The Destruction of the Langues d’Oil Was a Deliberate Project

I got this from a paper on Academia. We see many typical arguments here against the use of dialects and sub-languages of the main prescriptive official language – that speaking them indicates that one is rural, uneducated, backwards, stupid, and not modern, cool, hip, urban, intelligent, and educated. Hence this process of wanting to dissociate with the old backwards ways and associate with the new modern ways continues today.

I was involved for a bit with a German woman in the US. She spoken Hessian, which is actually a separate language under the rubric of High German or Standard German. It is spoken in the Hesse, a wine-growing region in the central-west. She still spoke Hessian, but she told me it was not popular for the reasons above – it meant you were backwards, stupid and uneducated.

She also said something interesting about mutual intelligibility.

We see also the unifying effect of the Jacobin French Revolution, one of the most progressive revolutions the world had seen up until that time. In fact the American and French revolutions were modeled on each other. This was a progressive, modernizing revolution the likes of which had never been seen before. Egalite, liberte, and fraternite – Equality, freedom, and fraternity. It was also quite anti-religious, giving rise to something called laicism or extreme secularism in France.

The idea was to unify all Frenchmen under a single language. The local patois in addition to the other languages non-related to French such as Flemish, Basque, Catalan, the various Occitan and Arpetin languages, Breton, Alsatian, Moselle Franconian, etc. were seen as impeding in particular the fraternite or assimilitory aspects of the Revolution. They also kept people backwards, stupid and perhaps even promoted inequality and lack of freedom, both of which were associated with the ancien regime.

We also see how the local patois were tied into the land, the landscape, the stars, the times of day, the seasons, the foods, the plants and animals, the very lifeblood of the people. To uproot the patois would be to destroy people’s intimate connection with all of these things.

As all of these earthly connections were considered the realm of savagery – after all, the modern man was to liberate himself from the natural world and rule over or move beyond it – the civilization versus savagery motif also came into play. As you can see, lack of patois was seen as due to healthier lives, better food and water, more human interaction, and more money and higher level of civilization. Patois was associated with poor food and water, even poor weather, lack of sociability, poverty, and lack of integration into the monied economy.

As you can see, the development of capitalism in France also played a role here. The rural areas were to be forced into the capitalist mode whether they wanted to or not.

In epistemological terms the aim of Modernity is unequivocally to do away with the Old World, and the French Revolution provided precisely that opportunity. In order to align nature with productive forces, existing environmental regulations had to be done away with at the end of the 18th century (Chappey & Vincent, 2019, p. 109).

Not coincidentally it was also at that same period, from 1790 on, that the Revolutionary governments of France sought to survey the use of ‘patois’ in order to uproot them and replace them with the language of Reason (Certeau, Julia, & Revel, 1975) or at least a revolutionary version of it (Steuckardt, 2011). In line with the Ideologues’ project, this linguistic project was devised to gain knowledge and use this knowledge to transform (and improve) living conditions in the country.

So next, language.

Nowhere is the pre-modern vernacular connection between language and what we now call ‘nature’ better expressed than in a response given to Grégoire’s 1790 survey on patois by the Société des Amis de la Constitutions of Perpignan, in the Catalan-speaking part of France. Asked about how to eradicate the local patois, they retorted:

To destroy it, one would have to destroy the sun, the freshness of the nights, the kind of foods, the quality of waters, man in its entirety. (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 182).

Conversely, in a 1776 account of life in Burgundy, Rétif de la Bretonne accounted for the lack of patois in the village of Nitry in contrast with surrounding areas by resorting to natural explanations: purer air, better grains producing better bread, dairy products, superior eggs, and animal flesh. All those elements were then correlated with the practice of commerce, which brought inhabitants in contact with other localities and generated the need to speak politely (Certeau et al., 1975, pp. 277–278).

In the next village of Saci [where patois was apparently still spoken] one mile away, however, stagnant waters caused the air to be “devouring,” and the local inhabitants to be “heavy, ruminative, and taciturn” (ibid. 278).

In France, the patois are forms of non-language that index a state of wilderness and superstition and point to the savage (Certeau et al., 1975, Chapter 8) – forms of knowledge and practices which were to be uprooted pointing to an absence of a rational outlook on the world and a lack of industriousness (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2016) and lust for more money over time.

In that particular view, the patois are immediately transparent forms of language: they are isomorphous with nature and with emotions. Along with the ways of life of their speakers and mores, they are susceptible to description in the natural science sense of the term: mere mechanical facts to be described (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 154). In this representation, mores are opposed to civilization (ibid. 155), rurality to urban life, and patois to language; access to language is thus tantamount to access to civilization.

Karl Marx, “The Genesis of Capital”: The Creation of Capitalism and Its Link to Modern Land Reform

This fascinating document is available in booklet form as it is only ~35 pages. It is an excerpt from the larger Capital volume. It’s not an easy read but it’s not impossible either.

Some of the writing is gorgeous. I read one sentence to my very anti-Communist liberal Democrat father and he swooned over the prose. That one sentence was both perfect and beautiful, though it dealt with some terrible.

In many places, this is forceful – see the fencing of the Commons in the 1300’s, done deliberately to force the peasants into the capitalist mode or production. Indeed theorists said that if the peasants could not be shoved into capitalism, there would be no capitalism, for their would be no workers. It was essential to destroy the peasants ability to live off the land for themselves in order to force them into worse circumstances as industrial workers.

We see this very same rhetoric employed today in India – where it is argued that the tribals in Chattisargh and other places must be uprooted from the lands, have their lands stolen from them to give to mining and forest industries, and forced into the capitalist mode in cities in order to properly develop the economy. It is argued that India cannot develop its economy until the Adivasis have been destroyed. Note that as with the ancient peasants, the Adivasis will live much poorer lives in the cities than the were in the rural areas.

In Colombia, we see something very similar. In Colombia, small farmers own a lot of land. They are able to subsist off this land and they do not need to participate in the larger economy. They grow enough food for themselves and some city people. The process of the Colombian revolution and the genocidal response of the Colombian oligarchy to it is all throwing the peasants off of these small plots, stealing their land at gunpoint (the paramilitaries are used for this), and terrorizing or killing them if they refuse to hand over their land.

The land is then confiscated by latifundias or large landowners who by and large control the Colombian economy. They grow coffee, bananas, etc. and raise cattle for export, generating money for the economy in the process.

In fact, this process has been going on all over Latin America for over 200 years as sort of a slow-motion process of ethnic cleansing and land theft. Smalholders are able to live off the land in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, and Brazil, and this is seen as unacceptable as they only grow food for themselves and possibly for city-dwellers but the produce cannot be exported.

These countries wish to develop an export model of agriculture based on the large scale production of food crops for export mostly to the US. In return, their ability to produce their own food is destroyed, in my opinion, rendering their economies completely backwards. The people are then rendered vulnerable to the purchase of imported food from the US, often packaged or canned food that is not very good for you.

As you can see, the country gets screwed and the US wins both ways. By destroying the basis for feeding themselves, the US wins an export market for its processed foods. By replacing these with food crops for export to the US, the US gets to make money by importing and selling these food crops. In return the country gains nothing.

Only a small landholding and import-export elite (maybe 20% of the population) gains and the vast majority of the poorer people lose as they can no longer feed themselves, no longer own land and are self-supporting, have to resort to unhealthy foods that they need much of their income to purchase, and they also are rendered much poorer as low wage proletariat in the slums of the large cities.

And in the process, of course, the country generates a revolutionary movement, often an armed one.

This can be seen in areas of Colombia. In one particular part of Southern Colombia, most of the rural peasantry had been thrown off the land and most of the land was now held by a few large landowners who were raising cattle on the land. The peasants had been terrorized off of their stolen land and formed ghettos in a large city nearby, which increased the poverty rate and the slump percentage of the city by a lot. Here they were poor, unhealthy, poorly fed and clothed, living in slums in shacks with no sewage systems, clean water or electricity.

These slums began to generate a lot of street crime as they tend to do. Outside of the cities on the main roads, there were soldiers and paramilitaries everywhere and one went from one armed roadblock to the other. Curiously enough, a large guerrilla movement had developed among the few remaining peasants and in teeming slums. Armed guerrillas extorted the latifundias for money that they called “war taxes.” The latifundias now paid a lot of money for paramilitaries to patrol their lands.

In the slums, an urban guerrilla movement was developing. Police, soldiers and paramilitary members were attacked with bombs, RPG’s and automatic weapons all the time and took significant casualties. The war had now moved to the city where there was no war before. Bomb and gun attacks hit city police stations on a regular basis. Death squads and army units roamed the land and the unarmed Left in the form or human rights activists, labor union members and organizers, community organizers and activists, environmentalists, campesino organizations, organizations of slum-dwellers and indigineous leaders were murdered and tortured to death on a regular basis.

The idiot US and the West see this as a process of “Communist guerrillas trying to subvert Colombian democracy, shoot their way into power, and set up a murderous Communist dictatorship which will destroy freedom and prosperity in Colombia”. The vast majority of Americans and others in the West actually buy this bullshit. Many on the Left refuse to support the Colombian guerrilla, insisting that they are anachronistic and that they should try to seek power peacefully. However, since the FARC disarmed, former members and members of newly formed political parties have been massacred like flies. So state terror blocks all road to peaceful change, leaving no alternative but the way of the gun.

Obviously the ridiculous analysis of this situation that Westerners believe has no basis in reality. The Western media cheers on the genocidal Colombian state and says that the Colombian democracy is waging a war against irrational and bloodthirsty terrorism, typically linked with drug trafficking to describe them as criminals and destroy their legitimacy.

As long as this process goes on, Colombia’s economy will stay forever backwards.

It is necessary to do a land reform in the rural areas before any country can prosper economically. Indeed this “socialist” project of land reform which the US spent decades in the Cold War slaughtering millions of people to stop was actually implemented by the US in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in order to fend off a Communist threat. Oddly enough, it ended up creating the basis for subsequent booming development in those places.

Land reform was and is the basis for the Communist and Leftist revolutions and guerrilla forces in South Vietnam, Thailand, Colombia, Nepal, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay in the past 55-65 years, with some of the revolutions happening later 40 years ago. In Paraguay this process has just started several years ago when a FARC split has taken up arms agains the state.

