have ever been in with a female, I started touching her or kissing her in some way or another. I never once asked permission. I just did it. I have literally done this 10,000’s of times now with hundreds of females.

  • If you go on a date with a female, you need to start touching her at some point.
  • Reach out and take her hand in yours as you are walking along.
  • Reach around her waist and put your arm around her as you walk along.
  • Put your arm around your shoulder.
  • Reach down to her leg and put your hand on her upper thigh.
  • Reach over to her arms and start lightly touching her arms with your fingers.
  • If she has a pocket on her dress, ask if you can put your hand in it. When she says yes, do it.
  • If you have something in a jeans or sweater pocket, coyly ask her if she can take the item out of your pocket for you. They will get a twinkle in their eye and do just that.
  • Lean over and kiss her, usually slowly and gently. Put your hands on her softly as you do it.
  • When you are sitting down, reach your arm around her shoulder and put your hand on her tit.
  • Or just jump her. On a car seat next to you, parked in front of her place, just attack her and start kissing her really hard. On a bed at her place, look at her and then just jump her and start kissing her really hard.
  • Grab her and shove her up against a hallway and start kissing her really hard. If after a minute she tells you to back off, do it. Then an hour later, do it again.
  • Each and every one of these actions is a sexual assault except for where you put your hand in her dress pocket. But if she goes for it, it’s not sexual assault anymore. Yet you never know if she is going to go for it or not until you try. The British call this “trying it on.” They call flirting with a woman “chatting her up.”

But if you keep grabbing at her over and over, and she keeps pushing you away while getting angrier, the #metoo movement is definitely calling this sexual assault. On the other hand, your chances of going down on this are about zero because no DA will take such a stupid case. Yet I don’t feel like pestering women.
The problem here is that with women, a lot of the time “no” doesn’t mean “no” at all. Instead, “no” means “try harder.” If females want to know why males act so rapey, it’s for that reason right there – females deliberately promote and encourage rapey behavior in males!
What do you think, guys? Let’s hear your thoughts.

  • How do you feel about touching and kissing women without their permission (something I advocate)?
  • How do you feel about continuing to touch and grab at her as she bats you away and gets increasingly angry (something that gives me a queasy feeling these days).
  • What’s sexual assault?
  • Where does dating end and sexual assault begin?
  • What do you think of the latest feminist consent idiocy where you have to ask permission anytime you want to touch or kiss a female in any way?

Alt Left: I Got Banned by Alternet for Opposing Radical Feminist Idiocy

Chalk up Alternet as one more left site destroyed by feminist fanatics. I think feminuts have taken over pretty much the entire Left at this point. There’s no way to be a liberal or Leftist now without subscribing to radical feminism.
I forget exactly what the article was about, but the discussion descended to Jeffrey Epstein of Pedo Island fame. Epstein recruited mostly legal age teenage girls over the age of 16 to work as models at Pedo Island. They ended up working as prostitutes for Mr. Epstein.
Epstein also had quite a bit of sex with girls younger than that, mostly 14-15, but he is accused of having sex with a 12 and 13 year old girl too. Charges were brought against him for having sex with a number of 14 and 15 year old girls, all of whom he paid for the favor.
So he was accused of having sex with many underage teenage prostitutes. Most took the money, but one 14 year old girl refused to take the money and decided to prosecute. Epstein had paid her an unknown amount for a handjob. He was convicted and sentenced to 13 months in federal prison for this crime.
The article went on to call this Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, a ridiculous term which makes no sense. The girls Epstein was having sex with were not trafficked. To be trafficked, you have to have a pimp. If you work on your own with no pimp, you are an independent businesswoman, and you’re not being trafficked unless you are trafficking  yourself, which is a bizarre idea.
All of this silliness has been made much worse by radical feminists’ bizarre insistence that all prostitution is somehow “trafficking.” When a man buys a prostitute’s services, he is “trafficking” her. Make sense. Of course not, nothing a radical feminist says is rational, but who cares! Radical feminists don’t logic. Anyway, I attacked this whole ridiculous concept, and the radical feminists at Alternet banned me.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist retard): “DMST comes in various forms, including prostitution, pornography, stripping and other sexual acts into which an underage child is forced or enticed by an adult.”
Robert Lindsay: This is semantic abuse, government style.
LOL she wasn’t forced. She did it over her own free will just like all the rest of the little whores. They did it for the money, same as all prostitutes do. No one was forcing anyone to do anything.
“Rape parties” LOL. You’re kidding. Most of those girls were quite willing. A lot of them were coming to his place in New York and they were often 16-17, which is legal in NY. A lot of these girls were being invited down to Pedo Island, and they went there quite willingly.
Epstein did rape some girls, but a lot of them were doing it consensually for money. Consensual sex between an adult man and a teenage girl is hardly rape. The best term for it is “illegal intercourse.”
There were hundreds of girls who came forward and said Epstein paid them for sex, and Epstein paid off every single one of them. The 14 year old would not take the money and filed charges. That’s the only reason he went down at all.
13 months in prison for a handjob from a very willing 14 year old girl sounds about right. It’s hardly the crime of the century.
It’s funny because you abused the term “sex trafficking.”

As you can see, anytime an underage girl sells her ass sexually, she’s being “trafficked”? Trafficked by whom? Who forced her to whore her teen ass out as a high school prostitute? In some cases, no one.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist idiot): This is also known as domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST), which is the commercial sexual exploitation of children through buying, selling, or trading the sexual services of American children.
Robert Lindsay: That’s a bullshit definition of sex trafficking. Who made that up? Radical feminists? Every underage prostitute out there (she was quite willing to whore herself to Epstein) is “being trafficked?” WTF. Who’s trafficking them? The men who buy sex from them are “trafficking” them? That’s madness.
I keep seeing these endless references to females being “trafficked,” and I keep wondering what in the Hell they are talking about. Generally the term means the woman is in bondage to someone, say a pimp, and is being moved around the country to prostitute for him, and she’s not making much money out of it either. It’s more or less sex slavery. It’s hard to understand how a teenage girl entrepreneuring as a prostitute is a sex slave.
Now I am getting it. For radical feminists just about every prostitute out there is somehow “being trafficked.” It all adds up now.
Flagged for semantic abuse and word murder by the radical feminuts.

