Repost: Alt Left: Both Gay and Straight Men Have Mutual Disgust for the Sexual Behavior of the Other

I have found that gay men consistently overestimate how willing straight men are to have gay sex.

They simply have no concept of how homophobic your average straight man is. Personally, I would rather eat a bullet than have sex with a man, and many of my straight friends have said the same thing. Gay men don’t understand the extreme revulsion straight men have for gay sex. It has to be seen to be believed.

Now the one homosexual act that many straight men in the West will engage in is receiving a blowjob, typically from a gay or heavily bisexual man. Just close your eyes and pretend it’s Seka, right? I had a few male friends who confessed to me in whispered tones that they had done this. Most of them seemed more than a bit ashamed about these acts.

But this follows on from what we know about how “homosexual” sex is practiced in much of the world, where only the man playing the female role in gay sex is considered to be gay, and the man playing the male role in gay sex is seen as being straight as a ruler. It’s like that in prison too.
I have a question for all these gay men who insist that all these straight men are longing to do sexual things with other guys.

How many of you gay guys want to eat pussy? I will tell you the answer. It’s 0%. My friend was a hair cutter and you know that field is full of gay men, with up to 1/3 of hair cutters being gay men. He and I would be up in Hollywood in some gay hair cutter’s pad. There were 5-10 gay men there, and only my friend and I were straight.

He and I used to delight in teasing these gay guys by talking about having sex with women in gruesome detail. We would put our fists up to our mouths with only thumbs out and parted and then we would stick our tongues out, imitating cunnilingus.

“Oh yeah!” We would say in very loud voices. “Last night I was with this chick…oh man, the juicy red pussy, right in front of my face…!” And then we would make the licking action above.

Typically most if not all of the gay men there would get upset. They would jump up and start yelling at us, “Shut up! That’s gross! You’re making me sick! I think I’m going to puke! That’s disgusting.”

So gay men are disgusted by straight men’s sexual behavior, and straight men are disgusted with gay men’s sexual behavior.

I guess fair is fair then, right?

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

Answered on Queera.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost: Alt Left: The Epidemic of Situational Male Homosexuality in the US

First of all, I’m straight. I’m only attracted to females. I’m maximally attracted to females and minimally attracted to males, if at all. Also, I don’t do it with guys. Refuse to. And have to desire to either. In fact, I’m repelled by the notion.

From about 1979-1986, I witnessed an incredible amount of situational homosexuality among mostly young White men in Southern California. The men were generally in their 20’s, about 22-30 or so, though there were some all the way to middle age.

In terms of the situational homosexuality, I think most of them were either straight or mostly straight.

I also had to deal with endless gay and bisexual men after me, but that was another matter altogether.

I followed up on a number of these situational guys, and they later married, settled down, moved to the suburbs, got high paying jobs, had a couple of kids, and I assume gave up the gay shit altogether.

Some of these guys were truly bisexual, but truly bi guys who have strong attraction to females can always give it up. The ones I knew had very strong attractions to females. I know because they were my best friends for a long time. They also had some strong attractions to men which I noticed.

A friend of mine is stunned about the levels of this stuff that I am reporting. But it’s true, and I know it is. Why did they want me? I’m not sure. As a young man, I was said to be very good looking in a pretty boy, male model – actor kind of way. I had offers from Hollywood and modeling studios. Of course, during this period, I had females of all ages after me all the time too, so I wasn’t worried. If it was only guys, I would have started worrying.

Thing is, if these guys were going to hit on anyone, they would hit on me. Why? Not sure. Maybe strong good looks I supposedly had, maybe that lots of people back then were certain that I was gay or bi, so they thought they could get away with it without getting their asses kicked. All I know is that I lived a nightmare like this for a number of years.

You have absolutely no idea how many guys are into this stuff; I don’t know what the numbers are, but they must be incredibly high. For young men, figures ranging from 10-15% would not surprise me one bit. But as they age, a lot of them drop out and knock it off. It must diminish a lot by the 30’s.

But I also had middle aged guys, macho guys, cops after me – even officers like sergeants, married men with little kids, on and on. A lot of them, you wouldn’t think they were gay or bi at all. Because although gay men are usually effeminate, bisexual guys or situationally gay guys can act any way you can imagine. They can act like the most macho guys on Earth.

I remember once I made friends with this guy was said he was bi, but I think he was mostly gay. We were over at his place, and he hit on me. I turned him down, then he confessed to his homo or bisexuality. He whipped out this set of about 50 photos. Young White guys, 18-25, all construction workers who were working on local sites. Really tough, hard-ass working class guys. He’d sucked all their cocks. I guess you just lie back, close your eyes, and pretend it’s a woman.

The only thing you can be sure of with a really macho guy is he’s almost always not completely or even mostly gay. However, femininity and effeminacy are related to male homosexual behavior. Quite a few wimpy, girly, or faggy guys of all orientations are into gay stuff, and the more sissy they are, the more likely that they are into it. So femininity is a marker for male homosexual behavior to a strong degree. But there are also a very small number of completely straight men who act queer as the Ace of Spades.

There were other guys, well, they had some feelings that way, you could tell, but it was obvious that they did not want to act on it. Those guys aren’t gay or bi or situational or anything. I’m simply convinced that a lot of young men have a low level of attraction to other guys that they don’t wish to act on at all.

I was supposedly very good looking as a young man, and a lot of guys, not really gay at all, are attracted to very goodlooking men. That’s why straight guys hate pretty boys so much. These straight men get turned on by pretty boys, and they have a gay attraction in their makeup, however minor, and it drives them furious that they feel this way. So they see a pretty boy, think, “Look at that fag!”, and feel like beating him up.

At the time, in Southern California, in the crowd I ran in, there was nothing wrong with this situational gay stuff. I spoke out against this fagging off nonsense and was condemned as “evil” for doing that.

There was a while when I wasn’t having sex with anyone, and I wasn’t even dating that much, and I was told I was “evil” for doing that too. Truth is, I was desperate for sex, but there just wasn’t much going on for whatever reason, not my choice. So I was involuntarily celibate or incel for whatever reason for a period of up to months or possibly longer. I just wasn’t getting any for various reasons, mostly shyness.

This is why I have some sympathy for incels. Most single men are incel for varying periods in their lives. And I hear about more and more sexless marriages all the time, so marriage is not a guarantee of sex at all. Quite a few married men might be technically incel. We are all incels now!

At that time though, everyone had to be fucking someone 100% of the time. If you had no luck with women, then you had to go fuck some guy. Anything but the evil of celibacy. This was late 70’s through mid 80’s at the peak of the Sexual Revolution.

A friend of mine asked me if guys are desperate these days. I don’t think so.

In my Dad’s generation, there was little to no sex before marriage. Guys hardly fagged off at all. I don’t know what they did instead, maybe jack it.

In many countries, that’s still pretty much the case. If a young man wants sex, he needs to get married. Otherwise, no sex. Young guys have a tradition of buying whores in these places to lose their virginity and become men.

So young men 30 years ago in Southern California were not desperate at all historically and on a world scale. I would say that on a world scale in time, single men in Southern California 30 years ago were getting record amounts of sex from women.

But during that era, you were always supposed to be having sex. Young single guys are probably not going to be getting constant sex. If you want that, you get married. Even back then, it was common or even typical to find young guys who, while not virgins or never had a date types, had no particular woman at the time. Dry spells.

Then again, a lot of guys who came after me were married, had steady women, lived with women, etc. I assume they were getting plenty of sex, or they could have if they wanted to.

I conclude that situational homosexuality or bisexuality is a pretty significant part of a lot of a very small percentage (possibly 10-15%) of young men’s lives, and in most cases it probably fades with age. Of that 10-15%, possibly 2/3 to 3/4 are more or less straight.

It needn’t be that way. In a proper society, situational homosexuality would be minimal.

Believe me, I have utmost respect for men who are truly gay or deeply bisexual. I know they can’t help it. If guys turned me on as much as women do and women turned me on  as much as they do now, I would have a hard time turning it down. I’d probably be out screwing guys like crazy, HIV be damned. If guys turned me on as much as women do, and women not at all, I hope I would have the guts to be gay.

But situational homosexuality is just that. It’s totally elective behavior, and they can knock it off anytime they want to.

The surveys are all wrong.

New surveys are done with complete anonymity. They take you into a room with a computer, and you fill out the questionnaire. No one knows who you are, and a computer program reads it.

They are getting very high scores of male homosexual behavior, crime, even violent crime, and drug use, even hard drugs. I saw a recent survey done on computers with total anonymity that had 13% of young Canadian guys in a suburb of Ontario engaging in regular gay sex. I would guess that of that number, only 25-30% are truly gay. The rest are something else, but that something else is mostly a straight thing.

This is the thing. You really need to have strong societal prohibitions against situational male homosexuality. Either that or mandate early marriage, cheap or free prostitution, or force young women, possibly at gunpoint, to have sex with young men. None of those last three are really possible.

Hence stigma is the only thing that keeps men from doing this. If you take the prohibition off of male homosexual behavior, as modern gay rights wants to, guys will engage in tons of situational homosexuality.

The only thing stopping them is stigma.

Alt Left: The “Roosevelt Knew” Bullshit

There has long been a strain of conspiracy theory, which had significant evidence in its favor nonetheless, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed the attack to go ahead anyway.