How Art Creates Beauty of the Most Horrible Things

Art is capable, perhaps uniquely so, in finding beauty or maybe better yet “perfection” in the sense of “excellence” in most horrible things. The ending of Moby Dick and Gravity’s Rainbow (two of the greatest books of the last 200 years) both come to mind. Both end with a terrible death, in the former of an entire crew of a whale-hunting ship and in the latter of a hapless boy strapped into a V-2 missile to be shot by the Germans at Pennemunde at London in 1944.

In a more modern sense, we can see this in Tarentino’s movies, where he portrays a stylized form of aestheticized violence that is both beautiful, terrible and “perfect.” I mean perfect or “excellent” in its “beauty” in a Platonic sense of the Greek word arete.

Aesthetics, the Philosophy or Art, Beauty, and Taste

The section of philosophy that deals with beauty, what it is, what it means, how to define it, its purpose, etc. is called Aesthetics. This school of thought was probably started by Plato. The actual study of Aesthetics itself dates from Hegel.

In the 19th Century, John Rusk made some great contributions to the genre in his works on art or art criticism. Kant, Nietzsche, Confucius and the Buddha all had important things to say on this subject, so you can see that the philosophical discussion of beauty extends to theology too, as Buddhism and Confucianism are seen as marriages of philosophy and religion or, I would argue, using Heideggerian language, “philosophy-as-religion.” Hume and Kant both linked art to the ability to produce pleasure in its consumer.

John Keats argued in Ode on a Grecian Urn that truth was beauty and vice versa, so here Tarantino’s hyper-realized violence is beautiful in part in its sheer graphic nature. In Hinduism, Satyam Shivam Sundaram makes the same statement – “Truth is God and God is Beautiful.” This sense of art as truth + beauty could be called a “mathematical conception of art” as we see in concepts like complexity, simplicity, and symmetry (symmetry in particular seems linked to art and beauty both) that mathematics itself can be both artistic and beautiful.

In the modern era, Freud  (the “Uncanny”, John Dewey (connection between art and ethics), Theodore Adorno (the Culture Industry), Marshall McLuhan (making the invisible visible), and in particular Arthur Danto (modern art as kalliphobia or anti-beauty), Andre Malraux and Walter Benjamin (the Renaissance and recent definition of art and beauty).

Modern Philosophy as the “Progression” from the Intelligible to the Unintelligible

Lyotard, Merle-Ponty, and Lacan are as usual much less intelligible. If we can see philosophy as the development of a social science, it seems to be “developing” from intelligibility towards unintelligibility. Kant and Nietzsche started it, Sartre turned it into an art form, and in the modern era, philosophy has ceased to have much of any meaning at all. See the French School starting in the 1970’s. The object here is apparently to make as little sense as possible.

Does Eating Meat Lead to Homicidality in Humans?

Rambo: Of course vegetarians say the reason human beings are bloodthirsty murderers is because of the consumption of meat. If everybody just went veggie, people wouldn’t be so lustful for blood.

I’m not so sure that is true. First of all, we don’t kill most of the animals we eat. If we had to, we might not eat them! When I eat meat, I purposely put the idea of the fact that this meat I am eating came from a living animal that had to be killed in order for me to eat it out of my head because it’s so upsetting. So when I’m eating spare ribs, I may as well be eating carrots for all my moral mind knows.

Killing Animals and Killing Humans May Be Two Completely Different Thought Mechanisms in Humans Having Little to Do with Each Other

But I’m well acquainted with homicidal feelings, as I’ve experienced them much of my life, although much less often now that I am older. The odd thing is that I’m a pacifist, maybe the nicest guy you’ve ever met, the least irritable person around who is bothered by nothing that others do, and I’ve never even tried to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense (we won’t discuss the possible exemptions to this rule here), much less a completely innocent person. So you can see that if even a passive pacifist like me has led this homicidal of a mental life, God forbid what your ordinary person thinks like, and I think we don’t even want to know what your average aggressive hypermasculine male thinks!

So homicidal thinking seems quite universal in humans, or at least in males. Yet I never think with joy about the animals I eat, and not only that but I brainwash myself into thinking that a living animal did not have to be killed for me to eat it. So I take my mind completely outside of the knowledge and awareness that an animal had to be killed in order for me to eat it. Such knowledge would seem to be necessary in order for there to be a connection between meat-eating and homicidality.

People who brainwash themselves into thinking eating a pork chop is the same thing as eating Brussels sprouts hardly have the murderous mindset necessary for the theory to be true. And as I pointed out, completely passive and more or less harmless people can think in markedly homicidal ways. So it seems that eating meat in which an animal had to be killed in order for one to eat it and homicidal thinking towards other humans are two completely different mechanisms and in many cases, have little to do with each other.

Actual Hunting of Animals Doesn’t Seem to Lead to Killing Humans

What about hunters? I used to be friends with a taxidermist who was an avid hunter and even a hunter guide. I brought up the question of whether killing animals may make someone more likely to kill people. He’d thought about it a bit, and he said that the thought streams were two completely different mechanisms. There is a huge gap or fence in place between killing animals and killing humans, and most hunters are aware of it. It’s as if the thoughts of killing animals and killing humans were from two different planets.

Hunters section these thoughts apart and make a vast divide between them as if they are two completely different things altogether. I’m not sure what the literature shows, but it seems as if hunters deliberately create a mental barrier for themselves when they kill animals, possibly to make sure that murderousness towards animals does not lead to homicidality towards humans. Or perhaps the two thoughts are already walled off that way due to socialization. Or perhaps the hard divide between them is hardwired into our brains.

Boys Killing Small Animals in Almost All Cases Does Not Lead Them to Kill Humans

Notice how easily children, especially boys, kill bugs, fish and in less frequent cases, amphibians and reptiles, even less often birds and least of all, mammals? Well, as a boy, I had no issues killing bugs and fish; in fact, it was a cause for delight. But those feelings would not even extend to amphibians, much less anything higher than that (We caught snakes but that was in order to make pets out of them!), and I’ve never killed an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal in my life. I tried to kill frogs recently because the ones around here are pests, but my mind stopped me. It seemed too cruel and disgusting.

So when do you hear about about even the cruelest animal-killing boys killing other humans, except in the case of adolescents? Almost never.

So already in boys the killing of lesser organisms, especially at the lower end, is sectioned off with a hard wall, probably genetically based, against even killing more advanced creatures, much less humans, which is verging on the unthinkable.

Teens Torturing Mammals to Death, Especially Dogs and Cats, Is Different

However, once teenagers get to the point where they are killing mammals, especially beloved domesticated ones like dogs and cats, a hard line has been crossed, and they are now more likely to kill higher mammals like humans. This is particularly the case because boys killing lesser animals often involves torture (it certainly did with us), and kids who kill dogs and cats often torture them to death. Torturing a mammal to death is completely different from a hunter killing a deer quickly and cleanly. The former is much more likely to be escalated to killing humans due to the sadistic nature of it.

The Original Theory Appears Unfalsifiable

But this is unfalsifiable in a sense. Where are all these human vegetarians we can test this theory on? They don’t really exist (but see below). So there’s no way to even test out the theory. Theories that can’t be tested out are nonfalsifiable; that is, there is no way to prove them wrong. Another way of saying is by saying not only is the theory not right, it’s not even wrong!

Largely vegetarian Hindus have conducted some major massacres in past decades.

And Hitler was said to be a vegetarian, and Nazis promoted vegetarianism due to an animal rights project they had that they unfortunately did not extend to human animals.

Who’s the Terrorist Now, Baby?

I have to admit there is something attractive about terrorism. The brutal calculations, the wrongs and the rights, the deathly equation, the equalizing hand where the weak vanquishes the strong, if only for a brief moment of ecstasy. I love the idea that there are no alibis, no excuses, and no compromises for the terrorist. He knows he’s bad and he doesn’t care. He’s not even pretending to be a good guy.

It’s all about that brutal equalization of power between the strong and the weak. Only the strong can afford to fight fair. All weak parties must fight dirty or die. That’s why women fight dirty and men believe in honorable fights and rules of war. Women laugh at that. Honor in a fight! Pshaw! Rules in war? You nuts? Children fight dirty, slaves, maids, servants and beaten-down wives fight dirty. Terrorists all. Terrorists every one.

There’s something off-putting about physical terrorism in practice. Let’s face it. You have to truly have to your back up against a wall with all options run out to rejoice in the blood and guts of the enemy’s civilians, their women and children, their weakest leaks. Sure, I can understand the desperation, but I’m not that beaten down. Not yet. I pray I’m never beaten so low.

So much better than terrorism on the physical plane is what I would call Psychic Terrorism. Perhaps it is Magic. Perhaps it is just Psychology. I have no idea, but it’s a glorious force.

Our priorities are all wrong. We’ve fingered the least terrorists and made them the worst while we build statues to the worst terrorists of them all – the psychic terrorists.

There’s a poem by Philip Layton along the lines of…

Sure you guys blow up an airliner and kill a few kids.

Pick up the pieces, shed a few tears, say a few prayers, and it’s done.

Penny ante stuff, pikers, bit players on the world stage.

But us?

Look at our terrorists – Jesus, Freud, Marx, Einstein.

The world is still quaking.

Psychic terrorism. Now there’s a beautiful thing. I think I will conjure me up a potion of that tonite. Maybe I can rock the world just that one tiny, near-imperceptible bit.

Teenage Girl Sex Panic: I Was Banned from Reddit

I got banned from Reddit a while back. I still go there all the time and I am always greeted by this horrible message that my account is permanently banned. The site keeps throwing it in my face while I surf around the site. It’s very depressing to see that message over and over. It makes you feel hopeless. I kept sneaking back on and they kept banning me again. Sucks that these bans are for a lifetime. I hardly think what I did was worth a lifetime ban. I posted something. My opinion on a particular issue. You know, like free speech. And it wasn’t even particularly outrageous.