She came back with more nonsense – that Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking for paying a 14 year old girl $200 for a handjob. How the Hell did he “traffic” that girl by giving her a wad of cash for a simple sex act? Radical feminists are murdering language again, but that’s nothing new.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Robert Lindsay: He didn’t get convicted of sex trafficking. He got convicted of paying a 14 year old girl to give him a handjob lol.

Alt Left: A Conversation about the Plague Called Modern Feminism

Rod Fleming: The Right in this case are libertarians whereas the Left are authoritarians.

We don’t have any rightwing libertarians in power here in the US. All of our rightwingers, and they are the worst humans on Earth, are the authoritarian Right, and in general, they are part of the anti-male war on sex too. There is an alliance between American conservatives and feminists to stick it to American heterosexual men.
But yes, the rightwingers who are standing up to #metoo garbage are the libertarian sort, like on Spiked.

Rod Fleming: “economically centrist, socially conservative (in that we believe in things like ‘children should be brought up in supportive nuclear families’ ) free-thinking Libertarians,”

Someone like this would not be a libertarian in US culture. All US Libertarians are ultra-right on economics, no exceptions. This person you describe for all intents and purposes does not exist in US politics. There’s no such thing.
But you are correct. Any person with a politics like the above would be driven out of every liberal and Left forum and pilloried as Republicans. It is the “social conservative” part that would get you. Social conservatives of any variety, even mild ones like you describe above, are not allowed anywhere near anything liberal, Left, or Democratic Party in the US. I am banned from many liberal and Left forums on the Net on the grounds that I am a: fascist, racist, sexist, Republican. In fact, I am none of these things! I am practically a Communist!
I am still not on the Right. These leftwing scum keep screaming that I am on the Right, so I took them at their word and wandered around every rightwing movement I could find. I hated every single one of them. I continue to search rightwing sites everywhere and I still hate every single one I see. I have not yet found a rightwing or conservative faction that appeals to me in any way, shape, or form, and I still utterly hate every conservative site or faction that encounter. If I am on the Right like all you leftwing garbage insist, why don’t you kindly point to some rightwing movement or web page somewhere where I can fit in without wanting to punch every conservative I see? I mean show me my movement.
Conservatives are the enemy of all mankind. I am basically a liberal deep down inside. I despise the conservative way of thinking.

Rod Fleming: At the same time, Feminism, which has always been sex-negative, has reached unprecedented levels of influence because of the way that Postmodernist Feminism has infiltrated and corrupted the education system.

What about Third Wave sex-positive feminism? My feeling is that it’s not all that sex-positive!

Rod Fleming: Rabidfems (essentially Postmodernist Feminists who have replaced Marx’s scapegoat, the bourgeoisie, with men, especially white men),

More true of radical feminists. Sort of true about Third Wavers, except most do not have Marxist roots.

Rod Fleming: want to absolutely control the supply of sex, even to the point of policing women’s sexual behavior, because 1) they loathe men and think they can hurt us by stopping us having sex (good luck with that one, hit me up if you want the names of some good bars in Angeles, boys)

Well, women always want to control the supply of sex. But now they have a lobby called feminism where they do this openly and blatantly. In Sweden they made it illegal for men to go overseas to get a foreign bride as a lot of Swedish men have. Sweden is a pure feminist Hell, the most feminist country on Earth. Feminists have actually been running the government for years now. Feminists have completely destroyed that wonderful country.
Is the purpose of modern feminism really to control the supply of sex in society? I mean, women do a pretty good job of that on their own, don’t they, with or without feminism? Why do women need feminism to control the sex supply as they do this as a matter of course anyway?
I am convinced that modern feminism wants to stop straight men from having sex. Gay men can have sex all the men and boys they want. In fact, many feminists would prefer if most or all of us straight men were gay because then we would leave them alone. Many modern feminists hate men looking at them, flirting with them, and asking them out, and if we were all gay, that would end.
The theoretical roots of both 2nd and 3rd Wave feminism lie in the worst man-hating feminism of all – radical feminism via Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon, and the rest. They were all quite open about wanting to more or less make heterosexual sex impossible or illegal, and this is exactly what they are doing with #metoo garbage and rape hysteria.

Rod Fleming: they think that if they can absolutely monopolize and then control the supply of sex, they can control society.

Women already always monopolize and control the supply of sex, and this has never given them control over society. How will this give them control over society if they do it in the guise of feminism when it never worked earlier?
Feminists want control over society so they can stick it to us men good and hard, that’s what they want. I have said this many times before, but this is paybacks. Feminism is 100% pure revenge against men and 0% anything else. They are mad at what we have done to them, and they are going to make us pay for it.

Rod Fleming: I mean, these are people who want to ban SEX DOLLS because they ‘demean women’s bodies).

Radical feminists hate those stupid dolls, but how do 3rd Wavers feel about them?

Rod Fleming: They torpedoed Milo because he refused to condemn the man who seduced him when he was 13.

Yes, those scum called Milo a pedophile because an older man had sex Milo when Milo was 13! If anything, Milo was a victim of a “molester”. He wasn’t one himself! Let’s call all kids who get molested child molesters then, right, feminists?

Rod Fleming: That would be bad enough, but then we have Rag, Tag and Bob-tail, the Omega-males snuffling round the skirts of the rabidfems, hoping that by backing them up and betraying their brothers, they can pick up some sympathy sex. That right there is the lowest form of human life, of all.

I don’t agree that male feminists are all Omegas, though of course some of them are. A lot are simply Betas. And I think some Alpha men are calling themselves feminists now because you pretty much have to. However, all male feminists are automatically wimps, cucks, girls, girlyboys, soyboys, wusses, and especially faggots. These manginas have gone over to the enemy. The women are for all intents and purposes the enemy nowadays to the extent that they support feminism.
There is something particularly horrific and pathetic about the creature called the Male Feminist, a traitorous cuck to the Brotherhood if there ever was one.