This has long been a favorite of rightwingers then and now. Conservatives at the time thought Roosevelt was a traitor who had deliberately filled his Cabinet with many Soviet spies to whom he gave much classified information.

This is the Commie spy network that Joe McCarthy, etc. set about going after in the 1950’s during the Red Scare. There doesn’t seem to be good evidence for this.

To this day, standard anti-Semitism is almost always rightwing or far rightwing and is heavily tied in with anti-Communism among other things such as anti-modernism and anti-liberalism, two movements that the Jews were seen leading.

Anyway, there were many hard conservatives in the Pentagon around the time of World War 2, and quite a few of them were starting to imbibe the “Jewish Communist threat” line.

Winston Churchill himself was one of the originators of the Jewish Bolshevik hysteria when he made some paranoid and agitated statements along the lines that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish one soon after the October Revolution was through.

It was these nutty reactionary anti-Communist anti-Semites in the Pentagon who were responsible for the “Roosevelt knew” line.

Revilo Oliver had worked in intelligence at the Pentagon during the war and later said that Roosevelt had allowed the Pear Harbor attack. Two very conservative admirals stated after the war that Roosevelt should be tried for treason for allowing the attack. These two admirals did not have good evidence for their charges.

Oliver is apparently lying. He was an extreme anti-Communist, a White nationalist racist, a Nazi sympathizer, and a hardcore anti-Semite who later became very active in the early days of the National Review, to show you how tainted the early days of Buckley’s journal were.

Oliver is of course also a Holocaust denier who railed about the bombing of Dresden (which he exaggerated as such types are wont to do) and the Nuremberg trials, which he regarded as an outrageous orgy of murder. Which in some ways it was, unfortunately.

It doesn’t take long to deeply review the case of the Pearl Harbor advance knowledge theory to show that it is nonsense. We never cracked the main code that the Japanese used in the weeks before the attack. The Japanese fleet turned off their radios as they sailed to the attack, a brilliant move.

Radar was in its infancy and worked poorly. Nevertheless a radar operator noticed large blobs on the screen and notified his superiors, who laughed and told him they were clouds. Early radar has a hard time distinguishing between ships and clouds. His observation made it up to a general nevertheless, but the general laughed the blobs off as clouds too.

It is certainly true that Roosevelt was trying to push the Japanese into a corner and many thought he was trying to bait them into a war. I believe that’s pretty uncontroversial. In fact, the US was alarmed at how upset the Japanese were at the US’ moves such as the embargo on oil sales to them.

In fact in the months leading up to the attack, the US increasingly felt that the Japanese were getting ready to attack the US. They weren’t sure it was going to happen, but they thought it likely. What they didn’t know was where and when it would take place, and Pearl Harbor was not considered to be a likely a target. The large US garrison the Philippines was considered a more likely target.

Roosevelt definitely wanted war with the Japanese. He had made statements along the lines that no way was he going to allow the Japanese to run amok all over the Pacific, conquering lands and slaughtering the natives while brutally colonizing them.

There was a telegram sent to the Japanese ambassador in Washington the night before the attack telling him that the Japanese government was going to break off relations with the US. It was in an earlier code that had already been broken.

The Pentagon felt that that meant that a Japanese attack may be imminent. However, a warning to that effect sent out to US forces in the Pacific got lost in the shuffle and was only read too late by most of its recipients.

There were 10 full investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack. No foreknowledge of the attack by Roosevelt or anyone else in the administration was ever demonstrated.

Although there is some interesting evidence in favor of this conspiracy theory, at the end of the day it doesn’t seem to hold water and simply seems to be one more club that the Right uses to bash Democrats along with one of the Right’s most hated Democrats of all, Roosevelt.

Furthermore the people who traffic in this theory are pretty unsavory. It is a favorite of a variety of conspiratorial rightwing types, including fanatical anti-Communists, hardcore anti-Semites, neo-Nazis/Nazi sympathizers, Holocaust deniers, White nationalists and other charming folks.

Alt Left: Is Anti-Semitism Leftwing or Rightwing?

Antisemitism has always been a rightwing, conservative, and even reactionary philosophy. Paranoid Jews who scream anti-Semite every ten minutes like to go on and on about leftwing anti-Semitism, but there’s never been much of it.

They usually lead off with Marx’s On the Jewish Question, supposedly an anti-Semitic work. Except that it isn’t. Marx as Jewish himself. His father was a rabbi for Chrissake.

And he was no self-hating Jew. He didn’t care about them one way or the other. The article is an attack on the Jewish religion in which he says Judaism essentially boils down to the worship of money. There’s a lot of truth to that statement.

The paranoid Jews then go on about anti-Semitism in the USSR, of which there was little. In fact, the penalty for anti-Semitism in the USSR was the death penalty. Yitzhak Rabin, former Israeli Prime Minister, said the USSR was the most Jew-friendly state ever. It was “anti-anti-Semitic” as he put it.

The Jewish accusations go into the lamentable Rootless Cosmopolitan campaigns of the early 1950’s, but these were set off by Zionists and not Jews. Nevertheless, they were anti-Semitic in effect.

Then they mention the Doctors’ Plot in which several of Stalin’s Jewish doctors were executed for planning to poison him to death. Jews have always maintained that this was an anti-Semitic frame-up. But there is good evidence that such a conspiracy not only existed but may have killed Stalin.

There have been a few other cases of Left anti-Semitism, but they’re mostly outliers.

The nonsense about Left anti-Semitism all comes from the pro-Israel crowd, heavily Jewish but also including many conservative Gentiles like Trumpian Republicanism.

You can certainly hate that shitty little country without hating the Jewish guy next door. I mean he has no involvement in Israel’s crimes. So he supports Israel? So what? So do 57% of Americans, overwhelmingly Gentiles. You can’t go around hating everyone who supports something unpleasant. You’ll die a hermit.

Conservatives from the 1920’s on traditionally opposed liberals, hated Communists, and were deeply worried about the modern movement which waged war on much of traditional family values in the West. An anti-Semite who does not go on and on about “Jewish Communists” or Jewish Bolsheviks is a rare bird.

These tropes are the leading edge of anti-Semitism to this very day, although anti-modernism and anti-liberalism are also very strong and are often tied together as a war against cultural liberalism, said to be a Jewish creation.

Anti-Semitism has always been conservative if not reactionary. There’s never been much in the way of Left anti-Semitism. Marx said a few things, but he was not an anti-Semite. The early anarchists had a few sharp words, but the Jews in the Pale had behaved badly for centuries, ruthlessly exploiting the Gentile peasants who lived there.

Anti-Semitism has a very long pedigree in Russia, and Russian Jews return the favor by being some of the worst Jews of them all. Many are simply criminals. The Russian Mafia was 1/3 Jewish when Jews were 3% of the population. Russian Jews delight in drinking Bloody Marys, toasting each other while proclaiming that they are drinking the blood of their Christian enemies. Nice people.

There was a temporary anti-Semitic phase in the USSR and Eastern Europe after Stalin died in the anti-rootless cosmopolitan campaigns. This had started even when Stalin was alive.

Stalin was not an anti-Semite – indeed, he had a Jewish wife – but he did crack down of Soviet Jews. People asked him why and he said, “But you do not understand. It is not that they are Jews. It is that they are all Zionists!”

The USSR supported Israel at the start, but Israel quickly turned to the West, and the USSR logically reacted badly to this. Many East European Jews, while forming significant parts of the postwar Communist regimes, also spied for the West against the Soviet bloc. The Israeli media crowed about this when it was revealed after 1989.

So Stalin had some reasons to be suspicious. And he may indeed have been poisoned, and if he was, it may indeed have been by his doctors, who were mostly Jews. You see Stalin’s anti-Zionist campaign had infuriated Soviet Jews.

The argument of the Doctors’ Plot in which Jewish doctors were accused of a plot to poison Stalin was that these doctors were doing this as revenge for Stalin’s anti-Zionist policies. Some of these doctors were executed.

It turns out they may have not gotten them all though because a good argument can be made that Stalin was later poisoned to death by his own physicians. The poisoners were said to be Jewish doctors.

There is some anti-Semitism on the Russian Left, especially in the Communist Party, but it just a symptom of a larger societal infection.

There are some anti-Semites on the Arab Left, which they try to disguise as anti-Zionism.

However, as one who was active in PFLP (an armed Palestinian Marxist group that fights Israel) circles in the US for a while, I can tell you that a lot of these people were simply anti-Semites. Granted Jews had not been very nice to their people, but their anti-Semitism was way out of line. For instance, most of the PFLP people I knew were Holocaust deniers.

There is a lot of anti-Israelism on the Left, especially the Western Left, but it’s more anti-Israelism than anti-Semitism.

I’m an Israel-hater myself. US Jews aren’t squatting in Palestine, so I don’t understand why they’re relevant to the Israel issue, except that they tend to support Israel, but most folks support their people anyway, so they can hardly be blamed.

There is little true anti-Semitism in the Western pro-Palestine movement. The people who run it are hard Leftists and people like that are very sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism.