People were posting the usual insane bullshit about adult men and teenage girls, and someone discussed a man and a 13 year old girl. I made a post that said, “A man having sex with a 13 year old girl is normal.” I was banned for promoting pedophilia!

You can’t “promote pedophilia.” You can’t be for it or against it. It’s a biological disorder that some folks just end up with. Can you promote schizophrenia? Blue eyes? Albinism? Manic-depressive illness? Borderline Personality Disorder? Foot fetishism? Depression?

How on Earth can you promote or oppose any of those things, and what difference would it make if you did? None of those are really acquired behaviors. You can’t just decide you want to acquire any of those things. You either get wired up that way or you don’t, pretty much. Most are acquired in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood, and tend to have a chronic course. People acquire mental disorders. You cannot promote or oppose any mental disorder. It’s ridiculous. These are simply maladaptive ways of thinking that some people get into. They’re not something where you wake up one day and decide you want to be this way.

And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not. Those conditions are not really willed actions as in I can decide to go to the store right now.

Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions. I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.

Anyway, what did I mean? Well, the American Psychiatric Association has decided that Hebephilia, usually an attraction or preference for pubescents aged ~12-14 is not a mental disorder. There was a big fight about it in the discussions of the latest DSM-5. The people saying it was not a disorder won. Furthermore, they went beyond that to say that not only was it not a disorder, it was also completely normal!

Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 16% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 16% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.

81% of men are primarily attracted to mature females, 15+. These men are called teleophiles. However, teleophilic men are also attracted to 11-14 year old girls, albeit on a slightly lower level than they are to matures. The usual estimate is that 100% of men are attracted to 12-15 year old girls and 95% of men are attracted to girls 2-12! However, in the latter case, almost all of those men are attracted to little girls at substantially lower level than they are to mature females. 3% of men are pedophiles; that is, they have are more attracted to girls under 11 than they are to mature females. That’s a lot of men.

So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree.

Hence, does it follow that if he acts on the attraction, is that normal too? I said it was on Reddit, but I am not sure. It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically disordered behavior like child molestation. Men have been having sex with girls that age for almost all of human evolution. They still do in primitive societies, where men generally start having sex with girls after menarche, which is typically age 13.

In the DSM debate, they said that men who acted on their hebephilic urges were criminals in many Western countries. I would agree with that. If you’re asking me if I am advocating men to have sex with 13 year old girls in places where it is illegal, I am not. The reason is because it’s illegal and you might get caught. If you get caught they will throw the book at you and you may go to prison for a long time, where you might not be real welcomed by the other inmates. If you ever get out you go on the Sex Offender list for life.

So I absolutely am not saying men should do these things. I completely oppose adult men having sex with 13 year old girls in our society. In addition, it ought to be illegal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. I would give a break to, say, an 18 year old man, but once you start  getting a bit above that, you have to seriously outlaw it. And if men are caught having sex with 13 year old girls, I think they should be incarcerated. I don’t wish to live in a society where it’s legal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. That creeps me out.

I’m just saying it’s not psychologically disordered to do so. Is it normal? Well, maybe, but perhaps a lot of bad behavior is normal. Almost all crime is considered “normal” in that it is not mentally disordered behavior. Criminals don’t do it because they’re crazy. Committing crimes doesn’t make you nuts.

Instead, while crime is “normal,” it is also wrong in most cases. And I think you can make a case that a lot of crime is intrinsically wrong. That is, when you seriously harm other persons or their property or cause them losses, that seems to be immoral in a global sense of universal morality. Wife beating is probably intrinsically wrong too. But it’s not nuts. Sadly, it’s very normal to beat your wife.

But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong.

A good rule is that non-coercive sex with is generally morally right (except with adults and little children), and coercive sex is morally wrong. And in certain societies, men having sex with girls that age is morally proper. It’s seen as immoral and abnormal in our society. Our society and any society has a right to decide what is right and what is wrong within reason. Societies get to make their own rules about morality.

Men having sex with young teenage girls is a behavior that is intrinsically neither right nor wrong. This is one of those behaviors where society decides whether and how right or wrong it is. Quite a few societies think it’s just fine. Our society thinks it is wrong, bad, immoral, evil, disgusting, creepy, on and on.

That’s the value that our society has placed on that act. It’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide that men having sex with 13 year old girls is dead wrong, a seriously immoral act. So societies have a right to outlaw this behavior and even throw the book at people who violate these laws. So it’s acceptable for a society to punish men who have sex with 13 year old girls with imprisonment.

These things are more matters of right and wrong, good and bad, good and evil than matters of crazy or sane or normal or abnormal. These are not things that psychiatry deals with. Psychiatry only cares if you are nuts or not. We don’t care if something is right or wrong, and we don’t have a good idea what is anyway. Issues of right and wrong and good and bad behavior are matters for Moral Philosophers, Societal Morality, and the Law to figure out. They are moral and legal matters, not psychiatric ones.

I still think it was low and hysterical to ban me on this petty offense. Obviously, Redditors are in the throes of this idiot sex panic. Society has gone completely hysterical about this stupid issue. Shame on every one of you for falling for this asinine moral panic.

Energy Never Dies and Always Wants to Go Somewhere

I’ve been arrested by cops a couple of times, been in jail a few hours, and seriously hassled as in questioned for a serious crime and threatened with having a confession beaten out of me, so you could say I’ve seen cops at their very worst, and boy are they monsters, or at least they can be when they want to. Sadistic, monstrous freaks out of a de Sade novel.

I actually think they’re not that much different from criminals in terms of cruelty, sadism, and lack of morals. It’s more that they’ve taken all these antisocial and sociopathic traits and channeled them towards victimizing bad guys. I’m sure they get a moral superiority kick out of it too. I guess I’d rather have psychopaths channel their evil towards harming bad people than victimizing us good people.

Energy exists. It doesn’t really dissipate. Werner von Braun noted that there is no extinction of energy and matter in nature and that all energy and matter is simply transformed into other forms of energy and matter. In other words, nature knows no extinction. It only knows transformation.

The problem with energy is it doesn’t want to just sit there. Energy is movement and it likes to move. It gets bored if you sit on your ass all the time. So energy tends to move in particular directions into or out of our bodies. When it moves out of our bodies, we can choose where do direct it. Sublimation is a thing. Churchill could have been Hitler.

And as you can see, it’s not so much whether the particular energy in you is good or bad but more the direction in which you aim it, as in a prosocial way or an antisocial way. I suppose I’d prefer people to direct their bad energy in prosocial ways as long as they are going to push it out at the world at all.

Energy tends to go either in or out. As I noted, it doesn’t like to sit there. Energy comes in good and bad forms, and we all have plenty of both somewhere inside of us. Bad energy either gets pushed out at the world or gets shoved inside of oneself as self-hatred, self-abnegation, low self-esteem, depression, suicidality, etc.

In another post, I talked about sex energy and how it doesn’t want to stay cooped up either. Sexual energy in particular wants to go outside the body and attach to objects, probably because the very purpose of sex energy is to attach itself to an object. I’m not sure bad energy wants to do that. It wants to go somewhere, but I’m not sure it has a preference for where.

Alt Left: Bad Men Do What Good Men Dream

I’ve considered just about everything.

Suicide and a thousand different ways to do it. Aggressive homicide all the way up to serial murder, rape, molesting kids, torture, every sex crime you can think of, robbing banks, burgling houses, mugging people, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, setting forest and brush fires, arson of homes, executing prisoners and civilians in wars, dropping bombs on people, you name it, I’ve thought of it.

Thing is, I’ve been imagining myself committing all of these acts since adolescence and yet I’ve never committed any of these acts even one time. But it was almost always like, “Can I do this? Do I have it in me to do this? What if I did this?” It wasn’t really a fantasy in most cases

I imagine it in your brain and typically the fantasy is not able to play itself out. I start to do the crime and then my brain steps in and says, “Forget it, man. I just can’t. No way in Hell. No way in a million years.” Quite a few times I have imagined myself committing one of these crimes and I have a knife or gun in my hand, menacing the terrified victim. That scene right there feels pretty bad. Most of the time, in my fantasy I simply drop the weapon on the ground or floor, say, “I can’t. I just can’t,” and then start crying or plead with the victim for forgiveness. I can’t even imagine doing something like that. My mind won’t even carry though the fantasy.

Sometimes I imagine committing some horrible crime, and then I imagine escaping or trying to escape afterwards.

However, probably since I am a good person, my mind always says, “Wait! You might get caught. You need to imagine getting caught if you are really going to do something like this.” So then I imagine getting caught. In a lot of cases, the getting caught part looks and feels real bad. It’s a horrorshow. My mind makes me exaggerate it to make it as horrible as possible, probably worse than it would be, probably to keep me from doing it.

I think this type of thinking is completely different from what people call fantasy. Fantasy is something you want or might want to do. You typically carry out the act in the fantasy. This is more of a “Could I do this?” type of “experimental thinking” where you are trying to figure out what your limits are behaviorally.

Once you consider you might get caught and you imagine the Hell you will have to pay with the cops afterwards, I think a lot of people will conclude that a lot of crime isn’t worth it.

Actually, it keeps me from doing these things because whenever I consider actually doing something bad for real, I’ve usually thought it over in my head and concluded that I didn’t have it in me to do it. I think we should test ourselves regularly with bad temptations just to clarify our moral boundaries. If you don’t do that, you don’t know what you are capable of, and you may just do something you regret for the rest of your life.

I’m starting to think there might not be a lot of difference between good people and bad people except that bad people act on their antisocial tendencies and good people repress them.

Bad men do what good men dream!

Alt Left: I Know Them Too Well

A commenter: Too much self-awareness leads to weakness and self-harm which, as you know, isn’t a good idea in any society let alone India.

Intuitively, it seems correct, but would any commenters like to expand on this?

Ignorance is bliss I guess. And you can obviously know others too well. This is why family members often hate each other so much. It’s all tied up with shame. You see, your family members know you inside and out, up and down, forwards and backwards, warts and all. They know the good side of you but boy do they know the bad side of you too. They know all your secrets. Nothing is hidden from them.