Sexual Misconduct Charges against Trump: The Run-Down

I believe that Trump did act inappropriately towards women a number of times. He sure pissed off a lot of women with his forward behaviors. I can’t recall most of the cases, but I can comment on a few.
He absolutely beat up and violently raped his ex-wife. There’s no doubt in my mind about that. He definitely broke the following laws: assault (he assaulted her so badly that he actually yanked some of the hair out of her head) and rape (the threw her down to the floor and violently raped her against her will). The ex-wife was paid off and part of the payoff was that she could not talk about the episode.
I also think that he beat and raped a 13 year old girl and a 12 year old girl at Jeffrey Epstein’s apartment in the 1990’s. The victim was named and highly credible. Trump threatened the 13 year old that if she talked, she would end up like Maria, the 12 year old. At the time he said that, Maria had not been seen in some time. The implication was that Trump and/or Epstein had had Maria killed. I feel that he broke the following laws: assault (he punched her in the head), rape (he violently raped her against her will), and laws against sex with a minor (she was 13 years old).
The 13 year old, now in her early 30’s, sued Trump in civil court. The woman finally dropped the case because she was getting a lot of death threats. The case was settled out of court when Trump apparently paid the woman off. As part of the settlement, she was not allowed to talk about the case.
His behavior in going into the locker room where underage teenage girls were changing for his pageants. There were naked 15-17 year old girls in there. He was running the pageant and there was nothing they could do to stop him. He broke no laws here, but this is creepy behavior. I mean come on, people.
I would have to go back over the other charges to see what to make of them, but few if any of them actually rise to the level of criminal sexual assaults. Most are under the murky rubric of sexual misconduct, and no one even knows what that is. Technically they were all sexual assaults, but this sort of thing happens constantly, and police never even arrest on hokey charges like this because if they did, 10 million men would be imprisoned in the first year. Cops have better things to do than cuffing some guy for copping a feel in a bar.
I will say that Trump has left a whole string of women pissed off, even years later, over his excessively aggressive sexual behavior. Trump’s been acting excessively sexually aggro with females for a long time now.

Game/PUA: The Big Lie about Sex with an Intoxicated Woman Being Rape

Tulio: What I also found is that a huge number of reported rapes are actually acquaintance rapes and involve a guy having sex with a woman who drank too much. I’ve had sex with women where we were both heavily intoxicated. If the girl decided to go to the cops the next day and say she was raped, I’d be included in that statistic.

Yes, and police almost always refuse to make an arrest in these cases, which encompass 45% of rape cases.
Like you, I’ve been having sex with intoxicated (on alcohol and other drugs) my whole life. I guess I’ve been raping females my whole life, and I’ve committed thousands of rapes. I’m such a bad boy. Where do I go to turn myself in?
It’s not illegal to have sex with an intoxicated woman, despite what so many (all?) ridiculous women think. So far, every woman I have talked to has told me that if a man has sex with an intoxicated woman, it’s rape. Are there any women who don’t believe this? I mean think about. Women who are drunks or alcoholics get raped virtually every time they have sex.  And if the man is intoxicated too, why isn’t it true that she raped him? Or that they both raped each other?
The legal standard is “incapacitated.” That means either passed out or passing in and out of consciousness. If she’s not so drunk she’s incapacitated, no DA will take the case.
And if she’s so wasted she’s incapacitated as in passed out drunk, DA’s almost never file because there’s no evidence. Especially young men aged 19-23 have sex with women passed out on booze ALL THE TIME. And they almost never go down on it. Actually there are many amateur porn videos uploaded all over the Net showing males doing exactly that – having sex with a passed out woman.
Pro tip to the males reading this blog: If she is passing in and out of consciousness while you are involved in a sexual situation with her, stop the sexual behavior. You’re raping her. And if she is all the way passed out, for Chrissake don’t do anything sexual with her. Not only are you raping her, you’re also a necrophiliac in my opinion.
I am not sure what the standard is if she is falling down or incoherently drunk. Incoherently drunk might meet the standard of incapacitated. You really want to have sex with a woman who’s that wasted? She’ll probably puke in your bed for Chrissake.
But if she’s merely been drinking and she’s not incoherent or passing out, go ahead and have sex with her to your heart’s content. Drunken females are often ravenously horny.

An Interesting View of Masculinity

Found on the Net:

Feminized and passive men don’t solve problems. There are men in this world committing rape, murder, and all kinds of wickedness. When a man is feminized, he becomes passive and won’t stop those who are doing evil things. Feminized men are passive men, and passive men don’t draw lines in the sand, won’t stand up for principles, and won’t protect, provide, and defend those who need it most.
But masculine men will stop evil men from committing evil. The same traits that supposedly make men “toxic” – warmongering, colonialism, and greediness – also make men courageous enough to stop evil men from doing evil things.
As Allie Stuckey once said, “we don’t need less masculinity, we need better masculinity.” This world doesn’t need feminized, passive men. This world needs better men, braver men. It needs good men who will stand up against men of evil intent and declare, “This is the line in the sand. and you will go no further.”
We don’t need less masculinity. We need more.

Interesting view.
Of course the feminists and the Cultural Left themselves will hate this because they hate nothing more than masculinity, heterosexuality, and men. I would add Whites but they are not important to this argument. T
The hatred of the three things above is because intersectional 3rd Wave feminism is an integral part of the modern Cultural Left, and 3rd Wave feminism hates masculinity.
It doesn’t hate heterosexuality and men nearly as much as 2nd Wavers do, but the insane #metoo consent insanity that they put in seems to be an effort to put a halt to all heterosexual sex, although they don’t realize that. The #metoo, consent, sexual harassment, exploding rape definition insanity was actually put in by radical feminists in an effort to slow down or stop heterosexual sex as much as they could by making a lot of it illegal.
Sexual harassment theory was created by Katharine McKinnnon and Andrea Dworkin, two of the most psychotic, manhating bitches who ever lived.
Dworkin’s opinion was that all PIV sex was rape, and this  criminalizing of a lot of normal heterosexual flirtation, dating, and sex was an effort on her part to put theory into practice.
It was McKinnon who expanded quid pro quo sexual harassment – a legitimate area of law – into hostile workplace insanity, an ever ill-defined and undefinable standard that has exploded the workplace and much of public space for that matter, as everything down to lingering looks is criticized as a form of sexual harassment, violence, and rape.
3rd Wavers have mixed feelings about men. The man-hatred is still there, but it’s in the background. As I said in an earlier post, 3rd Wave man-hatred can’t go too far because 3rd Wavers like dick too much, so it only goes too deep. They want to hate men on some level, but there is that raging sex drive now kindled by porn culture that keeps driving them back to us. And they do love men on that level – a love and sex level.
This sort of ambivalence towards men is actually typical of straight women period, but it is much less strongly expressed in most straight women, who tend to voice puzzled frustration with men more than out and out hatred for them.
I hardly ever encounter out and out man-hatred in any women I date. I would add that if you are dating a man-hater, watch out. No matter how much she likes or loves you and sex, that man-hatred is always going throw a monkey wrench into your relationship. You won’t have a stable relationship as long as she has that poison in her brain. How many women have good relationships with misogynists? Well, it’s the same thing when it’s the other way around.
About the theory above, I like it, but I fear that it will be abused by sadistic, BD/SM, sociopathic misogynists who seem to be increasing in number nowadays. Sadly, more and more women, especially young women, seem to enjoying and even preferring these psycho men. This trend really has me worried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