The movement is heavily policed for anti-Semites, the most notorious of which are rooted out and tossed out of the movement. The Solidarity Campaign gets called anti-Semites 50,000 times a day anyway by hysterical Jews merely for being anti-Israel. No point adding to that and worse, giving their enemies ammo by moving into real deal anti-Semitism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Jewish Bolshevism Nonsense

This theory is not only nonsense, but it’s also very dangerous nonsense because this really is Nazism in a nutshell at its very essence. People don’t realize that Nazis hated Communists as much as Jews. When the Einsatzgruppen were ravaging the Baltics and the USSR, two types of people tended to be killed on sight by these assassination squads in many cases:

  1. Jews
  2. Communists

And neither was favored over the other. Furthermore the lines were blurred, as the Nazis’ main enemy was Communism, and Nazi theory held that Communism was a Jewish plot, and essentially all Jews were Communists who had to be killed to snuff out the Bolshevik threat.

Of course they had other reasons for hating Jews, but most folks don’t Trealize how important the Commie Jews theory was in the annihilation of the European Jews.

This line went along with growing anti-Semitism on the Right in the US and elsewhere along the lines that the Bolshevik Revolution has been a Jewish revolution and that Communist Jews posed a threat to the so called Free World, which was always anything but.

This line held basically that all Jews were Communists. It wasn’t true, though most European Jews in the 1930’s were definitely on the Left, especially in places like Poland. Many were just liberals and social democrats though. An old line says that maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. So you do the math.

While there were many Jews in the leadership positions of the early Soviet government, most Jews were not Bolsheviks. In the 1917 election before the Bolsheviks seized power, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party.

They may have supported the Bolsheviks after they seized power, but the majority of people in the country did anyway, including a lot of the military, especially the military intelligence of the Czar’s army, most of whom went over to the Reds.

I did some research on the makeup of the early Bolsheviks and there were people from all ethnic groups of the USSR. Yes there were a lot of Jews, but there were just as many Latvians, of all people, and possibly more. So I guess the Bolshevik Revolution was a Latvian Revolution, right?

There followed short lived Communist revolutions in the several years after the October Revolution, one in Hungary under Bela Kun, a Hungarian Jew, and another in Bavaria under Rosa Luxembourg and some others, all German Jews.

Kun’s regime lasted only a few months, but he did kill some people, though the death count, which may be as low as 300, is much exaggerated by anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers. But he killed just enough to scare the European middle classes.

The Bavarian government was overthrown after a few months, but the fact that it existed at all spread horror throughout the German petit bourgeois.

It was this early revolution on German soil that cemented the Nazis’ belief in Jewish Bolshevism, which held that all Jews were Communists intended on overthrowing all non-Communist regimes and seizing power for the Jews over the Gentiles the world over. The theory said that the main reason the Jews wanted to do this was to get rich by exploiting the Gentile masses when they had established World Communism.

As anyone knows, nobody goes into Communism thinking of getting rich. And Communists don’t exploit workers to make a profit anyway. That goes right against Marxist theory. It’s nearly on the level of a transgression.

So this part of the theory was so nonsensical it is almost laughable.

But many to most hardcore anti-Semites continue to push this line to this very day, that Communist Jews are a threat to the world, want to take over all countries and convert them to Communism, thereby finally ruling over their hated Gentile enemies, while at the same time ruthlessly exploiting the Gentiles so that these Communist Jews get filthy rich under this world Communist system.

The theory is so absurd that you would think it would have no more than a limited shelf life, but its recrudescence seems eternal and vigorous. Perhaps the theory’s staying power speaks more about the essential irrationality of obsessive, paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Semitism than anything else.

The Holocaust was largely driven by this belief in subversive Jewish Bolshevik Communists out to overthrow the established governments of Europe. It was a paranoid argument with no basis at the time, and it still is.

European Jews in the 1930’s had little power. They held quite a few high positions in some countries, especially in Hungary and Germany, and in Germany they had acquired quite a bit of money, but they had little power in either country. What Jewish power existed was quickly overthrown by the Nazis when they came into power.

Many of the East European Jews, especially the Polish and Russian Jews, had become terribly poor in recent decades. They lived in ignorant, backwards, poverty-stricken villages called stetls. They were pathetic but they were hardly world-controlling wealthy Jewish profiteers and oligarchs. It’s hard to see how they were a threat to anyone, but Polish anti-Semitism was very high anyway.

These Jews were poorly assimilated and this is offered as a reason for Polish antisemitism, but many Jews in Western Europe were much more assimilated (indeed assimilation was the laudable goal of most West European Jews).

The German Jews were the most assimilated in all of Europe. Lot of good it did them. In the previous century the assimilation was so thorough that many Jews had left Judaism and converted to Christianity, especially Protestantism.

This caused no end of problems for Nazis trying to figure out who was a Jew and who wasn’t. To this day you can find many German Protestants who will tell you that their ancestors were Jewish converts to Christianity. Even in Marx’s time this was quite common.

Alt Left: Banned Twice from Twitter for Tweeting the Word “Whore”

In Venezuela, two opposition politicians went off to a hotel room with two women late at night. They were later hospitalized with drug overdoses. One man died. The two women were prostitutes. All early reports on the case said that the rightwingers were partying with whores and they did too much dope. People were laughing about it.

But that’s not what happened. They indeed bought two whores, but the whores doped them with scopalamine, a drug that Colombian criminals use to render people unconscious so they can rob them. The drug can kill and it killed one man and seriously injured another to the extent that he nearly died.

I started correcting people who were laughing and saying these guys were partying with women and suffered as a result.

I tweeted that the two women were whores, murderous poisoning whores at that, and that they had poisoned two men, murdering one and severely injuring another. I Tweeted this a number of times to point out that these guys were not just partying with some party girls but instead that they had been out and out murdered by two thieving murdering prostitutes.

The result?

I got banned for hate speech twice! For using the word whores to describe two thieving, murdering, scum of the earth, better off dead prostitute pieces of human garbage.

For calling two murdering psychopaths whores. Which is exactly what they were. Prostitutes are in fact whores. That is exactly what they are. Every single prostitute on this planet is nothing but a goddamned whore.

Now if they got trafficked or forced into it, I withdraw my condemnation, but if they do it of their own free will, they will get zero respect from me or any other real man out there.

Because ladies, men, I mean real men, not leftwing soyboys and cucks, do not respect prostitutes at all. They’re nothing but whores to us whether we use them or not, and a lot of us have little-disguised contempt for them, which they richly deserve.

If they want us to respect them, why don’t they quit whoring out their damned bodies? A lot of us, or me anyway, will forgive them.

Except that women who get into that line of work are usually frankly no good. Fully 45% of female prostitutes are diagnosed female psychopaths, which proves that we are correct to disrespect them because prostitutes are generally among the worst women on Earth.

They lie, cheat, and steal. They rob. And not uncommonly, as seen above, they kill, often with a male accomplice. A prostitute is as bad as a woman gets. That’s literally the floor of female morality.

So even a reformed prostitute is suspect because prostitutes regard almost all of us men as walking wallets to be milked dry of all of our possessions, and I doubt if that attitude leaves all of them when they get out of the biz.

Let a prostitute move in with you and she will probably steal from you. That’s what they do. She will spend all the money in your wallet. If she gets a hold of your bank account, she will drain it dry. If she can nab any of your credit cards, she will run them up to the limit.

And then, drained dry, she will leave you to move on to her next victim like a human black widow spider, which is pretty much what most female prostitutes are in a nutshell.

Not all prostitutes are awful human beings. Some women get off dope and out of the biz, reform, and become activists. From what I have seen of them, they are decent people.

But I am willing to bet that when they were caught up in that drug addict prostitute lifestyle (or deathstyle) they were probably pretty lousy people. Because drug addict prostitutes of either sex tend to be crappy human beings. If you don’t believe me, go make friends with a few of them and get back to me. I’ve actually known women like this. Okay? I know what they’re like.

Some women are forced and trafficked into prostitution, and they are literally innocent. My condemnations in this post do not apply to them.

And I would like to point out one more thing. Probably no group of women hate men as much as prostitutes. Even or especially former prostitutes are notorious for being some of the worst man-haters of them all. Many, many radical feminists, the most psycho manhating feminist bitches of all, are former prostitutes. Sometimes I wonder if it’s a requirement.

Many prostitutes are actually lesbians, not because they were born that way but because they despise us men so much that they actually went gay as a result. And yes, women do that. Don’t buy the “born that way” lie of Gay Politics. Not all “gay” humans were born that way. Most were, but not all.

I suppose that, like the playboys and womanizers, they know us men too well. Familiarity leads to contempt and playboys and prostitutes have seen too much of the opposite sex for their own good. They’ve both seen the most horrific behavior of the opposite sex, in spades, often over decades.

Both prostitutes and playboys understand what the opposite sex is really like, not just the good but all of the bad, and both sexes have a bad side that would frighten the Devil Himself.

But really now? Whore is illegal? I mean using it to describe women in general is ugly, I agree. It’s misogynistic, and we men should not be woman-haters just as you women should not be man-haters.

Using it to describe promiscuous women is up in the air. Many if not most men use the word that way anyway, and women actually use that word far more than we do. They are always slut-shaming each other and calling each other whores. They call each other whores far more than we do. But enough about that.

What about using the word whore to describe, you know, a prostitute? Generally a female prostitute but not necessarily, as there are male prostitutes who deserve to be called whores too, and they’re just as awful humans as the female variety if not worse because of all the testosterone-fueled aggression and violence in the male variety.