Hence, they are quite dangerous if they ever decide to spill the beans. The father who comes home from work, kicks the dog, yells at the kids, and badgers the wife is operating on this principle. Obviously, he’s displacing the rage he feels towards others at work whom he is not allowed to express it too. But it’s also the shame. The dog doesn’t know his secrets, but everyone else does. He looks at them and knows that they know his secrets and that makes him very angry because he feels ashamed. Rage often follows shame.

I’ve come to the conclusion that with a lot of people, it’s better to know a little bit about them than a lot about them. I know the locals at the local stores pretty well and they treat me like long-lost family every time I walk in. But I don’t know them very well. I’ve never hung out with them outside of work. I know nothing of their home life. So I’m really quite ignorant of these people. But from my limited vantage point, I can mostly see good things about these folks. I have no doubt that once I got to know them better, I could see a bad side of them. People tend to be on good behavior at work, especially if they face the public.

I feel this way about women too. I get called misogynist all the time, but it’s not really true. Actually I love women. But in spite of all the great times I’ve had with women in my life, I’ve had some of my worst experiences on Earth with none other than women, particularly girlfriends. They’ve hurt me as badly or worse than anyone else. So I love them, but they’ve caused me a lot of pain and this makes me angry.

Also I understand women pretty well. In part it is because I’m not the most masculine guy out there. When I was younger, people sometimes thought I was gay. A number of them refused to believe I was straight even when I told them. I have no idea why they thought this because I’m not effeminate. Maybe I’m just soft. Everyone thinks soft men are gay, but actually most soft and even wimpy men (two different types actually) are straight. Wimpy gay men are so wimpy it’s ludicrous. Some gay men are soft, but most others tend to be effeminate.

Anyway I get along with women very well or at least I did until I got to late middle age and the female population of the Earth starting hating me. I will confess that women my age still like me. But that’s about it. Young women seem to utterly detest me. I can’t even talk about the weather with them. But my whole life I’ve got on well with women. Often most of my friends were women.

I used to say I wouldn’t mind being around women all the time and being around men as little as possible. To this day, I prefer the company of women to that of men. And one reason for that is, I must admit, that there’s a part of my brain that literally thinks like a woman. In this way I can connect with them very well whereas with most other people, the male-female dyad seems to be some odd connection of opposites.

Anyway, the problem is that I definitely know women too well. Way too well. Way too well for my own good. And to tell the truth, I liked them more (but in a very stupid and naive way) when I didn’t understand them so well. As I’ve come to know them better and better, I’ve grown more cynical about them.

You see, I can see the whole wonderful good side of women (and girls for that matter, as I love girls too). The good side of women is one of the most glorious things in God’s green Earth.

And then there is the bad side.

A good way to look at a lot of things is to say they are 50% good and 50% bad. Men are 50% good and 50% bad. Women are the same.

The bad side of men is utterly terrifying as in literally physically dangerous to life and limb, but the bad side of the Feminine Principle is pretty monstrous too, with the exception that they won’t hurt you physically. They will hurt you verbally, psychologically, and spiritually, but they don’t tend to engage in physical violence. That is in the universe of the men.

The thing is that I often find myself regretting that I know women so well. It was a lot more fun when I walked around half the time thinking “I love women! I love women!” I thought that mostly because I hadn’t really figured out their bad or even evil side. I’d seen some of it but I found it baffling in the same way you react to a crazy person in the streets. I thought it was an aberration or just craziness. Now I see that that nastiness wasn’t aberrant at all. It was simply the half of women that is bad, or even evil.

So I definitely know women way too well, and it was sure a lot more fun when I was quite ignorant about them.

Alt Left: According to the Cultural Left, Blacks and Women Are Permanent Children

Found on the Net: This is the media and academia spin on every topic — nothing is the loser’s fault, everything failing is caused by external White evil.

This is interesting in a philosophical sense.

According to the reigning narrative, Blacks (and any other fake oppressed group) literally have no agency. That is, they have no free will and cannot make any decisions at all for themselves, no matter how bright they are. Black people never do anything. They literally cannot because if they ever did anything, it would wreck the whole idea.

Instead, Black people are passive objects that only sit there and get things done to them, usually bad things and usually by Whites. They just sit there helplessly while all these bad things get done to them all day long which they are powerless to stop. Since they have no agency and never do anything, nothing can ever be their fault.

Feminists do this same thing with women. Women have no agency either and they never do anything; instead things just get done to them, usually bad things and usually by men. Women just sit around in life and get bad things done to them all day which they are powerless to stop.

Please note the extreme infantilization implied here. Both Blacks and women are permanent children, as children are usually thought to have little to no agency (minors can’t consent and all that nonsense).

Now, if one wants to make the argument that women are permanent children, I won’t argue with you. That’s part of the Feminine Character, and arguably it’s an evolutionary necessity.

A woman can literally sit in a playpen with an idiotic baby and play with the baby all day long without a care in the world. She’s in her happy place, heaven on Earth. You can’t do that unless you have a childlike or childish mind yourself. I wouldn’t last 10 minutes with that dumb baby.

On the other hand, sane societies (otherwise known as patriarchies, since these are the only societies that actually work) have always seriously proscribed childishness in grown women .

Sure, women want to be childish – it’s their nature. But if you enforce maturity and adulthood on them with serious punishments, most women will suppress their childish tendencies and act like grownups. My mother’s generation was like this.

The problem with feminism is that it is based on the idea that women are permanent children with no agency. It’s also encouraged women to act as crazy as possible. Acting crazy is also part of the Feminine Character, but once again, sane societies put serious punishments on women for acting nutty.

Women in my Mom’s generation acted like grownups and were quite sane. In these younger generations it seems like we are dealing with whole cohorts of females with symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder.

So, I’m wondering, based on this theory, does the woke crowd treat Blacks like children? They infantalize Black people, don’t they? According to them, Blacks are permanent children who never grow up .

That’s pretty insulting but perhaps Black people want it like this. There is a freedom in childhood, and acting like a child that we adults are generally denied. This is frustrating for a lot of adults who wish to reject the stultifying, over-serious rectitude of adulthood that can feel like a prison at times.

Furthermore, children have no responsibilities and people have few expectations of them – in fact it is expected and assumed they will act bad and this is seen as normal, albeit lamentable and annoying. They are not expected to be skilled or accomplished at much if anything, and failure in many tasks is assumed and treated as normal.

Most importantly in many ways, nothing us really a child’s fault. If a kid does something waited or crazy we excuse it by saying “Oh well, he’s just a child.” Young children are assumed to have diminished capacity for mist crimes and many ordinary acts if human behavior (minors can’t consent to sex, etc.)

All if these add up to a sense of freedom that might be appealing to many Black people. And I would add, to many Whites too. Reading the above and seeing how much responsibility and culpability I can avoid by remaining a permanent child is starting to make it a bit appealing even to me. And I’m a responsible, intelligent person. If permanent childhood is appealing to me, consider how it must feel to the tens of millions of Americans who are much less intelligent and responsible than I am.

Alt Left: Russian Thinking on Black-White Versus Grey Areas

Commenter Siberiancat, who is a Russian, left this comment a while back:

Russians are pretty good with gray areas.

An illustration:

A Russian emigrant mathematician and psychologist Vladimir Lefevre was an adviser to Reagan on how to conduct negotiations with Gorbachev. He had a theory that Western and Eastern European (in this case, Soviet) ethics were completely different.

In Western thinking, there is a clear difference between Good and Evil. One should confront evil, yet compromise with an enemy is a good thing

In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray. The ends justify the means, and one should not compromise with an enemy.

The advice was to conduct negotiations in such a way that the Soviets would not look like compromising to the domestic constituency. Make negotiations mostly informal. Avoid formal deals that might be seen as defeats by the ordinary Russians.

I would not say that Russians are Easterners, having nothing in common with the Chinese or Indians, yet the ethical systems between them and the West are obviously different.

Oh, and Lefevre was the guy who coined the term Evil Empire.

I find it interesting that he ties Eastern European (as in Slavic?) thinking with Russian thinking. What about in the Baltic states? They’re so Westernized. And the Czechs are so Western they are barely even Slavs. And what do we do with the Romanians? The culture and religion of the East, yet the language of the West? I suspect they are more Eastern than we think. The Balkans, Greece, …Hell, even Bulgaria, are more Southern European or better yet, Southeastern European.

I know everyone over there hates the Turks and I don’t blame them, but I’m afraid that they’re more Turkified than they think, especially the Greeks. Or perhaps the entire region is Southeast Europanified, Southeast European being different from both Eastern and Southern Europe. The Turks like to delude themselves that they are part of general Southeastern Europe, but that is just more Muslim arrogance. They’re so much closer to the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Kurds that they hate so much than they will ever admit. Religion isn’t as big a part of human culture as everyone thinks. In a lot of areas, it’s almost a cultural “add-on.”

I do like this part though:

In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray.

Reminds me of the great line from Rumi:

Over there
In that field
Beyond good and evil
I will meet you there

– Rumi

That is just so perfect, I am sorry. And it’s so…Eastern…Hell, it’s almost downright Chinese for Chrissake. Rumi was an Iranian Shia Sufi poet. I wonder to what extent Iranian thinking is “Eastern?” I hate to say like Chinese, but I sense a deep vibe of Chinese philosophy in that bit of terse poetry.

Alt Left: Why Everything Feminists Say Is a Lie

Part of the essential Female Character is an insane level of Puritanism. Of course it’s combined with a Nymphomaniacal Sexuality. To observers, this makes no sense as it’s a contradiction, but you will never understand women until you figure out that both of these things running at the same time are an essential part of the Female Character.

Feminism is a problem because it took Female Thinking, which is part functional and adaptive and part retarded and dysfunctional (like Male Thinking), and institutionalized, weaponized and finally coded into law this screwed up thinking.

Furthermore, feminism as a science and a way of perceiving reality if forever fucked because it says that the Ultimate Truth about Reality lies in the female view of the world and the Female Character. Well, no it doesn’t. The Female Character, like so many things (or everything?), is half good and half bad. Half of the stuff women believe makes sense, and the other half is a bunch of stupid crap best ignored by any man. Anyone claiming that a philosophy that is 50% stupid bullshit is a proper tool for the analysis of reality is out of their head.