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

Alt Left: Some of My Positions on Conservative and Liberal US Foreign Policy

Is it ok for me to believe in Leftist economics yet still agree on many points with the neocons when it comes (rhyme, hah) to foreign policy?
Conservative opinions I like:

  • Occupation of Palestine.
  • bombing of Yemen.
  • Invasion of Iraq.
  • Invasion of Lybia.
  • Anti Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment.
  • Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now).
  • France´s colonization of Algeria.

Now these things aren’t perfect, but optimal compared to the other alternatives.

  • Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, I’d prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European Commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-White subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!.
    https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/more-than-half-of-ukrainians-want-to-join-eu-poll-shows-32735

The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:
-Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin america).
-Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama s negotiations about the nuke thing.).
-Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to EU membership of Ukraine,

Sure, the fact you like my economics is amazing enough to keep you around.
My positions:
Conservative opinions I like:
– Occupation of Palestine. NOPE
– Bombing of Yemen. NOPE
– Invasion of Iraq. NOPE
– Invasion of Libya. NOPE
– Anti-Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment. NO on Hezbollah because I love Hezbollah. I don’t like Hamas too much, but the Hamas-haters are worse, and anyway they are pragmatic for Islamists.
– Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now). NOPE. Rails?
– France´s colonization of Algeria. NOPE.
Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, id prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-white subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!
NOPE. Not sure if I want Ukraine in the EU. Anyway, I hate the EU. Mostly I don’t want them in NATO, Hell no. Also I do not want more North American Terrorist Organization troops in Eastern Europe. Not sure about cutting the safety net either, especially racially like that.
See? Look above. Conservatives are always wrong on foreign policy. Period.
The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:
– Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin America). OF COURSE.
– Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama’s negotiations about the nuke thing.). SURE.
– Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to membership of Ukraine.
ABSOLUTELY, I support the annexation of Crimea and I support the Donbass fighters. I wish Russia would just annex the Donbass. It would solve so many problems. Not sure about Ukraine and EU membershit. Anyway, I hate the EU too. EU is the economic arm of the North American Terrorist Organization.
See? Liberal foreign policy is always right.

Alt Left: What's Behind the SJW's Vicious Obsession with Persecuting Straight Men for Statutory Rape?

Among other things, SJW’s also hate straight male statutory rape (which jailbait sex used to be called back when we were sane, say in the 1970’s). But they’re renamed it as “pedophilia.” This was very clever because now SJW’s get to lump all straight men in with chomos and Chesters, and most folks want child molesters dead. If SJW’s can convince everyone that all straight men are child molesters (even only in their minds) they can kill off the straight men, in realis or at least in the public’s mind.
So to SJW’s that means that all straight men are evil scum who need to be put not in but under the jail because 17 year old girls give us a hardon. We don’t even have to have sex with these little seductresses, which is exactly what they are. It’s sufficiently evil that they arouse us in the privacy of our own pants. Somehow, this thought crime is sufficiently criminal to swing every straight man by a rope.
SJW’s have done this because attraction to teenage girls is hardwired into all normal heterosexual men, so by labeling it evil and a capital offense to boot, SJW’s get to in effect sentence straight men to death for being normal. They get to say that normal straight male heterosexuality gets the death penalty. They do this because they hate us. They hate us because the toxic feminism in their ranks has infected their brains like a parasite run amok.
So now the jails are full of say, 18 year old men going down for holding hands with a 17 year old girl. And the guy’s doing four full years. For nothing. For bullshit. For daring to be normal.
This has also been a very convenient way for feminists to put a lot of straight men in jail and prison, which is presumably where they want us anyway. One reason is pure paybacks and the other is a common feminist insistence that straight men are so toxic that they need to be either cordoned off from everyone else or nearly wiped out. We need to take these drastic measures to save the planet, feminists say.
Well, the feminists haven’t gotten their male concentration camps yet, but don’t worry. They’re working on it! Keep an eye out for Sweden. They’ll probably show up there within 20 years.
And they can’t kill us off, not yet anyway, but if they ever seize full power, all bets are off on what they would do to us. No matter how much straight male blood they draw into their drooling feminist vampire fangs, they never seem sated. Every year they have to up the ante, attack straight men even more, pass new insane laws, and deepen the craziness a bit more.
Like most Identity Politics groups, feminists don’t know when to stop, and achieving their goals is a death sentence for them. So the movements engage in continuing ante-upping and goalpost shifting in order to stay alive because these movements don’t want to die anymore than you or I do. So every year they escalate the madness a bit further and push us men further and further to or past our limits.
Gay men are much worse about screwing underage teens than we straight men are. They are four times more likely to do this sort of thing. There’s a whole gay culture around “chicken hawks” and gay literature and culture has been celebrating pederasty since Plato. From Aristotle to Death in Venice to Kevin Spacey, it’s a long unbroken of the celebration of boy love.
Of course, SJW’s almost completely let gay men off the hook for this, even though they are much worse than we are. That is because gay men are higher on the victim hierarchy than straight men so they’re always innocent and we’re always guilty. In general, SJW’s love gay men, and every gay man is now a crazed SJW by default so their ranks are full of them. And due to feminism, SJW’s absolutely hate straight men and never stop demonizing us.