Their relationships tend to be with older men who their drain of all of their savings before moving on to the next victim. You know, kind of like the female kind?

Look up the word whore in the dictionary. It will say that the word whore means prostitute, especially female prostitute. That’s literally the goddamned definition of the word.

Even if you think it’s mean to call lowly female prostitutes by such a low name as whore, how about using the word for thieving, murdering psychopathic prostitutes? Are they a protected class now too?

I can’t believe I just got banned two times by these pussy numales at Twitter for calling thieving, murderous prostitute psychopaths whores. I’m literally incredulous at this.

I told an idiot SJW friend of mine, and this guy actually told me that whore is not a word he uses. What? Everybody uses that word. Who doesn’t use it? And what sort of a “man” will not deign to use the word whore so as to not injure precious female sensibilities. Not much of a man, I would say. Certainly not a real man, that’s for sure.

Alt Left: All That Glitters Is Not Capitalist: Various Types of Non-Capitalist Forms of Production That Work Well

Rahul:

I would argue that being pragmatic while being a communist is almost impossible. Communism doesn’t work, because humans are too greedy.

A mixture of a bunch of ideologies is probably the way to go.

If you are talking about hardcore Communism with the state running everything and no market or private enterprise as in the USSR, nobody wants to go back to that anyway. Even most Communists don’t want to go back to that.

But otherwise, you are just wrong. Most Communists nowadays see some sort of a role for a market. There are lots of ways to do this.

For instance, in Venezuela, various neighborhood groups and communities operate bread factories, farms, on and on. They sell the bread at a small reasonable profit to the community. The proceeds and profits are invested back into the enterprise and used to pay the salaries of the employees.

The farms and animal husbandry industries work along the same lines. A community will be organized as a commune. They will raise chickens for eggs or pigs or they will grow various crops.

They then sell the eggs, pigs, or crops to other communities for a reasonable profit. The proceeds and profits are invested back into the company, used to pay the salaries of the workers, and if there is anything left over, they are invested in the community itself – new sidewalks, new roads, a new health facility, water treatment, a community center, on and on.

The Venezuelan communes are considered to be a non-capitalist form of development.

Communists all around the world have supported this model. The Chinese Communists are operating a form of market socialism that utilizes a market mechanism. The Vietnamese Communists are doing the same. The Cuban Communists are doing something similar.

Most Communists also support the cooperative movement, where workers own the enterprise and compete against other firms, including capitalist firms. The enterprise either sinks or swims.

The proceeds and profits are best collected by a regional bank, which reinvests them in the enterprise, uses them to pay salaries, or even gives bonuses to the workers. So a very successful enterprise that made a lot of profits could end up having some workers who were making some good money if they were pocketing some of the profits.

When you give the workers the control over what to do with the money – whether to sink it back into the enterprise or to take it home as increased paychecks, workers tend to choose to take home the bigger checks. This is what happened with Yugoslavia’s otherwise very successful worker self-managed Communism.

The workers would not put enough money back into the firms to keep them going, and the firms would start to deteriorate to the point where they were no longer operative. So everyone was out of a job. But no worries as everyone got a bigger paycheck!

In the Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque Country in Spain, a similar system has unfolded and has been successful for a long time now. There, the workers elect their own management, which is a great idea in my opinion. You would think that workers would elect management that let them slide and screw off, but they elect very good managers.

The decisions about what to do with the proceeds and profits – whether to sink them back into the enterprise or to take them home in higher worker wages – is left up to management and ultimately large regional banks.

These large regional banks are the ultimate owners of all of the Mondragon cooperatives. These are public banks so they are not run on the typical profit motive. They resemble more the customer-owned credit unions in the US which give much better customer service than the capitalist banks do.

I’m not even entirely sure that credit unions are a capitalist enterprise. How can you have a capitalist enterprise that is owned by the consumers of its service? That does not seem possible.

The banks tend to make the best decisions for the firm. Keep in mind that Mondragon cooperatives utilize a non-capitalist form of development.

The problem with Mondragon is that they have to compete against capitalist firms. So all of the cutthroat behaviors that capitalists engage in to reduce costs and maximize profits – exploitation of labor, shafting consumers, investors and the public at large – means that Mondragon is forced to some extent to lower their own costs however they can to keep pace with these firms.

So Mondragon is a non-capitalist system that is still privy to the logic of capitalism in which they are ensnared.

In North Korea in the far north of the country there is a lot of private gold mining going on now in new-found reserves. They are often just one man enterprises of small groups of men working together.

The state’s footprint up there is small, and the state has stepped aside and simply lets these miners mine whatever they want. They only ask for a 25% tax cut on all mining proceeds. As long as you give them your cut, it’s all good. Most of these miners would not be described as capitalists.

In North Korea and Cuba there are now farmer’s markets where farmers can bring their produce directly to farmer’s markets to sell to the public. These are generally not capitalist enterprises. These are just farmers selling the product of their labor to consumers (other workers) buying their crops. There’s no tendency to maximize profits, as the prices are set by the market.

The entire cooperative sector all around the world is a non-capitalist form of development. The workers actually own the firm so there is no exploitation of labor, which is the definition of capitalism. No exploitation, no capitalism.

In this way these cooperatives have gotten rid of the division between Labor and Capital which is the backbone of any capitalist system because capitalist systems work by marking up the products of workers’ labor and then adding onto it something called surplus value when is then pocketed by the capitalist as a profit.

So a worker producing a product that is paid say $20 in labor has his product taken by the owner of the firm, which then proceeds to mark up the worker’s labor cost to $25-30, and thereby make a profit. This is called the Labor Law of Value, and it has been proven to be the backbone of the capitalist system.

As you can see here, the worker is not getting the full value of the product he produced. He produced a product worth $25-30, and he only received $20 for it, with his owner taking the $5-10 surplus value and pocketing it as profit.

Independent contractors such as electricians, plumbers, painters, attorneys, physicians, accountants, etc. are not usually capitalists at all. Instead these are just workers – albeit highly paid workers – who are simply selling their labor time to  others, mostly workers, who purchase their labor time when they hire them or use their services.

Middlemen and traders who simply intervene between the producer and walnuts and the seller of say walnuts, adding on their profit, are not capitalists. Those are simply traders or merchants. They are not exploiting anyone. They can be thought of as a form of workers who act as go-betweens vis a vis producers and sellers, adding their small amount on as a fee for helping to get the two together.

Finance capital or people who buy and sell stocks are not usually capitalists. These are like people who trade in rare books, stamps, coins, precious metals, or anything else.

The stocks and bonds are like rare coins or precious metals. They simply try to buy them at a lower rate and sell them at a higher rate, which merchants have been doing forever even long before capitalism. They have no employees so they are not exploiting anyone.

Music groups and other performers, authors, artists, sculptors, etc. are mostly just workers who sell their labor time as performers or the product of their labor as books, paintings, sculpture, DVD’s, etc. Most of these people, even bands, do not hire employees.

Now granted the book publishers, record companies, galleries, etc. are marking up the labor time and labor products of these entertainment workers and taking the surplus value, hence they are capitalists.

A big rock music band can be thought of simply as performers (workers) who make a musical product and sell it to fans, mostly other workers, who enjoy their entertainment product so much they are willing to pay good money for it. So most bands, artists, authors, sculptors, etc. are not capitalists. They’re just workers for the most part marketing their labor time or the products of their labor time.

Now granted finance capital and speculative capital, while generally not capitalist, are nevertheless regarded as “parasitic” industries because they don’t produce anything.

They can be thought of as gigantic casinos in the sky (the stock market in particular can be seen this way). Speculative capital produces nothing and often has bad effects on society. Look at the wildly inflated housing markets on the US West Coast and in New York and Paris for example.

In China under what they call market socialism or socialism with Chinese characteristics, a Communist party cell sits on the board of directors of every large corporation. When corporations get a certain size the state usually takes them over in a sense. However, the managers have large leeway how to operate their company.

All private enterprises are underneath the state or the Communist Party. The CP sees the market or the private sector as a tool for the development of the productive forces. However, the capitalists are underneath the state. They have to do what the state says.

They have to adhere to 5-year plans. Yes, the 5-year plans that were said to be so devastating to the USSR and other Communist countries are working great in China.

The government, the party, and the private sector all work together on economic goals. In this way it is similar to the state capitalism of South Korea and Japan or even Nazi Germany.

That state capitalism is a non-capitalist form of development because the state works closely with the capitalists on economic goals which are supposed to serve the nation and not just the petty temporal demands of capital for maximal profits come Hell or high water, forget about consumers, workers, society, the environment or the nation.

Under state capitalism, the state controls the commanding heights of the economy. In Japan this boils down to a several huge banks which effectively run all economic development in Japan.

Nazi Germany was similar. Yes, you could have your corporation but you had to do what the state said, or they would just take you over and confiscate your firm. So the firms in Nazi Germany in effect all worked for the state.

In China, if firms do not follow guidelines and do as they are told, the state will simply go in and seize the firm, confiscating all of its assets. The state will then take over the firm or hand it over to  a more obedient capitalist. You see here that the state rules capital. Capital has to do what the state says.

Here in the US, the market is not a tool for the development of productive forces. Instead it is a form of politics. In other words, the market or the corporations basically run society. The market is over the state. The state has to do what the corporations demand, or the corporations will get rid of the state and put in a new state.