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Alt Left: Why Male Rule Works and Female Rule Always Fails

Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.

Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”

For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men has had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.

Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it. It’s what the weak do. The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools. In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place. And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.

So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen? Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating, and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.

So, as request:

“Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”

Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.

Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.

So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they sometimes start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos.

Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.

So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong and are at least capable of fixing their fuckups.

It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.

Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.

So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought  this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!

Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.

Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.

Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.

We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.

The difference is in what you do afterwards.

We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.

So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.

Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.

You have a choice:

Injustice and function.

Justice and chaos.

Pick one.

Two Kinds of People in the World – Morons and Psychopaths

Problem is most people with genius IQ’s s (1% of the population) pretty quickly figure out that the world is populated by morons and psychopaths. They’re not really morons except that at stratospheric IQ’s, even average IQ people almost seem retarded.

The psychopaths of course run the show and get all the money, stuff, and chicks. Hence why women flock to psychopaths. Psychopaths lie constantly and these lies become known as “culture,” especially as they own the (((media))) and (Hollywood))). Don’t mean to single out any particular ethnic group here but the (((ones))) who run Hollywood and the media are as psychopathic as any Gentile running society.

The morons are too dumb to figure out they’re being lied to, so they go along with the lies. Hence why the psychopaths always try to grab the media, first thing they do. Because most of the morons are so dumb that they actually believe the media, even when it’s lying most of the time.

Genius IQ is hardly a brag. 1 out of every 100 Americans has one. Genius IQ’s are as common as weeds. If you ever went to university, you probably met them teaching your classes and probably sitting next to you.

A famous article called The Outsiders was written a while back. The writer sought out people with IQ’s over 160. Yes, I’ve met one. I also met a 156 IQ woman. She was literally the fastest woman I’ve ever met in my life. Her life was like a rocket to the moon, it was that fast. Most of them were men and most were failures, of course. Most were living at or near the poverty level. If they worked at all it was in basic jobs like at the post office. Most were not married and recent celibacy rates were very high. Most of them were not dating at all. Some were very handsome, too.

Women don’t exactly seek out geniuses you know. They were almost all excruciatingly shy and introverted. There wasn’t any mention of Aspergers Syndrome, though I doubt most had it. Most lived alone in small apartments. As you can see it is actually possible to be so damned smart that you are doomed to fail in society. And almost to a one, they were misanthropes and absolutely hated people. Why? Every single one of them hated people because they said they were idiots.

Well, I concur. Actually, every day I stick around this Clown Rock Flying Through Space, I start to hate people just a little bit more. And I hate them because, yes, they’re stupid. Now, stupid people are just fine. Hey, most humans are idiots, face it. Just because you’re dumb doesn’t mean you’re bad as long as you’re nice. Problem is people can’t settle for being merely stupid. They have been dangerous too! So my opinion is that I hate people more and more every day because they are dangerous idiots. As in so damned stupid that they are a threat to my sanity and maybe even my freedom.

People are dangerously stupid because they can’t think for themselves. They’re all just terrified sheep. They go along with whatever Lies du Jour are being pushed because if you don’t, you get ostracized like me. Of course if enough of them called the liars on their lies, they’d have to give them up and at least go make up some new ones.

Also, people are faddists. They are prone to mass hysterias and moral panics.

To give you an example of how asinine moral panics are, things that were completely normal in the 1970’s (statutory rape) are now regarded as the most evil things on Earth, deserving of life in prison or the death penalty! Dumb or what? Why? Because we’re in the midst of an idiot moral panic about this stuff.

And stuff that was regarded as the most evil behavior on Earth (smoking pot, taking psychedelics, and “drugs” in general) is now shockingly normal, and smoking pot is practically legal. I can’t tell you how many sanctimonious fucks I dealt with back in the day because I smoked pot, dropped acid now and again and like a line of coke at time. And I was never more than a casual user of most of that stuff.

See? The moral panics aren’t even rational! One decade something is just fine. Ten years later you need to get lynched on the spot for it. One decade something is Satan’s work itself. Come ten years and it’s so normal it’s almost laughable.

People who get involved in moral panics are basically sanctimonious shits. I’ve been dealing with hysterical, panicked sanctimonious shits my whole life and I’m really tired of them. I’m tired of being told I’m a bad person. I’m not anyway.

I’m actually starting to look forward to death, and that’s sorry.

Action-Reaction and Cause-Effect

People are saying these are different processes, but really they’re the same, no?

By the way, this is a good idea to take out into the world with you when dealing with others. What was the cause of this person’s reaction to me? My behavior or appearance (sort of the same thing but not quite). What was the effect of my behavior/appearance on this person? Their resultant behavior. Even works for bigotry. Bigots are reacting to your appearance mostly, not so much to your behavior. If it seems like self-blaming, well, it is. We are the cause of other people’s reactions to us, right, wrong, or indifferent.

Even if people have evil or immoral reactions to us, we still caused the reaction. Jews caused the evil Nazi reaction by their appearance, by the simple fact that they were Jews. It’s not the Jews’ fault, but that was the cause of Nazi behavior. Why did that woman get raped? She was an attractive young woman who happened to be in the general vicinity of some raping maniac, and her appearance and behavior caused his urge to rape her to unfold. She still innocent because all she was doing was existing as a human being, and he still gets all the years in prison you want to throw at him, but she’s still the cause of his behavior. This is true for just about anything.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. It’s how the world goes round. Or the universe, if you prefer to get expansive.

Eastern Thinking Versus Western Thinking

Say you don’t love something or hate something but instead that you have a whole range of feelings towards it ranging from love to hate to everything in between, and most Westerners will either look at you in awe like you are a Godhead or condemn you as a crazy person, with the latter reaction being the norm.

Most Westerners are silly Manicheans, so that sentence is seen as insane. But any intelligent Asian man would just nod his head. Long ago, they figured out that everything’s a grey area. Remember what Mao said about Stalin? “Stalin was 70% good and 30% bad.” That makes complete sense to any intelligent Asian.

To a Westerner, perhaps especially to an American, that sentence is “insane.” And most Westerners would describe it exactly as such. Westerners don’t do grey areas. Neither do Muslims. Nor Jews. Must have to do with those Abrahamic religions, where things are either good or evil and no ifs, ands or butts about it.

The Jews do try to get away from that with their Talmud, which is 13,000 pages of a bunch of rabbis sitting around debating this or that and never really coming to much of a conclusion about anything. Except most Jews never read one page of the Talmud. Tell a Jew about the evil and sick stuff in that book and they will yell at you. Except you’d be right.

Hinduism tried to get away from that too but mostly by deciding that there wasn’t really such a thing as evil, except the only evil being not fulfilling your Dharma, that is, taking care of your loved ones, tribe, caste, etc. And if you have to do that by stealing millions of dollars, Hinduism says that’s a-ok.

Of course Buddhism tries hardest to get away from this the most to the point where Zen will hardly admit that much of anything is true or even worth pondering about. Instead, as Candide wisely opined, one should simply cultivate one’s garden. Do that, think of nothing but what precisely you are doing, and there you will find satori.

Alt Left: The Great Logical Disconnect at the Core of SJWism: People Are Basically Shitty, Amoral, Predatory Mammals

The problem with SJWism is it says Reality isn’t reality. What’s real for SJW’s is this fake Utopian SJW world they believe in.

Except the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, we are cavemen and cavewomen, and he world runs on hate, jealousy, envy, lust, greed, lying, manipulation, sociopathy, Machiavellianism, and other awful things, and as far as sex goes, being mammals, we like to rut in the mud like pigs in a pen. And when it comes to sex, SJWism is off on some other planet.

So SJW’s are constantly running up against a world that doesn’t work the way their utopia says it’s supposed to work. Instead of saying their utopia is crap because humans are predatory mammals barely a step above grizzly bears when the real world doesn’t match up with SJW Utopia, to SJW’s that means the real world (reality) is wrong because the SJW Utopia (the fake world) is always right.

Except it’s never been tried except on paper. And what little evidence of it we do have in practice shows that it causes nothing but chaos and dysfunction, just like Female Rule. Which makes sense because feminism is at the core of SJWism, and as feminism (Female Rule) doesn’t work, neither does SJWism.

It would be all very nice if humans were as groovy and kind and nice and utopian and pretty and empathic and free of evilheartedness as the SJW Utopia demands, but alas, people are people, and humans are massively flawed in the Goodness Quotient because our mammal brains keep ordering us to act bad, wherein “acting bad” just means “acting how a typical amoral, surivival-oriented mammal always acts.”

Because the Real World runs screaming headfirst into the fake SJW Utopian World, smashing it all to bits, this logically infuriates SJW’s, who say the Real World is wrong. Not just wrong but Evil. Hence all the wild efforts of Cancel Culture to “cancel” people for acting like people instead of programmed utopian robots.

The Real World is fake! The true real world is our fake Utopian SJW World!

You can’t fool all the people all the time, thank God, and obviously illogical-on-their-face arguments like the bolded above are eventually going to run up against the Logic crowd who are going to figure out, brainwashed though they may be, that’s it’s the Real World, flawed and shitty as it is, that is the real thing, and the Utopian World, full of goodness and light and everything nice, that doesn’t even exist except in people’s heads. Sooner or later people open their eyes and figure out the SJW Emperor hasn’t any clothes after all. Let the rest of the Woke scream about his great outfit. We, the rational, can see that he’s naked as a jaybird.

Don’t Fight Dirty in Life

Don’t fight dirty in life as a good general rule. The exception would be if you are dealing with someone who is truly incorrigible and evil. Then fight as dirty as you want. But even then, I find myself limiting my evilness.

That’s what my enemies have been doing to me all through my life. I refuse to fight dirty in general. That right there proves that I am infinitely better than most of my enemies. Men, if you are going to fight, as a general rule, try to fight fair. No one ever does or almost no one ever does, but there’s always a first time, and you can always be the only one.

I am a gentleman. An honorable man. An honorable man generally refuses to fight dirty. He fights clean. He’s fair in both love and war. Fighting dirty is for pussies and fags. It’s weak and gay. When you fight dirty, you are a little bitch. Why? Because that’s how a woman fights! Women fight dirty! Why? Because they are weak and this is the only way they can fight. Women give the silent treatment and “accidentally” burn the dinner. It’s dirty as Hell but it’s the only way they stand a chance against us men.