Sorry for the Hiatus

I hardly wrote a thing all August. I am still trying to figure out why I did that. Every time I thought about writing, I would think “Meh” and decide not to. I kept asking myself why I didn’t want to write, but my mind wouldn’t tell me. It was very hot all month. Was that it? Was I depressed? No idea. Maybe I was just blocked. Most writers, especially the better ones, get blocked sometimes. For some it’s a big burden. But lousy writers never get blocked. They scribble away. The better the writer is, the more blocked they get. Does it make sense?
So what did I do? As you have probably figured out by now, I am not an ideologue. In fact, I am probably an anti-ideologue. If there’s an ideology out there, I usually want to tear through it like a rampaging elephant and smash every party line I see. That’s probably because I am scientific-minded, and most political ideologies are irrational in some way or another.
Also they are always changing. In order to be a liberal nowadays you have to jump through all sorts of crazy hoops that you didn’t have to back in the 70’s and 80’s. And if you don’t get on board with all of the tested and approved continuous changes in liberal ideology, it turns out…you’re not a liberal! You’re not a Leftist! You’re not on the Left at all. You’re a conservative, a reactionary, a Republican, a fascist, a Nazi. I get called all those things constantly, always by my fellow lefties. Except I am none of those things. I am actually a Leftist. A really, really weird Leftist, but a Leftist nevertheless.
It’s not enough to say, “Hey I want to go back and be a 1970’s or 1980’s liberal. I don’t want to get on board the latest liberal crazy train that left the station.” But you can’t do that. To be a 70’s or 80’s liberal nowadays is somehow to be a conservative, reactionary, Republican, fascist or Nazi. Except it isn’t of course.

New Theories

Anyway, one thing I like to do, unlike most human ovines, is expose myself to new political philosophies that I’ve never dipped into before. So I am always looking around for weird new movements to analyze and check out. Lately I have checked out incels, MGTOW’s, Redpillers, and MRA’s. That’s the Manosphere. The MRA’s in particular were very interesting.
I even checked out Men’s Liberation, the completely cucked, pro-feminist, hen-picked, pussy-whipped left wing of the Men’s Movement.
I used to think they were ok, but I only lasted a few days on their board before they threw me out for being a “sexual predator.” Except in my world that’s a compliment. I was also told that I was a rapist and had been one my whole life and that I was only a few steps away from being the guy in the bushes with the ski mask, mace, and knife. Which is odd because I don’t believe I have ever actually really raped a female in my life. I’m talking real rape, not bullshit feminist rape. I mean you look at a feminist or ask her for her number, and you just raped her, you’re Ted Bundy, and she’s calling the police right now.
Anyway, the only sane definition of rape is the one that has always been in place before lunatic feminist definition creep was, as my Mom always sternly warned me (as in “Don’t do this!”), the definition of rape was sex via force or the threat of force. I’ve never done that even once. I would also add drugging a woman like slipping her a roofie. Never done that either, thank God. And on top of that I would add sex with a passed out woman. Jesus Christ, of course I’ve never done that. I’m not a necro! Everything other than that boys, and you’re ready to rock and roll. Go forth and seduce those damsels, my brethren!

Feminist Theory

Anyway, I thought I understood feminism, but I never really did. So I have been on feminist forums (well, those that don’t immediately ban me) for most of the past month, analyzing their theories and worldviews and tossing them around objectively in my mind to see if their theories are valid or not while enduring torrential abuse for the feminists on the sites committing a crime called Being a Man. I wasn’t aware that was in the penal code.
I’ve become especially interested in radical feminism, an actual branch of feminism that I had barely heard of before. So anyway, I’ve been tossing feminist theory around in my head for the past month. It’s actually a kick.

Skirt-chasing in Late Middle Age

What else have I been doing? Why, chasing women of course! Wait. Women and girls. Don’t forget the girls! I mean legal girls, like 18 and 19 year old barely legals, not the jailbaits (JB’s), although I do still talk to JB’s at times. And yes, I still date 18 and 19 year old girls sometimes. It’s almost impossible and I have to move heaven and Earth to do it, but somehow I am able to violate the laws of physics and pull off the impossible. I might add that I am 60 years old. Getting a legal teen at my age is such a ridiculous proposition that it is laughable. I mean, sure, maybe if you’re a movie director, right?
I also date women in their late 20’s and early 30’s, late 40’s, and 50’s right around my age. I recently dated two 59 year old women. None of them are really better than any others. There are strong and weak points of both older, young, very young, middle aged and 30’s women. Each group has different strong and weak points. In fact, older women are actually better than younger women on a number of variables.
I also chat up women in various places on the Net, and a number of them have sent me nudes. Yes, there are places on the Net where you can do this if you know what you are doing and have good Game. Actually, I get women sending me nudes on a regular basis. Most are 20-27, but two were in their 40’s. They live too far away to get with, but dirty pics are always fun, especially if you are a sick, fucked up dirty old man like me.
Not only do I still get barely legal women, but JB’s still try to seduce me. I know it sounds insane. But in the past few months, two JB’s, one 14 and the 16 year old, both approached me and chatted me up for a bit. A 60 year old man. Both propositioned me, the 14 year old subtly and the 16 year old blatantly. And they both offered to send me nudes. Thank God I am strong willed, so I turned them down on all offers, though I must say it was hard to do.
Most people who read that last paragraph will insist that I am lying because such things never happen to men my age. Except they actually do. Well, they happen to me anyway. But carry on if you must. Accuse me of lying. Knock yourself out.
And thank you very much for the compliments, boys (in advance).
Bros before ho’s!

Alt Left: The MRA Movement Is Pure Poison

I was just over on the MRA subreddit. It’s a horrorshow because they all hate me for being a left-winger (they’re most all rightists) and also for stating that I am a feminist.
Many to most MRA’s take the extreme position that not only is feminism not needed anymore (a valid debate topic) but incredibly, that feminism has never been needed in human society. Isn’t that breathtaking? They are furious when people like me say that we men have subjugated women by imposing a brutal patriarchy on women for most of human history. I think it’s waning now, but that’s beside the point. To me this is just obvious.
These MRA’s state that it is men who have always been oppressed in human societies and women who have always ruled and lorded it over men all down through time, I suppose via some matriarchy.
They even refuse to support the suffragettes! On MRA forums, you see a lot of arguments about why laws keeping women from voting were rational. You can have a discussion about whether feminism is needed now, but looking back over most of the 20th Century, it’s so obvious that this was a direly needed movement, and feminism has done so many great things to move women towards equality.
They don’t even support equity or liberal feminism, as they say that women already have more rights than men, and equal rights hence will simply increase women’s dominance over and subjection of men.
They actually believe this crazy nonsense. It’s an amazing thing to see how people can be so insane and out of touch with reality.