The state obeys the demands of capital and not the other way around. Capital, the market, and the corporations are our true rulers in the US. The government simply acts as if they are employees of capital. The state does not rule us except to the extent that it carries out ruling directives that Capital gives to the state to enforce on the people.

In China state firms are often run by local municipalities. So if we had their system,  say Los Angeles and San Fransisco might both have steel mills. These mills would then compete against each other and against private firms both domestic and foreign. It’s sink or swim for all public firms in China.

Firms that are more successful see their incomes rise and more workers move to those cities to be part of those enterprises.

The workers still officially own the enterprises, but the city takes 95% of the income that the enterprise brings in in the form of a paycheck for every worker. 95% of each workers paycheck is taken by the city and reinvested in the firm or in the city itself (similar to the Venezuelan model). The workers get 5% of their check to take home as pay.

Keep in mind that this can be a good paycheck, as cities running successful firms pay their workers more.

There are large cities in Southern China with 700,000 workers where 1/3 of the population works for one of the many enterprises that the city runs. The residents of the city, who are also workers for the city, have a say in how these firms are run.

For instance, they try to fight corruption, since it hurts the firms, which hurts the city, which hurts them in the end. So the firms of the city in a sense are under the control of the people who live and work in there in the sense that their input is used to make decisions about how to run the firms.

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.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: Why Conservatives Push the “Welfare Hurts the Poor” Argument

RL:

Welfare is simply not a problem. If you cut these underclass Blacks off welfare, they will act just as bad if not worse. In the Caribbean and Africa, they don’t get one nickel of welfare and they act even worse than they do here. If anything the welfare probably makes them act better.

Jason Y:

I wonder why conservatives – just can’t see that. It seems like they just keep throwing this “spoiled poor people (seems like paradox) thing”.

They probably can see it. They simply do not like their tax dollars being used to pay to help poor people. That’s the basic beef. That makes them sound like lousy and immoral people though, and while conservatism is indeed lousy and amoral, conservatives are human, and don’t like to appear like jerks even if they are acting like them, appearances being everything and all that. So if conservatives can push an argument that forcing them to pay to help poor people, which they hate for selfish reasons, is actually bad for people anyway, then they can rope in a lot of “humanitarian” morons and people with guilty consciences who feel bad about being selfish jerks.

“You’re forcing us productive people to pay to help these poor people get out of poverty, but the money you take from us just makes them worse and even more poor! That’s crazy! You’re stealing our money and making the problem worse!”

Get it?

Alt Left: Blacks: An Anatomy of a Half-Civilized People

When we talk about the amorality, uncivilized, antisocial or criminal behavior of various groups of people, we need to differentiate between white collar crime or controlled crime and the uncontrolled, chaotic nature of street crime.

After all, when I am walking down a dark street late at night in a bad neighborhood and I see a man in a suit and tie following me, I don’t suddenly think with terror, “Oh no! That guys about to commit a health and safetly violation!” Even if he’s a white collar crook, he will probably leave me alone, at least tonight on this street for sure.

But if I see a young, typical dead-eyed underclass or ghetto Black following me at the same time and place, I will be most alarmed. While it’s not true that he is sure to be dangerous, the likelihood of him being dangerous to me is much more than 0%.

While both Asians and Jews have reputations for being white collar crooks, neither race engages in much of the savagery and barbarity of street crime. On the other hand, sadly, many Blacks still do act this way.

Blacks are a half-civilized people. When I say that I do not mean insultingly that most if not all Blacks are only halfway civilized. Anyone with eyes and ears can figure out that that’s not so. Instead they are half-civilized in that maybe half of them are quite civilized in the Western sense (the American Black middle class), while the other half is still quite savage and barbarous (the underclass), though even they have calmed down and gotten a lot more civilized in the last 150 years.

We succeeded at civilizing maybe half of them, the middle class half, while the other half are still pretty savage and barbarous, especially when they are young and male. However, Blacks, even the worst Black men, tend to mellow out and become more civilized as they get older.

Even the half of the Blacks that are uncivilized are still much more civilized and less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years ago before the civilizing effort. I think US Blacks are more civilized than Caribbean Blacks, and African Blacks are still quite barbarous and savage. Nevertheless, even African Blacks have become much less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years. This is probably due to colonialism, though I hate to credit such an amoral institution.

Alt Left: Anatomy of Two Chinese Stereotypes: Amorality and Emotionlessness or Stoicism

Thinking Mouse:

What do you make of the stereotype that Chinese are greedy amoral worker drones with no aesthetic taste and little emotion?

Lot of truth to those things. Let’s take these one by one here. Let us look at emotionlessness and  amorality and for starters. I will also look at Jews as they are accused of some of these very same thing, not to mention that Jews and Chinese have a lot in common.

 

Emotionlessness or Very Understated Emotions

 

The Chinese practice inscrutability. This is one of the hallmarks of not only their but also all other Chinese-influenced societies in Asia such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand.

Say a wild, boisterous, screaming, hollering violent fight breaks out on a train. An older Japanese men, maybe 40, gets between the fighters and calms. He never loses his cool or gets very emotional in the process.

These Chinese-type cultures would say that that man is displaying the ultimate in masculinity. He’s the most macho guy on the train, simply because these people regard keeping cool under pressure and not caving in easily to emotions as extremely masculine behavior. And in the Nietzschian sense, the man on the train is indeed the biggest man there, the Ubermensch. He rose above everyone on the train, did he not?

However, the inscrutability, like so many Chinese habits, is largely fake, for show, or like a game. The Chinese are trained to appear inscrutable, not to be emotionless. Of course they have emotions. But they regard a wildly emotional person as akin to a beast of the jungle. After all, most beasts seem to have few emotions being fear or rage, and they are usually showing one or the other or both.

Beneath the inscrutable mask, the Chinese would say you can have any emotion you wish. But you are supposed to hide it from others, once again a form of extreme modesty and politeness taken nearly to the point of obsequiousness.

All of these China-influenced cultures are rather shy, deliberately self-effacing nearly to the point of being self-hating. This is mostly just a show or a game, but in all Chinese societies, modesty is highly valued, and braggarts, loudmouths, showoffs, blowhards and just noisy people in general are regarded as at best uncivilized and at worst barely human.

After all, many animals care nothing about raising a ruckus. Animals lack modesty by their very nature. This extreme, almost bizarre modestly of the Chinese probably comes from Confucian values, which were then overlain with Communism, which also regards showoffs, braggarts, and egotists as lousy Communists at best and downright society-destroying hooligans at worst.

Amorality

 

However, behind that stone-faced mask, the Chinese man may be hatching all sorts of devious schemes because once again like the Jews, the Chinese tend to be underhanded, sneaky, scheming, and conspiratorial nearly to the point of appearing diabolically devious. Check out Sun Tzu if you don’t believe me.

That’s how a Chinaman fights. Rules? What rules? Once again this akin to Jews who have always been accused of fighting dirty, playing hardball, and violating all rules in conflict. The intelligence branch of the Jews themselves after all has the motto of “By way of deception, though shalt do war.” The author of The Art of War himself would have been proud to have written that line.

Neither the Chinese nor the Jews for that matter  engage in savagery and barbarism (though the birth of Israel has created this very thing).

The Chinese are the Jews of Asia with the exception that they are not professional revolutionaries in every way, that they are not out to smash all taboos, and they do not want to change the societies in which they live.

Even in the Philippines and Indonesia, where 2% of population, the Chinese, controls 75% of the wealth, they just let the native Malays do whatever the Hell they want to as far as how to run society. The Chinese just want their money. They keep out of politics and the society-changing efforts that cause so much anti-Semitism when Jews engage in them, as is their nature.

This world-changing, ever-revolutionizing nature of the Jews is one of the main drivers of anti-Semitism, especially among conservative nationalists who see Jews as undermining and destroying the moral and traditional fabric of their lands. The Jews are always rebelling. Now, I am rather sympathetic to this trend, mind you. I’m a bit of a revolutionist myself and always have been.

Both Jews and Chinese also tended to lead Communist revolutions at the same time that their ethnic group was hoarding 32-80% of the wealth. So both the Chinese and the Jews are ultra-capitalists of the worst sort while also being some of the ultimate and often most radical Communists.

Alt Left: SJW’s Have Declared War on Normal People and Normal Behavior

Jason:

The whole “macho thing” depends on the occupation. @Robert Lindsay might disagree – but there’s a world of difference from James Taylor singing “Shower Me People” to an auto mechanic crying. One is permissible, the other isn’t.

Anyway, obviously, being sensitive doesn’t work in the teaching, correctional jobs, construction, auto repair – a host of other occupations.

Well, the thing is that apparently I am not macho at all, but I can fake it enough that I have worked in extremely macho workplaces, and those men all pretty much accepted me. You just look at how the other guys act and talk and try to imitate them. If you already have some masculine core from your youth, you can plug into it. It’s not that hard, guys.

Of course women pretty much didn’t accept me because women are far more demanding than men when it comes to masculinity. Toxic masculinity is 100% women’s fault. Men display toxic masculinity because women demand it and won’t accept anything even 1% less. As long as women demand it, men will do it.