All subordinated and weak people and organizations fight dirty. Slaves fight dirty against their masters.

Small armies have to fight dirty to even stand a chance against a powerful foe. If they fight fair, they’d be decimated in the first battle. Big armies write rules about fighting fairly in war because if you’re strong, you can afford to fight fair. Even if you fight by the rules, you’re still probably going to win. There’s no reason to stoop.

As a man you don’t need to fight dirty. It’s like pulling hair, kicking, and biting in a fight with another man. That’s what a woman does because she can’t punch. So she fights dirty. Ever seen a girlfight? Dirty as Hell. Hairpulling, sucker punching, biting, kicking, and as I have recently learned, stripping the other woman’s clothes off in front of a crowd. The purpose obviously simply being to humiliate her. Which is what it does.

Don’t even fight dirty with words like my enemies do. You’re a little bitch if you do. Fight clean like a man. At least you will be able to look yourself in the mirror the next day without wanting to smash it.

Game/PUA: About That “Consent” Issue Again

I was on Twitter debating SJW’s – obviosuly a waste of time, or worse, actually dangerous to your health – and this dumbass yet earnest and naive feminist chick actually tweeted that if you want to flirt, you should just ask permission. The usual “Mother may I?” ask first gayness feminism has been demanding of us men. That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Remember how feminist idiots have been demanding that we ask permission to do anything with a woman like faggy little boys? It doesn’t work.

The Net is full of feminists saying that when some man asked permission to do something sexual, it turned her off and she left. She wanted him to just jump her bones, dammit.

“Can I flirt with you? Mother may I?” God that’s stupid! How dumb do women think we are? See above. Even women themselves hate it when we act like this, the very way that they demand that we act. So women don’t make sense. But they’re not really supposed to. They’re supposed to bear and raise children and keep the peace and keep us male motherfuckers in line by setting some damned limits on us. What happens when women don’t place any limits on us depraved men. Take a look at gay male society, if you can stomach it. That’s how men act when women stop being basic goalkeepers of male behavior. Women need to be protected from us men. And we men need to be protected from our own Goddamned selves.

I never really ask permission to do anything with women.

Basically, my attitude towards this “Consent” Psychosis that’s hit the US in the wake of the #metoo sewer overflow is:

I’m a man, dammit. If I want something I take it!

You don’t ask permission to do anything sexual with a woman, at least not the real vanilla stuff.

Want to hold her hand? Take her hand in yours.

Want to put your arm around her? Put your Goddamned arm around her.

Want to kiss her? Think about it very well at first. Then just fucking do it.

If you are unsure, put your chin in your hand and go in real slow. You can say in a barely audible tone, “Okay?” But saying with the most extreme confidence. Put this idea in your head when you do it.

“I’m irresistible to women. No woman on Earth can possibly resist me when I kiss them. I’m sexier to women than any guy on Earth.”

They’re all lies of course, in escalating absurdity, but it doesn’t matter.  You put those lies in your head and you believe in them and trust them like your car’s brakes. Don’t doubt them for one bit or they may not work as well. Life is about convincing yourself that the most ridiculous lies in the world are 100% true and infallible, and then convincing yourself of that with as little doubt as possible. It doesn’t particularly matter if what you believe is true or not. If it’s true but believing in it screws you up, what good is it? If it’s a lie but it brings you success to believe this lie, go ahead and believe it.

She’s in your car? Put your hand on her leg. Do it in a very casual way as if you are rolling down the window. If you’re not sure if she will like it or not, you can always look at her with this, “Ok?” look on your face. At the same time think, “Woman, if don’t think this is ok, you are the stupidest fool on Earth. So I know you’re going to say it’s ok.” I’m not sure if people can mindread, but when I think “brainwash” things like this, for some reason, they usually seem to work. Or at least they did when I was young and beautiful. Now I’m old and headed towards ugly fast, and all that stuff that worked great when young and fair is falling on its face now that I’m old and splotched.

On the other hand, the feminists are right in a sense when it comes to this consent thing. You do need consent from a woman to do sexual things with her.

But you don’t ask first, you just do it. Then she either likes it or not.

If she likes it, cool.

If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.

If she’s not into it but she likes you, she will say something along the lines of, “Not now, let’s wait a bit, ok?…Not so fast, ok. I just walked in the door,” etc.

If she doesn’t like you, she will bat you away, push you away, etc. And she won’t be very nice about it. That means not only are you not getting laid tonight. You’re also not getting laid by this chick ever. When this stuff starts out bad, it never turns around. Good turns bad in life but bad almost never turns good. Women are not like Coke machines that you can punch and hit until a can comes out. More like you’ll “punch and hit” all night and she’ll just get more and more angry. And you? Well, you’re being rapey. Which is, in my humble opinion, a dick move.

As with so many female societal proposals, they’ve got the music written perfectly, but they never know the words.

Love Your Mother – She’s the Only Woman Who Will Never Leave You

Now I love my Mom more than any woman on Earth, maybe even any current girlfriend.

Face it, damn it. My Mom’s the only woman who never left me! No matter what, through thick and thin, she was always by my side giving me support even when I didn’t deserve it. Whereas girlfriends came and went with the wind or even the breeze when I was on a losing streak.

After all, let’s face it, girlfriends come and go, but you’ve always got your Mom, and if she has any sense, she lets you be a man even though she might not like it. And she loves you with all her heart and all her soul probably even better than any of her daughters.

Guys get out of prison. They give them $200 and a bus ticket. Most of these hardasses head straight to Mom’s house, at least for a bit. And all but the very worst ones are taken in by their mothers. “He’s my boy!” And at the same time, the mom and the daughter might barely have spoken in 20 years.

So in that way, most of us men are momma’s boys in a sense. We aren’t momma’s boys in the sense of pussy-whipped cucks who need Mom’s permission for everything. We are momma’s boys in the sense that we all love our mothers, even the biggest players. In fact, the more of a player a man is, the more he tends to love his Mom. After all, players love women, and your Mom was the first and most important woman in your life and you will always see at least a bit of your mother in every woman you date. If you love your mother, you love women. If you hate your mother, watch out. You may have problems with women.

But I love her in a different way than I love my girlfriend. Perhaps it’s better to say that they are both way up there on some elevated level. But I guarantee that at any given time, my Mom’s making me way less crazy than whatever woman I am with. On the other hand, I can’t fuck my Mom, and the love I have for her is not satisfactory. I need the romantic love of a girlfriend.

Alt Left: Life’s Not About Who You Like – It’s About Who You Hate Less

I basically hate cops.

Except I hate ghetto Blacks way worse.

So in the rather disgusting hierarchy of hatred that masquerades as modern life, by default, I end up supporting the police, who I’ve hated since my ill-fated adolescence! Note that I don’t mind some cops and I actually like some, so it comes down to an individual basis.

With the choices we had this summer, how could I not support the cops? It was the cops and the Republican fascists versus ghetto Blacks and the Cultural Left intellectual abortion that clings to them, remora-like – the BLM boneheads, the AntifaVirus, and the Woketard crowd, with an emphasis on the particularly insipid and dangerous Critical Race Theory gang, which is even stupider and more dangerous than most SJW passions.

Of course CRT theory isn’t falsifiable, so it fails right out the starting gate without even getting to the hypothesis stage, but all Woke SJW Theory is like that. I always say that in the Sciences, you are either doing science or you are doing Politics, or doing as I call it “A Politics” or “A Form Of Politics.” Parallel to that, you are either practicing Empiricism, hopefully including Occam’s because without Occam’s there is no empiricism, or you are doing Propaganda. Science and Empiricism versus Politics and Propaganda. Part of the reason that modern life is so infuriating is that in our quotidian lives, we get far too much of the former and a serious dearth of the latter.

Pretty soon you have a landscape where Critical Race Politics is lining up with Q, and there’s pretty much nobody in between, all others having been shoved into one moronic corner or the other. That’s modern US politics – a boxing match of fucktards, the booby prize being control of this bucking bronco we arrogantly call a country.

So to my very own shock I was rooting for police all summer! And for the first time in my life I saw cops as humans and felt sorry for them. Imagine my shock to read polls that showed that 57% of the population disliked cops more than I did! Frankly, even I was and still am appalled at the anti-police sentiment in the US. It’s ridiculous. I will say though that a lot of good has come out of this. Bodycams, attempts to be evenhanded, taking police brutality seriously, making cops accountable, on and on. Speaking of, how bout next stop jail? They beat people up all the time in there for no good reason and not one damn thing is done. Cops on the street are controlled. Jails are The Inferno.

Life’s not about who you like. If it was, there wouldn’t be much to live for.

It’s about who you hate less!

No, I Don’t Lack Credibility or Legitimacy

Related to the Delphi Murders, as you well know, I am widely hated. People say have never been right even one time, lie about and make up everything I say and in general am not a credible source. I will use this piece as a general reference to my credibility instead of addressing it endlessly in every post.

However, they have been saying exactly this about many different things I ever written over the last 15 years,  Consistently, I was shown to be right and they were wrong. Not one hater ever apologized and all continued to describe me as discredited and said that nothing I had ever said had been shown to be correct.

Particularly that I have no credibility and have never been right about anything. On the contrary I have been right about many things. I’m even correct about many of my political, philosophical, and other intellectual views because I think over all of these positions intensively before I make a decision about which position or philosophy to take.

As far as the matter at hand, many of my Delphi rumors have been proven correct, mostly correct, or somewhat  correct over the years. When Leigh Kerr came out with his leaks from case documents, many of my haters on Reddit kept remarking at how similar Leaker’s shocking leaks were to and how closely they resembled many of the things I had been saying for years. Well, of course. It’s always like that. The thing is these same people who said so much of what I said was proven right are now saying I have no credibility and I’ve never been right about anything. See how people are?

I recently had a long relationship – mostly just a friendship – with a young woman aged 27-28. She was 30 years my junior. One thing she kept saying over and over is how wise I was and how I had so much wisdom. Of course. I have had other young people on the Net who called me “sensei.”