Alt Left: Liberal Feminism: The De Facto Position of Most Women in the West

Most women in the West are de facto liberal feminists or equity feminists, even if they say they are not feminists.
They say that but they are not anti-feminists either because strictly speaking, the anti-feminist position is to roll it all back to the suffragettes if not before. Antifeminists simply do not believe in equal rights for women or don’t believe that the government should mandate them. Many openly state that men are superior and women are inferior.
Almost all modern Western women believe in equal legal rights and equal opportunity for women. This is the “a woman can be anything she wants to be” line. It is in fact a feminist position as compared to the antifeminist one above. Most of these women also do not wish to ban porn, and many of them watch it themselves.
Most support the trans ideology more or less or are dubious but shrug-shoulders accepting of it in a “whatever” fashion. They are definitely not anti-trans.
Many of the ones I know favor some sort of decrim or legalization of prostitution, and some of the ones I have known even worked in the sex industry. A good friend of mine worked as a cam model (stripper). People associate liberal feminism with Third Wave Intersectional Feminism, but actually it long predates that.
Betty Friedan was one of the original libfems. She was even opposed to lesbianism, and she warned about the lure of the “lavender menace” of lesbianism to feminists. In her latest book she sounds even more conservative.
The suffragettes are often thought to be the first libfems.
Before that you can go all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft and A Plea for the Rights of Women 300 years ago. Wollstonecraft was definitely a libfem. Strictly speaking, libfems are not 2nd or 3rd wavers. They are First Wave Feminists!
It is true that a lot of modern libfems have gone over to more or less 3rd wave stuff, but those positions – pro-porn, pro-prostitution and pro-trans – are quite new. All decent humans should support the humanitarian liberation movement called First Wave liberal feminism.
I’m a First Waver myself. Most feminists hate my guts and act like they want to kill me, but I am actually a mild feminist. This shows how insane modern feminism has become that it attacks even feminist men for the crime of not being feminist enough. They also engage in definition creep, so not feminist enough means you aren’t even a feminist at all, as they keep moving the goalposts of the purity tests one must pass to be a feminist every year.

Shia Islam Is Catholicism and Sunni Islam is Protestantism

Shia Islam is like Catholicism in that religion is interpreted by man instead of laid down in stone by God in books.
The Vatican is actually there to keep Catholicism a living religion that evolves along with society and modernizes with the times. The Vatican even has its own astronomer, and the Popes have said that both evolution and extraterrestrial aliens are compatible with Catholicism.
Protestantism instead has no central authority, so it falls victim to fundamentalism a lot more than Catholicism.
Likewise with Shiism.
Sunnism is Protestantism. It was all laid down in stone either in 700 by Mohammad or in 60 by the first church or in 1550 by Luther. We can’t change anything after that.
Even Khomeini believed in the living religion theory. The Ayatollah examined both male homosexuality and transgenderism and became convinced that transsexuals were made that way by God. True transsexuals do have very different brains that are shifted in favor of the opposite sex, so it makes some sense. He decided that gay men were just deciding to be that way, which is probably not true, as true male homosexuality looks very biological, and science has proven that male sexual orientation cannot be changed after age 15.
Anyway, the Ayatollah decided that, as transsexuals were created by God (or Nature really), they were not at fault for their condition, and they needed to be accepted as part of God’s (or Nature’s) creation. Hence the legalization of transsexuals in Iran.
Anyway, transsexuals have been legal in Iran since the days of the Revolution. A very prominent mullah, high up in ruling circles, is a transwoman and has been one for many years. I guess no one cares.
In contrast, Iran is very cruel to homosexuals, worse than most Sunni countries, which typically take a more progressive stance, as it’s so rife in their lands anyway. 6,000 gay men have been executed in Iran since the Revolution.
Many gay men in Iraq have been extrajudicially executed.
In Hezbollah’s Lebanon, they are kinder. All they do is gay bash or beat up gay men.
It’s a doctrinal thing and has nothing to with conservatism or progressivism, as Shiism tends to be more progressive than Sunnism.

The Strange Pragmatism of the Iranian Shia Regime

In addition to its progressive stance on transgenderism, Shiism is also progressive in its temporary marriage doctrine. There is a woman who is very high up in leadership circles (can a woman be a religious scholar there?). Anyway, she is well known and as a single woman, she has had affairs with ~50 different men, including a lot of prominent mullahs.These affairs were conducted via temporary marriage, which even comes with a ceremony and a certificate! She wrote a book about it, and it was a big hit. Would you expect this in an Islamic fundamentalist country?
Also, Iran has open prostitution in Qom, the most conservative city in Iran, which is the center of religious studies for the country. They allow prostitution there under temporary marriage doctrine. There are crowds of young male religious students there around areas where a few mullahs conduct “marriage” ceremonies under temporary marriage.
There are a lot of young woman prostitutes there. A religious student grabs one of the young women and takes her to the mullah. The mullah looks at their ID’s, writes down both of their names, and does a little ceremony where they end up “married” for ~2 days.
The man and the woman go off to engage in the sex act, money is exchanged, and they do it, often in hidden public places. There are cemeteries there with a lot of fancy Shia tombs, and the “married couple” often use these places to consummate the sex act. The man then leaves, though he is still somehow married to her for the next two days.
The mullahs were also thinking of legalizing prostitution in Tehran after a number of prostitutes were murdered by a religiously motivated serial killer. If you go on the outskirts of Tehran at night, you can see women in full cloak walking down the roads. These women are prostitutes. You can pull over, get her in your car, and take her somewhere to buy sex from her.
The murders freaked out the leadership, and they were thinking of setting up brothels in Tehran to be run by madams and having the prostitutes live in the brothel. This would all be done under temporary marriage doctrine. They thought the women would be better protected under this model.
Legal prostitution is not something you would expect to find in a fundamentalist Muslim country!
 