At those workplaces, you talk the talk and walk the walk, and everyone will be ok with you. And go along with the general vibes. At this security guard job I had where the atmosphere was extremely macho, the subject of homosexuality came up, and I said, “Fuck fags,” in a sort of disgusted, dismissive, but soft tone of voice. Most of the other guys said, “Yeah. Fuck fags.”

One man said, “Hey, you know in Laguna Beach, they got a fag mayor now! Can you believe that? A fag mayor!” I just shook my head as if to say, “That’s bullshit.” This was 1984, 35 years ago, and it was much more ok to talk like that then than it is now. I was also a lot more homophobic than I am now. I’m not sure I would say that now.

You don’t have to believe the things you say, but it helps to play the part. There aren’t any gay men around, so no one gets hurt. And that talk won’t get anyone hurt because any man who talks that way already is not keen on male homosexuality.

I remember at that same job, this Jamaican guy was walking with me, and I had tied my sweater around my waist. He said, “Damn! You’re embarrassing me!” So I tied it around my neck, and he said, “That’s better.” Apparently he thought tying your sweater around your waist was gay. Maybe it looks like a dress. Sure that’s homophobic but so what? If you are working with a bunch of homophobic guys, you have to play along. You don’t really have a choice.

I sort of agreed with him anyway. From that day on, I never wear my sweater around my waist. I always wear it around my neck instead. I don’t want to look faggy. Hell with that.

One time I was talking about sex with my girlfriend at the time, and I said she stuck her finger up my ass. This caused loud guffaws. One of the guys recoiled and said, “That’s gay! No woman is going to stick her finger up my ass!” I just laughed and said, “So what? I’m getting laid.”

Then another guy (the same guy who talked about the gay mayor) made a huge smile and said, “Is that some good pussy, Bob?” I said, “Yep, real good pussy!” and they all started laughing and saying, “Good pussy!” and slapping each other on the back and giving thumbs up signs.

Of course all of this conversation is banned now as Nazism and evil hatred of women and gays, but the thing is, this is how real masculine man talk and have always talked. And if you go anywhere on Earth, you will find that masculine straight men act approximately this exact same way.

These insane SJW’s are coding what has been normal behavior for thousands of years as evil, hatred, fascism, bigotry, and Nazism. It isn’t any of those things. It’s just the way normal, straight, masculine men normally talk and act, always have, and presumably always will.

I remember back in the wide open 1970’s when things were very liberal and wild, almost all straight men acted exactly like this, and no one cared. There were a few SJW thought police around, but most of the hip people hated them as the killjoys, party-poopers,  prudes, and churchladies that they are. SJW’s are like a dour-faced guy who raids your party and drops a turd in the punch bowl while yelling, “Party’s over!”

Back then, the world would have laughed if SJW’s said, “Mick Jagger said the word bitch. He’s a misogynist and we must boycott all his records!”

If they said, “Johnny Rotten said the words cunt and fag. He’s a misogynist and a homophobe. Everyone boycott his records,” everyone, including every punk on Earth would have laughed right in their faces.

Leftwing men have turned into the most pathetic bunch of sissified girlymen on Earth.

SJW’s have declared war on people, especially men, acting normal.

Alt Left: Can You Change Your Sexual Orientation?

Jay:

Robert have you heard of shift in sexual identity.

I have been studying this issue for years now. Frankly there are hardly any people studying this issue and almost everything you hear about sexual orientation is nonsensical lie. Research into this matter is being held up by Gay Identity Politics. I am probably one of the few people in this country who is actually studying this issue.

You mean sexual orientation, right? It doesn’t happen in men, except maybe in prepubertal boys. Men don’t change at all. Sexual orientation in men is frozen at age 15, if not sooner. We know this because many males have tried to change their sexual orientation in lab over many decades. All efforts to increase heterosexual attraction and decrease homosexual attraction failed. So not only could gays not be turned straight, but a 10-90 couldn’t even turn into a 20-80.

We don’t know if straight men can turn gay  because no one ever shows up in the lab wanting to do that, but it doesn’t seem like it. There was a case in the Archives of Sexual Behavior about a college man who desperately wanted to turn gay but was utterly failing to do so. He had tried everything and was at his wit’s end when he showed up for therapy.

It would seem that heterosexual attraction cannot be decreased, and homosexual attraction cannot be increased. We men are SOL. Whatever you are, you are. Be happy with your orientation. You probably didn’t create it, and you can’t change it. And let’s quit beating up on men for things they can’t change!

I’m not sure about women. Women seem to be able to add on a new attraction. Many straight women add on a bi attraction. Many lesbians cannot seem to change at all for some reason. There are women who claim that they change from lesbian to straight. No one really knows what is going on with them, but in one case I am aware of, Bill DiBlasio’s wife, her sexual orientation did not change. There are straight women who claim to go lesbian, often due to feminism, but many lesbian feminists do not have sex, which implies that their true orientation did not change.

It looks like once an attraction is acquired in a certain strength by a certain age, it cannot be reduced or eliminated. It’s just stuck for life. The question revolves around whether new attractions can be created on increased or eliminated if they already exist. The jury is open on that, but in men it looks like it’s not possible.

Probably straight women cannot turn lesbian because a hard attraction to men will be for life. Probably a lesbian cannot turn straight because a hard attraction to women is for life. I have talked to a few lesbians who were having sex with men, and they told me that their orientations had not changed (10-90’s) in the few years they had been having sex with men. One told me, “I can’t help it.” It’s time we show kindness to true biological homosexuals.

Sexual activity, identification and orientation are not the same. 95% of all gay men are biologically gay and cannot be changed. However, I am aware of a few cases of straight men living a gay lifestyle simply because women did not like them. I am also aware of cases where men with an apparent bisexual orientation and a lot of experience with women until college decided to live a gay lifestyle.

So most gay men are biologically gay, but a few are straight or bisexual men who have simply chosen to live a gay lifestyle.

Alt Left: Modern Feminism as a Psychopathic Movement?

I am starting to think feminists are psychopaths or at least modern feminism is a psychopathic movement. All feminists have told me flat out that women have a right to hit us men all the want to. In fact, they take delight in hitting us. There have been many articles in feminist press about hitting men. These are filled with comments from gleeful feminists talking about the men they have hit or assaulted and how fun it was. The rest of the comments are, “You go, girl. Hit those men! Beat those men! LOL!”

I asked every feminist I know if we ever had a right to hit them back, and they all said no. Ok, that’s psychopathic. They get to hit us all they want to, but it’s illegal for us to hit back. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

When women are unrepresented in like anything but even 1% they scream and yell and carry on and demand equality of outcome at all costs. In a number of cases now though, women are beating men. More women in college, more women getting degrees, more women in all sorts of high paying professions.

So men are now underrepresented in all sorts of fields, in school, etc. Response of feminists? Crickets! Women can’t be underrepresented 1% in anything and we have to force equal representation for women, but women get to beat men and over-represent them in anything, and that’s wonderful.

Incidentally, there have been many gloating articles in the feminist press about how women are kicking men’s asses in some field or other or in school, and the women are all cheering it on. They’re chortling and carrying on like it’s a party. “Beat those men!”, they scream with delight. They get to beat us in everything, and we can’t beat them in one thing. That’s psychopathy. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

I sincerely believe that feminism is a psychopathic movement.

Alt Left: 80% of US Women Refuse to Identify As Feminists

Studies of millennial women appear to show that 20% of them identify as feminists. Not sure if that’s a good figure, as it was hard to find the actual survey, and I averaged together the rates for the different races of women, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White. When I averaged together the rates of the four races, I got 20%. The link for those figures was to a page doing surveys on millenials. An article saying 20% of women identify as feminists linked to a page doing surveys on millenials.

In addition, an average of only 27% of European women identify as feminists. So 73% of European women reject modern feminism.

On the other hand, most said that they were full equal rights for women, maybe 80% support that. So you can argue that they support feminist goals while rejecting identification with the modern feminist movement.

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity. Bottom line: feminism has a bad name. Why? They’re fanatics. Case in point: your average feminist, wild eyes, danger hair and the rest.

The 3rd wave sites I have been on are not so dykey and anti-feminine as the truly insane radical feminist sites where the women are nearly diagnostically psychotic, but the man-hating BS is definitely still there, though quite a bit toned down.

Plus a lot of 3rd wavers are heterosexual, really like to have sex with men, and are often horny as Hell. Feminist men almost get mobbed on those sites.

Alt Left: The Single Factor that Moderates Feminist Man-hatred

Love of dick.

There’s one thing that moderates a feminist. Does she still like dick? Is she strictly dickly? As long as they still like cock, the man-hatred never gets ramped up to extreme levels.

The worst manhaters of all are lesbians, either biological or straight women who turned lez due to extreme man-hatred. Many of the extreme manhaters are straight women who have simply given up on men to become cat ladies and marry their vibrators.

As long as they’re still fucking us, they just can’t hate us too much. At some point  they run into a wall and can’t hate us anymore. The cock-love serves to block the man-hatred at some point.

I hear that there are misogynists who have a lot of sex with women, but it doesn’t seem to work that way with women. You don’t hear about a lot of man-haters who have lots of sex with men other than prostitutes, where this is quite common.

Yes, many prostitutes are extreme manhaters. Many have turned lesbian due to their extreme man-hatred. How they can stand to keep having sex with us all the time is beyond me. Much worse are former prostitutes, many of whom have a near-psychotic hatred of men. Former prostitutes now vicious manhaters are extremely common in the radfem movement.