I am currently the chosen mentor of a few young men in their 20’s, though I don’t mentor them enough. They chose me as their mentor. And I have heard that there are young women whom I am a mentor to, all in their 20’s. They say I’m their hero, idol, or mentor. A man in India recently wrote me and said his father, a very learned man, read my stuff and said that it was most wise and correct view of life he’d ever read in 60 years.

I attracted a huge legion of haters that grew and grew as I got more and more famous, well, Net-famous anyway. Related to this website and the articles I wrote, I have had three offers to be on TV and one offer to be in a documentary movie in Canada. One of the shows that wanted me on was Inside Edition. Yes, Inside Edition invited me on their show. All of you haters out there – how many of you have been offered to appear on the famous TV show Inside Edition? Not one of you.

I’ve been interviewed once on real radio and several times on Net radio, often for a full hour. These have ceased because the politics of the site and mine have drifted apart.

I can’t believe how many well-known people are familiar with this website. I recently had an offer to interview a TV-famous talking head pundit who has been on TV, the radio, and podcasts many times. He has written a few books proving that Republicans have been stealing our elections with voting machines for decades. He asked the name of my site and I told him and he said, “Oh yes! Great website! I’ve read it.” What? What? This famous guy who writes books and goes on TV reads my website?  But he wasn’t the first.

I don’t know it requires to be a “professional freelance journalist,” but I would say that anyone with a BA in Journalism who has a blog qualifies. See here on Rational Wiki, where the excellent authors of this website refer to me as a freelance journalist.

Alt-left

Possibly the earliest reference to an “alternative left” comes from the blog of freelance journalist Robert A. Lindsay in August 2015.[5] Lindsay, describing some on the far-left moving away from identity and social justice politics and moving towards focusing more on Economic Populism, proposed the alt-left as a “mirror” of the alt-right and described it as left-wing on economics and right-wing on social issues.[5][6]

In general the “Alt-Left” could be considered more radical than the “Realist Left”, being to their right on social issues and to their left on most everything else.

It has also been said that I am not a “legitimate” journalist. Look. I graduated from J-School. If you’re doing journalism, you’re a journalist. Julius Stryker was a journalist, an ugly one yet still legitimate. He was hanged for his journalism. Der Strumer was a magazine, a legitimate magazine.

There are no legitimate and illegitimate journalists, newspapers, or magazines. There are only journalists, newspapers and magazines. If they exist they are legitimate.

Really all bloggers who are writing about topical events are journalists. Are they professionals? I have no idea, but some of the better ones may as well be. It really doesn’t matter whether a journalist is paid or not. Does it matter whether an artist’s work sells or not? Does it matter whether a musicians is in an actual money-making band. Does it matter if a writer’s work is published or unpublished? Not really. Plenty of great artists who never sell their stuff or make a nickel off of it.

Also I have published numerous pieces for money in magazines and small local papers. I have even published short fiction in literary magazines. In addition, I recently published a chapter in an academic book on  Linguistics published out of a university in Turkey. It took me five years to write it. I had to make it through two peer reviews with the top names in the field and it passed. So, yes, I am a published author.

I also write for peer reviewed academic journals. In addition, I have refereed for a journal. That means serving on the peer review board. The field I published in is Linguistics.

Yes, I was an assistant editor of a large magazine for a while, but that was 40 years ago.

My enemies trash my writing skills but the general opinion is that I am very good. They’ve been saying this since I was seven years old, believe it or not. I started a novel at age nine. In particular, I do not see many grammatical or spelling errors in my work. This is another accusation. My writing has better punctuation and spelling that most people I write to on the Net.

Since my enemies insist that I am seriously mentally ill, I may as well come clean. I’ve been diagnosed probably ~30 times over the years by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. It is true that I do have a mental disorder, and I do take psychiatric medication for it. Not that there’s any shame in that, despite what my enemies think. I have been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which is an anxiety disorder. Most people with OCD are not crazy and do not appear crazy. Maybe a bit distracted. Maybe a little nervous like most anxiety disorder types. Most people I meet don’t treat me like I’m nuts. I don’t say weird things or engage in strange behavior. I’m the most normal guy around.

Furthermore, I’m pretty shy, so I don’t even talk much, and when I do, I have a very soft voice. If you meet me, I look like this brainy nerd soft spoken intellectual college professor guy with preppy clothes. Some people from the Net – my fans – came out to meet me and they were shocked at how introverted I was. I pretty seem like this nicest guy you’ll ever meet. This is of course the complete opposite of how my enemies describe me. If you told people who know me all the crazy stuff my enemies say about me, they would probably fall over laughing because I’m not anything like that.

I do not have any personality disorder on Axis 2. My personality is healthy. I don’t have any issues with sociopathy. I’m not narcissistic at all, but I do have high self-esteem, which is not the same thing.

I generally do not have any serious mood disorder, but I do feel a bit down a lot. I doubt it meets criteria for anything. I don’t suffer from mania.

I don’t have any psychotic disorder and I never have. I’ve never been psychotic for a day in my life.

Perhaps my writing rambles a bit. Who knows? A lot of us writers ramble on. It’s not pathological and it’s not even a sign of bad writing. Read James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Thomas Wolfe, or William Burroughs some time. Some of the greatest authors of all “rambled.” We ramble because we write too much. That’s why they have these people called editors. Because most of us serious writers ramble and go on and on and write forever, as in way too much. Editors exist to cut the typical good writers prose down to size.

I’ve already stated many times that I never made up a lie one time on here. I am a professional, and this is a violation of professional ethics.

Many critics think it’s ridiculous that I get access to good sources, official documents, including confidential sources with important people who give information that is secret or supposed to be under wraps. I was trained to do this. I know how to interview and how to acquire, cultivate and keep sources around. I know how to get secret and official documents that are supposed to be confidential.

I talk to people all the time who tell me they will get in trouble if it gets out that they talked to me. I honor strict confidentiality and will do anything to protect my sources. So, yeah, I do know how to get “inside sources,” “special sources,” etc. I’m trained to do that. I’m sort of an investigative reporter because I specialize stories where a lot of the information is supposed to be secret. I’ve also broken some pretty huge stories that even caught the attention of documentary film makers.

In addition, I founded a brand new political movement, so I am a political activist. At one time this movement had 18,000 members on Facebook groups. It’s a movement with its own carefully thought out political philosophy with position statements, manifestos, etc. A political scientist, a professor at a university in Poland, found out about my movement and wrote a couple of articles about it for political science journals. So it was important enough to get written up in the journals.

Alt Left: The Rind Et Al Study on Long-term Effects of Child Abuse: Its History and Ramifications

A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.

It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.

The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.

Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.

However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t  exist.

A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.

But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.

It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.

Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.

The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.

It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.

In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!

Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.

How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.

Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.

Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.

Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.

I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.

I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.

However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.

Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:

Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.

To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.

The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.

She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.

She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.

The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.

The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.

Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.

That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.

Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.

Repost: All the World’s a Polygraph, and We Are All Liars

Repost from the old site. This is a great old article from the old days.

In reference to the title, I was working as a linguist/anthropologist, when one day this new woman from New York came to work for us. She was a bitch from Day One. She knew it all, and boy did she! She was pissed, and after a bit, I figured it out. She’d slaved her butt off to get a college degree, and here she was, slaving as a secretary. What a failure.

She was a vegetarian, and when I told her I ate meat, she gave me these dagger eyes and said pointedly, “I know. All meat-eaters smell terrible to us vegans.” It went on and on like that with her for some time.

Being an introvert and pretty much of a puss at work (I call this the “office puss” role that men who work in offices must play), I kept on smiling and sucking up to her and trying to be nice. Whenever anyone’s mean to us, we introverts usually figure we fucked up and that’s why they are properly treating us with the contempt, scorn, coldness or indifference we deserve. So I kept trying to act better, and she kept being a bitch.

One day she came to me all apologetic and baffled. “I don’t know what’s wrong?” she shook her head sadly. Turned out I wasn’t the only recipient of her bitch-rays. The whole office was.

“The boss told me that I’m not being nice to people, but I just can’t see it. I think I’m nice to everyone but she says everyone says I’m mean. None of this makes any sense to me.”

I’d already figured her out long ago. She was a headstrong, independent type. Within a few weeks of moving from New York to California, she had herself a decent guy and had already moved him in. Good work. Boy, women have it so tough. They can get laid anytime they want. I’m crying so hard for them now I can barely type.

She had the “got it together” mindset that tended to look down on 90% of the population as fuckups. It’s true that I’m a huge fuckup but you don’t need to say it over and over. Look. I get it. I know I’m a fuckup. I heard you the 98,681th time. I don’t need to be reminded of it all the livelong day.

And one thing you need to know about angry people is that 95% of the time, 95% of angry people deny their anger and general shittiness, especially when they are beating up on weaker people, which all angry ever people do anyway. I’m not sure what the psychological mechanism is, but I think it’s important to know this. Ever heard an angry person say, “I’m an asshole but I just can’t stop. I need Assholes Anonymous”? Of course not.

Anyway, she came from New York and brought her New York Bitch attitude with her. Back there, it’s normal. I guess they say, “Have a nice day” the same way we say, “Fuck you.”

She was here to apologize to me for being a bitch, on bosses’ orders under penalty of being fired if not done, though she had done nothing. Would I accept her apology? Sure. Was she being a bitch?

“Well, yeah, she was, I nodded.”

Then I started to explain.

“Look, kiddo.”

I sat down on the curb with her.

“This is how you do it. You need to start faking your feelings.”

I asked her how she felt about her boss and her co-workers.

I think she hated the boss, but I’m not sure about the co-workers. I’m not sure how she answered that. She liked me just fine even though she treated me like shit, but only for the love of God she just could not not see it.

I said,

“Look. The boss pisses me off too. And some of these co-workers really piss me off. But I’m not sure if they know it. What do I do? I disguise my feelings.

“Here is what you do. Go ahead and feel any way you want about your boss and co-workers, but adjust your feelings when you have to actually deal with them.