Chasing a White Whale: The Endless Drive to Kill a Nonexistent Problem Called Affirmative Action

Zamfir: It’s a drive to kill a nonexistent problem because AA is already illegal. The far worst of it is gone now. There is some left, but it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be and there doesn’t seem to be any way the strange remainders. It’s a big deal over nothing.

In California state universities, there is no over-representation of any group or discrimination against anyone because they have open enrollment and the seats never fill up. Everybody gets in. Of course if your GPA is too low because your IQ is too low, you might not get in. You only need a C average to get into California state universities.
But most of those people flunk out in the first year or two.In California state universities, there is no over-representation of any group or discrimination against anyone because they have open enrollment and the seats never fill up. Everybody gets in. Of course if your GPA is too low because your IQ is too low, you might not get in. You only need a C average to get into California state universities. But most of those people flunk out in the first year or two.
It’s a white whale. You’re waging endless war on something that is hardly much of a big deal, but you think it is. You’re chasing this affirmative action whale through thick and thin for decades, and you never kill it. What’s the point?
How are you going to fix AA now that it’s already illegal and people are monkeying with the law to get around it? Make new laws? What will you outlaw now? You’re chasing a phantom. As long as they are monkeying with the law like that, there’s nothing to outlaw. You’re going to outlaw their weird programs no one understands that they put in instead? How can you outlaw something you can’t even understand?
You will make a new law and they will just monkey with it and screw around and devise more ways of getting around it. Anyway non-White enrollment has collapsed at the larger elite schools like Berkeley Law. Actually it has collapsed everywhere the anti-AA laws were successfully implemented. There’s nothing to fight anymore. Anti-AA people won.
You’re all riled up about nothing, like most IP types. You’re obsessed with your IP too.

The White Whale of Affirmative Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Trump Is a Disaster: On Civil Rights, It Is Back to the 1960's; Trump's Administration Is the Most Openly Racist Administration Since the 1950's

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

Civil Rights? I am a supporter of civil rights and the Congressional Black Caucus. Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is an open and virulent anti-Black racist who is committed to dismantling civil rights as much as he can and harming Blacks to the greatest extent possible. Trump’s trying to stop Black and Brown people from voting! Outrageous. Trump ended the mandate of HUD to not discriminate in housing. That’s a direct attack on the Housing Rights Act. Trump’s saying that landlords can discriminate against Blacks or anyone else in housing all they want to!
This is the most racist government we have had since the 1960’s.
It’s appalling.

Answering Some Reddit Delphi Murders Sub Haters, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He describes himself as a lady killer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, he’s not a counselor anymore.

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

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

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

Yeah, he is unemployed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His prose is the literary analog of explosive diarrhea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same reason he spends his days on Quora answering questions.

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

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

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

“hot girls throw themselves at me”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Against Preventive Detention: It's Not Against the Law to Be Dangerous

You cannot lock people up for “Dangerousness.” It’s not a crime to be dangerous. People can be as dangerous as they want to within certain limits. It’s a free country and you are free to be as dangerous as you want to be. People aren’t criminals until the commit a crime. If we want to lock someone up, we have to wait until they commit a crime first. It’s seems awful, but it’s only fair, don’t you think? Why not lock me up because I might rob a bank some day. After all, I have thought about it before.
There are many men now locked up on the charge of Dangerousness because of new laws that allow sex offenders, and sex offenders only mind you, to be imprisoned on preventive detention forever all because they have a mental disorder that supposedly makes them dangerous.
This is a grotesque misuse of the laws locking up the Criminally Insane. Those people need to be legitimately crazy, generally speaking psychotic, and they generally need to have a chronic psychotic disorder that won’t get better, to be locked away as Dangerous Due to Insanity. I have no qualms with locking up completely insane people who have also committed serious crimes and have an untreatable mental illness that makes them an out and out menace to society. They don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing most of the time, and that combined with a propensity for violent crime means that people like that have to be locked up at least until they are stabilized.
So because we were locking up the psychotically violent criminals in preventive detention (which is rational), the authorities opened up the damned DSM and noted that the DSM had made the error of labeling certain paraphilias as mental disorders, which they probably are not.
How does merely having a paraphilia make you nuts? Some guy has foot fetish. No one knows about it other than some woman who might sleep with him. Otherwise he’s completely normal. Show me how this man is crazy. I can’t see it.
So they started diagnosing a number of sex offenders with paraphilias as a way to keep them locked up forever even after they had served their full term in prison and had paid their debt to society!
These “Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders” being locked away forever because they might maybe commit a crime if they are released are what boils down to thought criminals being prosecuted for thought crimes.
People allow it because they hate pedos so much, but now that people have said it’s OK to lock people away forever on preventive detention on the basis of dangerousness, what’s preventing the authorities from coming out and arresting you for “Dangerousness?” What’s preventive the expansion of these crazy Dangerousness laws? Nothing. People are idiots. They allowed their hatred for pedos to cloud their judgement, and now they have set themselves up for some very nasty preventive detention nonsense. That 5-4 Supreme Court case that legalized this preventive detention nonsense was one of the worst cases ever. Scalia wrote the final opinion, so that ought to tell you something.

PUA/Game: #Metoo Nonsense: Why It Is Dangerous to Put Women in Power in Society

This is why it is dangerous to put women in power in society. They start instituting blatantly unjust and antiscientific nonsense because their feels tell them it’s the right thing to do. This is exactly what we are seeing with this #metoo insanity. Does anyone even know what Sexual Harassment even is? Nope. Does anyone even know what Sexual Misconduct (What an Orwellian notion that phrase is itself) is? Nope. No definition of Sexual Harassment. No definition of Sexual Misconduct nonsense.
Vague rules and laws are unconstitutional. You have to know what the laws is so you can figure out how not to break it. If you don’t even know what the law is, how can you figure out how to obey it?
Apparently the definitions of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct are entirely based on women’s feels. Not only that but they are based on the feels of  each individual female! So those phrases of law not only have no definition, but they probably have a separate definition for every woman in the country! How do you know what you are doing is Sexual Harassment or Sexual Misconduct? Because you gave some woman “uncomfortable” feels. How are you supposed to know what makes any given woman uncomfortable so you can figure out how not to do so? You can’t!
Furthermore, women will have one set of rules for Chad (he can pretty much do whatever he wants to her, and she won’t feel bad) and another set of rules for Normans and Omegas. Say you see Chad walk up to a woman and say something and watch the woman swoon. He leaves and now you walk up to her and say the exact same thing Chad said to her, and she flips out, screams Sexual Harassment, and you lose your job or get thrown out of the establishment.
So not only does each individual woman have a separate unknowable definition of Sexual Harassment/Misconduct, each individual woman also has a separate unknowable definition of  Sexual Harassment/Misconduct for every new man she encounters!
It’s almost like something out of a Kafka novel, say The Trial, where the man is arrested, jailed and prosecuted but never learns the charges against him and no one else seems to know what they are either.
Thanks to feminism, modern women have left us men unmoored in a Kafkaesque nightmare. Thanks a lot, ladies!