Granted, prostitutes no doubt see the very worst of men, but then so do players and womanizers. Which may be why so many womanizers are misogynists. Womanizers and prostitutes both know the opposite sex too well. Familiarity breeds contempt. They’ve both seen the bad side of the opposite sex in spades, whereas most of us are spared the worst and remain dreamy-eyed, swooning, and addicted to the opposite sex far into middle age.

Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much knowledge can be downright fatal. That’s called a reality overdose, something most of us spend our lives downing Pretty Lie Pills to avoid. Being lie-addicted seems silly, but if it keeps you above the ground, so be it. You do what it takes in life and damn the rest.

Alt Left: Radical Feminism Is Not a Tiny Fringe Movement in Feminism

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity.

Having spent a lot of time on feminist boards, I would definitely say that those associations are reality based, in particular on radical feminist forums. Radfems are 22% of all feminists. That means that there are 4-5 million radical feminist women in the US.

SJW liars say that radical feminists are a tiny fringe group in feminism. That’s not true at all. It’s a huge movement. And most of the big names in feminism were radical feminists, including Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Sheila Jeffries, Julie Bindel, Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon.

The entire #metoo movement and the very concept of sexual harassment itself, especially the pernicious hostile workplace environment amendment to the theory, came straight out of radical feminism. Sexual harassment theory was birthed by Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon, two of the most deranged manhating bitches that ever lived. These are the intellectual braintrusts behind metoo.

“A Black a Block, Spread ‘Em Out and Civilize ‘Em!”

Jason Y writes:

Towns full of low class Whites are not ruined, but they’re full of swindler types, thieves. Also, they’re full of drug addiction (pain pills specifically).

But you can live there. But you don’t want to get too close to many of them, and you need security.

Hispanic neighborhoods are much the same. They’re not wrecked at all really, and you can absolutely live there. Maybe you will think they are not much fun, but no man ever died of boredom.

But Hispanic neighborhoods are full of lousy human beings, not all Hispanics. There are some ghetto Blacks there too, and they are pretty lousy. The lousy Hispanics will generally leave you alone, which peace you won’t get in a ruined Black city. As long as you don’t make friends with them, you are ok.

Even the ghetto Blacks act far better in my city than they would in your typical ruined Black hellhole. That is because they don’t have any numbers, so that right there makes them act a lot better for some reason. They are still absolutely ghetto Blacks with all that that implies, but these ghetto Blacks are far better behaved than the ones in Detroit or whatever.

The reason is that when ghetto Blacks are only a small minority, they don’t ruin places and they act a lot better. The Hispanics and Whites here act a lot better than ghetto Blacks, so perhaps being around folks who act better causes these ghetto Blacks to improve their behavior via good examples the way the Talented Tenth used to provide good examples for behavior and hold down the fort in Black neighborhoods of yore.

Also for some other reasons they tend to act better. Perhaps they feel completely outnumbered, so they get a lot less bold and try to constrain their behavior due to fear. Any bad behavior gets their asses called out way more around here than in Baltimore. Whatever the reason, small populations of Blacks of any kind don’t seem to cause a lot of mess. They still cause problems, don’t get me wrong. But they don’t cause mayhem, which is what they do in Newark.

Avram Davidson was a well-known science fiction writer. You can look him up on Wikipedia if you wish. He was a friend of my fathers. He was my friend too. I knew him quite well. He was an Orthodox Jew but I hate to admit that he didn’t like Blacks. Part of it was due to fear. He was terrified of ghetto Blacks especially in his old age, which is a reasonable fear.

He used to say, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” It sounds nasty but there’s a decent argument to be made. Arguments are not bad because they have an ugly sound. Ugly noises never hurt anyone, and hurting feelings doesn’t count, snowflakes. Arguments are bad is they produce ugly outcomes. And this argument does not produce an ugly outcome.

I understand that Portugal, 4% Black, did just this, and concentrated on spreading Blacks out and not letting them congregate in huge numbers in any one place, which, upper and upper middle class Black neighborhoods aside, just seems to bring out the worst in Black people. If it works, do it. Who cares about people’s petty feelings? You don’t refuse to engage in a good project because a few babies are going to get their feelings hurt.

And yes, a Black tipping point exists. This is good for a couple of reasons. First it shows that even ghetto Blacks are not horrible per se. They are only bad when they concentrate in large numbers and start dragging each other down like crabs in a barrel. Like all human beings, they imitate other humans for good and for ill, and they are indeed capable of imitating others for good and acting better.

Second, even ghetto Blacks are not genetically doomed to horrific behavior. Even if there is a genetic component to ghetto Blacks’ acting lousy, genes are never the whole story. Environment effects human behavior too, and a better environment improves outcome of even people who may have a genetic tendency to cause problems.

Indeed, in some cases a superenvironment might even completely wipe out a genetic tendency to act bad. This is how we have African tribes of 1 million population where Blacks literally turn into Japanese people, something I always said was impossible. But superenvironments are hard to create.

Back to the tipping point. I looked into it, and it’s 20%. Detroit was fine with a small Black population. I did the research. As long as the Black population of Detroit stayed below 20%, there were few if any noticeable problems, and it was still a decent place to live. I noted that at 20% things started to decline, and the decline accelerated as the Black population increased.

The increase and behavioral decline also drives out Whites and probably better behaved Blacks who might otherwise constrain these people’s bad behavior by example or negative reinforcement. So the decline accelerates.

Not only do people who previously acted pretty good start acting worse and worse, but as the city declines, the better behaved folks of any race start taking off. Of course this makes everything all the worse, as these better behaved folks were holding down the fort so to speak.

Although this Black a Block argument sounds too awful to implement, nations have already done so, and we are already doing so right here in the US.

Under the Obama Administration, liberals at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) employed precisely this argument when they started getting rid of housing projects and instead giving ghetto Black residents vouchers to go anywhere they wanted to. Many took the opportunity to move to better neighborhoods which were often Whiter. Of course this caused a huge backlash because crime did go up in those neighborhoods as ghetto Blacks moved in.

However, a curious thing happened. Those ghetto Blacks who previously lived in projects in concentrations of poorly behaved people indeed started acting better when they were shifted out to White neighborhoods and sprinkled around. They did not act dramatically better but they did act somewhat better. And whatever people say about the crime rate, these ghetto Blacks’ crime rate indeed went down.

So the Cultural Left can scream all they want that A Black a Block is an evil racist theory or project. But the thing is, it’s already being implemented. And the people who are implementing are very liberal and progressive people of various races, including very liberal Black people.

And regardless of its ugly name, the project works. It’s better for ghetto Blacks and it’s better for society as a whole. One wonders why SJW’s would object to a project that improves ghetto Blacks, everyone else, and society but these people are hung up on words and feelings, not results. And that’s called having bad priorities.

One more reason why SJW’s suck.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

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

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

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives Are Murderous and Hate Democracy All over the World and at All Times

The Murderous, Democracy-Hating Latin American Right

The murderousness of the Chilean, Peruvian, Ecuadorian, and Argentine Right is in the past, but you never know when they will spring up again.

  • There was talk on the Argentine Right of calling for a coup when the last president talked about regulating the agricultural sector. They run that country like a mafia and no one dares to touch them. The Argentine Right worked with Wall Street to bankrupt the country and ruin the economy so they could win an election.
  • The Paraguayan Right overthrew the government with a judicial coup.
  • The Ecuadorian Right attempted an armed police coup several years ago.
  • The Peruvian Right staged a coup 25 years ago.
  • The Chilean Right only allowed a weak democracy 18 years ago.
  • The Honduran Right staged a military coup to get rid of a democratically elected president. Since then, death squads have murdered 1,000 people.
  • Aristide was overthrown by US sponsored coup 23 years ago, and they haven’t had any democracy since because Aristide’s party is banned from running. The last time they ran, they won 92% of the vote. After the coup, death squads rampaged through the population, murdering 3,000 members of Aristide’s party.
  • The rightwing Brazilian legislature overthrew the Left government based on a complete lie and they jailed the former president on a completely fake charge based on a bribe that he didn’t even accept! I mean they simply overthrew a democratically elected government with a parliamentary coup. They do this stuff all the time down there with either judicial, parliamentary or military coups.

The Latin American Right hates democracy.
If you wonder why the Left goes authoritarian down there, well, this is what happens if you try to do it democratically. They try to do it democratically, they wage coups and economic wars against you, start terrorist riots destroying you cities, murder the members of your government and political parties, start contra wars, or if they are in power, run death squads and slaughter the members of your parties.
I mean if they block all efforts at peaceful change, why not just put in a Left dictatorship? By the way, this is why Lenin said peaceful efforts towards socialism were doomed to fail because power never surrenders without a fight. He called such efforts parliamentary cretinism. I don’t agree with that, but I see the point.
The main point is that everywhere on Earth, the Right hates democracy and they are determined never to allow any Left governments to take power. Things are a bit different in Europe, North Africa, the Arab World, and Central Asia, but once you start getting over to South Asia, once again, they won’t give it up without a fight.