Emmanuel Macron, Cuck of the Century

Here.
I knew this was going to happen. I happen to think that it should be legal to be an asshole. Obviously women want to make it illegal to be an asshole. Of course the law will only apply to men, women being the equality-minded magnanimous creatures that they are.
I have a feeling it is not going to stop there, and I worry I might get caught up in this latest form of Mass Psychosis.
I think there is a woman I know at a coffeeshop who might think I am stalking her or something. All I’ve done is look at her (Well, she’s a stone fox, how can you not  look at her?) and talked to her a few times, nothing sexual, not really any flirting either. I did get her email address. Emailed her once with some links, got no response, so stopped contact.
She just knows I am interested in her, and I guess that freaks the cunt out and pisses her off.
The other day I was making a very wide u-turn in a street where the U had to go a ways into another street on the curve. Well, I finish the U and get over to turn right in the opposite direction to complete the U. She was coming up the street and ended up right behind me. She’s right there behind me. I think I waved at her maybe. She sees me and throws the car into reverse and starts backing up really fast.
For a while I thought it was nothing, but now I am starting to get worried. Apparently because our cars were in close proximity, I must have been stalking this dumb bitch, right? Hell, I didn’t even know where she lived or that she lived in that area. I knew nothing about her. I had no idea she even had two kids or lived in the city and was not a commuter.
Of course I’m not stalking this dumb cunt. I am barely even talking to her because she’s such a bitch.
I am worried that I could get reported under this bullshit law.
One of the charges against Morgan Freeman was some dumb cunt who said when he was talking to her, he was looking at her tits. She had to tell him, “Hey, my eyes are up here.” This was sexual harassment because the bitch got her panties in a wad over it. This is so stupid. Every straight man on Earth does this routinely or has done it in the past. Why do you think, “Um, my eyes are up here?” is such a popular joke.
Yeah. Now it’s sexual harassment for looking at them.
You just know these laws are going to be abused by stupid, emotional, vindictive, and evil-minded women, of which there are hundreds of millions.
Women are like Jews, Blacks, LGBTQZKPRBF, etc. Just another identity politics group.
One thing about the Jews is they never stopped pushing. I know their history. They would push and push and make the Gentiles more and more angry. Some smart Jews always said,
“Hey, we keep going like this, they’re going to start a pogrom against us.”
Of course that’s an insult to any belligerent Jew, and if you tell him he’s pissing the Gentiles off, the Jew’s response is to get his back up, attack like a psycho, and scream, “The Gentiles don’t like it? Fine! Then we’ll do it 10 times harder!” So what happened after a while. Duh. A pogrom. Another expulsion.
Most sane humans know that if you are really pissing someone off so badly that they are close to their breaking point and may get destructive or dangerous that it’s time to back off on the attack and get away from the person. Many hospital beds have been occupied by idiots who pushed people to their limits, and when people warned them they were pushing people too far, said, “Fine! I’ll do it 10 times as much!” it’s an excellent way to get your ass beat. Which has been happening to the Jews for centuries.
Anyway, my point is all Identity Politics groups do just this. If you tell them they are crazy and they are pissing people off and causing a huge backlash, they all get outraged, get their backs up and scream, “They don’t like it! Fine! Then we will do it 10 X harder. ”
None of these groups ever stop pushing. Blacks will never stop. They will just push, push, push.
The gays get more demanding, weird and radical every year.
The trannies are the same, except they are far weirder than even the gays.
And like all of these other groups, of course feminists never know when to stop either.
To feminists, the patriarchy is as immobile and untouchable as God Himself. It’s a known physical fact of the universe like black holes that will never go away.
Anyway, keeping the patriarchy around even if it doesn’t exist gives feminists something to do and something to yell about. And indeed the feminists keep pushing. The definition of rape expands nearly every year, as does the concept of sexual harassment, at the same time as the definition of consent gets more narrowed. Of course these policies are designed to completely screw men over while leaving women untouched. Hey, I told you women were fair and magnanimous.
Sex Negative Feminism, now the principal kind of feminism that has taken over all of society, keeps getting worse every year.  #Metoo will not just grow but it will expand in definition because angry ideologues with a punishing agenda – especially grievance feminists – never know when to stop.
I figure looking at a woman will at least be sexual assault in 10-20 years, assuming the female snowflake was made uncomfortable by it of course. Asking for a number or asking for a date will be seen as rape if you made the woman uncomfortable.
Feminists will develop a new stupid slogan, “Making Women Uncomfortable Is Rape!”
Feminist men, cucks, white knights and other fags will of course fall all over themselves saying  that uncomfortableness is rape, and they never make woman uncomfortable, or if they do somehow screw up and do so, they immediately get on their knees and kiss the feet of these superior queens called females.
Expect Jessica Valenti to lead the Crazy Brigade. Have you seen her column? A lot of it is Street Harassment Is Evil! but she recently published a piece called, How Come Men Don’t Look at Me Anymore? talking about how much it hurts to lose all that male attention. What a dumb bitch. And women wonder why we call them stupid.
If anyone is wondering if this post is misogynistic, in my view there are two kinds of women, real women and feminists.
I love real women with all my heart and soul as much as I love my wonderful mother.
The feminists? Well, I would not mind if they all met Mark Lepine. After all, he didn’t act alone. Who else pulled the trigger that day, if only in their minds? I sure did.