The Murderous, Democracy-Hating Right in Southeast and East Asia

  • Thailand overthrew a Left government with a judicial coup and the middle class rioters called yellow shirts destroying the country.
  • Indonesia staged a fake coup so they could murder 1 million Communist Party members.
  • The Philippines runs death squads that slaughter the Left.
  • The Taiwanese state consolidated its power after 1949 when they fled to they island by murdering hundreds of thousands of Leftists.
  • South Korea also killed hundreds of thousands of Leftists from 1945-1950 before the Korean War even started.
  • Between 1954-1960, Communists tried to take power peacefully in South Vietnam, but the government murdered 80,000 of them. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms but it was never granted. Finally, in 1960, Ho gave them permission to take up arms.

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

Sami: Robert, every single counterpoint you make brings us back, full circle, to the ultimate question concerning what the Alt-Left is really about:
Does it aspire, truly, to become a genuine, mass-based political movement with a clearly-articulated platform, that can change this country for the better from the ground up? Or is it a mere, irrelevant intellectual exercise on a few blogs?

 
There were 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook recently. It has now dropped down to ~6,000.
Also the existing Alt Left seems to have been colonized by regular Democratic Party people pushing anti-Republican partisan politics along with typical SJW stuff. The best analysis of the Alt Left right now is that it has been co-opted by Democratic Party liberal entryists.
And then the movement itself died down for some unknown reason. We had a terrible problem with being swamped by rightwingers and Libertarians the whole time we were popular on Facebook. It was a never-ending nightmare keeping the rightwingers out.
The problem is that nowadays when you go anti-SJW, you get swamped by rightwingers. And everyone on the liberal-Left is pretty much automatically an SJW.
And there is an odd process whereby as leftwing people get more and more anti-SJW, they start moving more and more away from left economics towards more openly promoting capitalism. This makes no sense to me. Why on Earth would capitalism be opposed to anti-SJWism? Feminism is just a group of women to sell women-oriented products to. Capitalists would love to cater to Blacks to sell them stuff. Capitalists will fall over backwards to cater to and suck up to gay people if only to get them to buy stuff. Why should capitalists care about Muslims? Capitalists would love to cater to this group and sell products especially for them. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for capitalists to be anti-SJW. It makes no sense. And it makes a lot more sense for them to go full SJW if only to sell more stuff to new groups.
It makes somewhat more sense that left economics be tied in with SJWism, as both are about equality, but there’s no reason left economics should hate or oppose heterosexuals, Whites, or men. Why should it? None of those three groups have anything to do with economics. Also the Left has always been sexual liberationist, but now that feminism has taken over the Left, the Left has become as prudish, Victorian and sex-hating as the Christian Right. Puritanism has no logical connection with the left or left economics. Why do Left economics have to do with sex and fucking? Nothing.
The Alt Left was an attempt to sever this horrible intertwining of left economics with SJWism and rightwing economics with anti-SJWism, but we haven’t had much success at that. When liberal Left people go anti-SJW, they abandon Left economics too. And no one subscribing to Left economics wants to go against SJWism. So economics and the culture war are still horribly tied together, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle them. It’s so frustrating.
There are several online magazines which people are referring to as Alt Left. There are some folks on Youtube calling themselves Alt Left, and there are others who are being referred to as Alt Left. I would say that it’s a very small movement, but it definitely exists.
Part of the problem is that people like me are too lazy to promote it. I have my own Alt Left group on Facebook, and I encountered quite a bit of interest in the subject. I was also on some of the other Alt Left groups, and there were a lot of interested and curious folks. The problem is mostly just laziness. It’s incredibly hard work to grow these movements, and I for one am just too lazy to do the hard work. But there are others still working on this project.
There is also the Realist Left, another small project that definitely exists.
A political scientist in Poland got interested in us and wrote a couple of pieces about us in political journals. A couple of other political journals over there also wrote us up. Mostly no one has the faintest idea of who we are, so first of all, we need publicity more than anything else.

Alt Left: IQ Differences as Small as Five Points Can Be Easily Observed in Populations

Is there even a difference between 2 IQ points? Is there even a difference with 5-8?
I’m not sure if there is a difference with 2 points. There is a difference with 5-8 points. Asian IQ’s are 5 points higher than White IQ’s, and it is very noticeable on a macro scale for sure and often on a micro scale. On the low end, there is a 5 point difference between Blacks (IQ 85) and Hispanics (IQ 90) and you can see it as clear as air, definitely on a macro level and to some extent on a micro level too. Most of the Black women I meet on dating sites can’t even spell! You don’t see that nearly so much or to the same degree with Latinas.
At 8 points, the difference is even clearer. The difference between White Gentiles and Jews is probably ~9 points, although studies vary a lot. If it is as low as 9 points, that 9 point difference is starkly obvious on a macro scale (to the extent that groups of Jews can even be observed on macro scales) and definitely on a micro scale.

"Pipe Dream" Arguments from the Left on How to Deter Mass Immigration

Sami: There may, excessive fears of IQ drop aside, be good reasons to slow down mass immigration. For instance, it would de-energize the alt-right and other reactionary movements.

No kidding. There’s no reason for it. It doesn’t benefit our country one bit.

Sami: Best and most humane way to accomplish a tremendous slow-down in migration, in my opinion, would be to stop our brutally exploitative economic, geostrategic, and military polices toward those regions, driven by the short-sighted avarice of the Western Corporatocracy and banking interests, and their rapacious mentality toward the Third World. I highly recommend reading “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, by John Perkins, a former insider..

Obviously this is never going to happen probably ever. I will be dead in 20-30 years and I assure you that US imperialism in all of its wickedness will be rampaging along like it always has. We can’t wait for pipe dreams to come true to deal with this issue.

Sami: The British and American financial sectors launder the hundreds of billions of dollars of drug profits, completely enabling, and even driving, the catastrophic violence destabilizing Mexico and Central America.

Another problem that is never going away. This has been going on for 40 years now. See any signs of a slowdown?

Sami: Britain’s unregulated offshore financial empire takes care of the lion’s share of this out of places like the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands. These “offshore” centers also hold over $900 billion, conservatively estimated, of stolen wealth from Africa, and literally trillions from the Middle East,and Latin America, laundering wealth stolen by corrupt government officials — theft that wouldn’t be remotely possible on such a massive scale otherwise, without this laundering.

Any sign that British financial imperialism is headed out, like…ever? Of course not.

Sami: This represents absolutely unimaginable looting, and economic destabilization, as well as social and military destabilization of entire nations and continents, from which, not coincidentally, much migration into the US and Europe originates.

We’ve been raping and ruining the 3rd World forever now. Even back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, US imperialism was at least as bad as it is now yet immigration flows were far lower. Face facts. Most immigrants to the US are straight up economic immigrants. They’re coming here for the cash, for the filthy lucre. Most are not refugees fleeing this or that. Most can make enough to survive in their own lands. But they can make more here, so they flood here. Mass immigration is not exactly noble. It’s driven by raw, disgusting greed.

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: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Sex-Negative Feminists Force Beto O'Rourke to Apologize for No Reason

Beto is running against Ted Cruz for the US Senate seat in Texas. Cruz will be very hard to beat. Texas is 17 points more Republican than the country as a whole. It’s has been a wildly reactionary and backwards state forever now. Nevertheless, Beto has been on Cruz’s heels, often trailing him by only 2-3 points. There is no way that a Democratic challenger should be that close to Ted Cruz. That in itself is a very good sign. Nevertheless, Cruz will be very hard to beat. I think Beto could possibly beat Cruz, but he probably only has a 25% chance of beating Cruz. There has been a bit of a scandal over Beto’s drunk driving arrest twenty years ago. He also used to play in a punk rock band when he was young. Cruz’ campaign tried to make the punk band a campaign issue, but no one cared. The drunk driving arrest doesn’t seem to be helping Cruz much either.
Nevertheless, 27 years ago, when Beto was a very young man and a student at Columbia University, he wrote a review of a Broadway show, The Will Rodgers Follies, in which he said that the dancers had no talent at all and

…whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.

What’s wrong with saying that?
In addition, the article was coming from a morally upright point of view. That is, he was criticizing the show for being a degenerate sleazefest:

…one of the most glaring examples of the sickening excesses and moral degradations of our culture.
Keith Carradine in the lead role is surrounded by perma-smile actresses whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks…

I swear, if a straight man opens up his mouth and says anything sexual at all, the feminists try to ruin him. It’s pretty hard to go through your whole life without writing or saying something sexual. But if you ever do that, the feminists will have your hide and ruin you forever.
This shows me once again that the goal of modern feminism is to stop heterosexual men from having sex with women altogether. The fact that they get furious if we even talk about heterosexual sex implies either that feminists are profoundly prudish, sex-hating Victorian prigs or else they simply want to stop men from having sex with women, or both. I don’t think there is any more controversy about this.
If we can never talk or write about sex, how are we supposed to do it? It’s incredible how puritanical the Feminist Left has become. They are worse than the Christian Right by now. Who needs Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson when we have Gloria Steinem and Jessica Valenti.
As usual whenever someone offends the feminists, Beto had to make a public apology and kiss the feet of his feminist masters. How pathetic.
From the Alternet comments:

This is just the kind of self-immolating “political correctness” run amok that is destroying, if it hasn’t already destroyed, the U.S. left by turning it into a laughing stock to most ordinary Americans!

Exactly!
Feminism and SJWism are going to be the end of the West if we don’t stop them.

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.