“Say you have to go talk to the boss. Forget that you hate her. Walk into the room, smile and act like you love her. Don’t fake it, because that shows. Actually brainwash yourself into thinking she really is the greatest boss in the world and believe it as hard as you can.

“Then after you walk out the door, mutter under your breath what a bitch she is. This is what you do. You play roles all the time. I usually don’t show people my true feelings, and I’m always putting on some kind of show or other.”

She was dumbstruck.

“You actually do this? How long have you been doing this?”

“Oh, ten years at least, maybe even longer.”

Then she started in about how this was awful, as it was not genuine and honest. It was lying. This was horrible and dishonest and probably even ought to be illegal. Anyway, it was immoral. In New York, everyone wears the heart on sleeve, and that’s why they are all so ornery. But at least they are moral.

This thing I was arguing, it was so…Californian! To put on a mask, lie to everyone all the time, always fake it, never be real, etc..

“Well,” I suggested. “What good is being honest when it gets you fired?”

She did agree that I had a point.

“Look,” I said. “Another thing you can do is save it up. All day long, no matter how much you hate the boss, every time you think of her, think of how actually you really love her and she is the greatest boss on Earth.”

“At 5:03 PM, as you are pulling onto the highway to drive home, you may begin cursing the evil boss. If need be, you may curse, swear, and pound upholstery all the way home. But the next day at work, you put all that away, and stride smiling into the office to work for the greatest boss on Earth again.”

She acted like this was really evil, but I suggested it was better than getting your ass fired. She nodded humbly. She asked me if I did this at work. All the time, I assured her.

Then she went on her way.

Every time she saw me after that, she was always smiling at me, but she had this weird look on her face like she was looking at me trying to figure out what I really thought of her or what in God’s name was going on in my head.

It’s the way you look at some weird object when you can’t figure out what the heck it is, turning it over, poking around at it, putting it up close and then far away, showing it around.
I was a Goddamned walking enigma, what do you know?

I’d given her the evil secret of lying your life away, but you had to admit, at least it kept her ass off the curb.

Game/PUA: Even Normal Sex Is a Bit BD/SM, I Have to Admit

Referring to this post, :

Jason writes: Women shouldn’t like this stuff. Nonetheless, they always have a desire for men who aren’t “too nice”. In that case, it’s advised to play “hard to get” a lot. Well, the other option is actually becoming a sadist – lol.

You know how many women, especially young women aged 18-20, have dumped me recently for being too nice to them? A number of them did.

They literally wanted to be treated like crap and not just in bed but outside of it too. I don’t mind rough sex and I can be pretty dominant and dom a woman pretty hard. I’m just really aggressive with them. But it’s all just a big game. When it’s over, I love or like her as much as ever. I love women. I like them far more than men. I like and love the women I am with. I don’t want to hate them and treat them like crap. If I like or love her, why do I want to hate her? It’s perverse and bizarre. If you like or love people, you don’t’ abuse them and treat them like crap.

You know how many women literally want to be with a man who hates them and treats them like crap? A lot! Could be up to 1/3.

Forget that. And like I said, I don’t mind rough sex at all. It’s just I can’t take it all the way into the hardcore BD/SM stuff because that scene is literally the ultimate in sicko stuff. All the men are sick and evil, and all the women are hopeless, pathetic, have low self-esteem, and absolutely hate themselves. There’s no way you can have any kind of love or even “like” in a relationship like that.

Sure, maybe the woman gets hooked into the guy and worships him. But he feels nothing but contempt for her. And most of them take it to 24/7 total power exchange Dom/Sub stuff, which to me is totally sick and weird.

What I have heard is that all women coming out of these relationships after 5+ years seem to have been harmed. The damage to them looks exactly like the damage to a battered women, and a lot of them Stockholm their doms just like battered women Stockholm their abusers. The relationships themselves look exactly like a classic abusive relationship, except the women like it! It’s a consensual abusive relationship.

If you’re into this stuff as a woman, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re crazy.

For the men, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re evil.

The guys are not that screwed up. They’re just assholes. A lot of men love being assholes. Look how many men are abusive in their relationships and with their kids.

Men are naturally sadistic at least a bit, and women are naturally masochistic at least a bit. Think of the sex act itself. Of course you can do a lot of sex acts in a very slow, tender, sweet, kind, and loving way, but that’s not how it goes a lot of the time.

A lot of the time, he’s being a bit sadistic and she’s being a bit masochistic. He’s pounding away at her in an aggressive or even violent way, and she’s just laying there while some maniac  pounds away at her insides. That’s degrading right there!

In that sense, think a lot of even normal sex is degrading to women. It almost has to be. That’s why so many women like this sort of thing. Not only do most women want to be dominated in bed, but you would be shocked at how many women love gross disgusting, degrading and humiliating sex acts and behavior. I admit I do name-calling. And those are degrading terms that I use with them.

Many women react to degradation, humiliation, and grossness by going absolutely insane horny out of their minds, multi-orgasmic, cum drunk, in another world, forget their own names, won’t remember 90% of it, and are so horny they will do just about anything, you name it.

Of course there are women who dislike this type of sex. I’ve met them.

But there a lot of others who do not! Man, you have no idea. If we are talking about women who like degrading and humiliating name-calling and disgusting behavior and therefore consequently liking being degraded and humiliated to some extent per se, then you would be literally blown away by how many women love to be treated like that.

From 18 year old girls to 52 year women, that’s my experience. I didn’t meet that many JB’s like this when I was young enough to be having sex with them from 16-21, so I don’t know how common this is in 13-17 year old girls, who are absolutely sexual beings in the full sense that any woman is. Anyway, I was way too vanilla back then. But even way back then, a lot of the girls acted like a wild animal in a cage.

But grown women? Hell yeah. From waitresses to heiresses, so many of them love it, though I’ve never been with an heiress yet.

Problem is once you give men permission to act sadistically in bed, a lot of them are going to love it and take that ball and run as far as they can with it. And maybe get carried away. I would advise women to not encourage this behavior in their men too much. You’re playing with a lit firecracker.

With this sort of behavior, as the sadism increases, so does the excitement in the male. It’s almost a blood lust, probably genetic. But who knows how nutty he’ll get? I think a fair amount of these women murdered in bed by their partners or dates are a consequence of letting this sort of sex get out of control. The guy may have not even set out to kill her. He just got wrapped up in the moment, kept getting more excited and consequently sadistic in a feedback loop and lost control of himself.

Have you heard of predators that go into a “killing frenzy?” Bobcats can do it. My neighbor told me once that a friend of his raised ducks. There was a huge commotion one night. He didn’t know what it was but he didn’t check. He got up early. At 6 AM, there was a bobcat sleeping in his duck pen and 19 dead ducks. The bobcat hardly ate any of them. He just went into a “killing frenzy.” Large pet dogs can do it too, especially to chickens and ducks. They don’t even eat them. They just kill them. And tear them apart too.

This exact same mechanism you see in the bobcat can happen to us men if we don’t watch this sadistic part ourselves from boyhood like a hawk if and when you let it out to play. You better keep him on a tight leash.

I sure as Hell do. You don’t even want know what my inner maniac wants to do or at least what I think it wants to do because I think it mostly operates subconsciously. But he’s been locked up in a cage deep inside me for most of my adulthood. And that’s where he’s staying! I have done much harm to innocent people in my life as a result. I will get into a fight if you hit me. I killed a man, or at least I tried to kill him once at age 17.

That makes me sound like a maniac, but you must understand that he and his psycho friends were trying to kill my friend and I. Sometimes in life it comes down to kill or be killed. And you better choose kill. You try to kill, injure the person so badly they can’t get up and chase you, or knock him out cold. And then you flee as fast as you can. If you don’t disable the guy, permanently or temporarily, he’s liable to chase you. And a lot of people can run faster than you do.

I’ve already had 3-4 men try to murder me so far in life, and I’m not even a wild person. But I have a wild side, I love parties and nightclubs and even dangerous scenes. Men are simply dangerous as Hell. Women go on and on about men killing women. Fine.

But 80% of the people men kill are other men. Women get off easy. Most of us men have been in serious fights with other men. Some men were beat up regularly as boys. Many others have been victims of violent crime as adults. I know I was a victim of a serious violent crime once. I was kidnapped (a hitchhiker took control of my car), threatened with death, beaten, had beer thrown at me, and sexually assaulted (Well, he grabbed my penis). He also threw my car into reverse when it was going 55 mph. I somehow got him out of my car but even then he was pounding at the windows trying to get back in. I never even went to the police.

I was a serious mental wreck for about three weeks. I was a student teacher at the time. Then it just went away and I haven’t felt much about it since. God knows how it’s effected me subconsciously though. But we men tend to get over things. Maybe too fast. How? We bury it. Suppress it or better yet repress it. Most men are dormant volcanoes due to all the bad feelings of terror and rage they’ve been stuffing away their whole lives.

This sexual sadism is dangerous stuff if you are a man. I’d advise extreme caution. You’re playing with fire. If you don’t put a leash on this sort of thing, you can end up with an injured or even dead woman, or a serious legal problem, arrest, possible jail or prison, and a lifetime of guilt.

We, especially we men, need to control our lusts. Sexual lusts, avarice, blood lusts, lusts for drugs and food, all of them. We are wired to be gluttons, but gluttony doesn’t work. It tends to be a short trip to a grave. Life is about, possibly more than anything else, controlling that damned wild animal, that predatory mammal, that raging terrified beast, inside of us.

One of the Worst Mistakes You Can Make in Life Is to Assume People are Logical, Sensible, or Rational

Because they are just not any of those things.

There is no way to understand people until we understand that we are not purely logical creatures. Our emotions make it so we can never be such.

Probably one of the stupidest attitudes one can have in life is to assume that people are logical and sensible. They’re just not. People are irrational. If you think people are or should be rational, you will be disappointed and angry at other people your whole life. You will see others are idiotic, crazy, senseless, etc.

But once you figure out that our emotions color our thoughts and actions and there is an “emotional logic” behind a lot of behaviors, you can start forgiving people a lot more and your feelings about your fellow humans will mellow and become more kind. Furthermore, a lot of behavior you thought was crazy now makes sense if we plug it into “emotional logic.”

Why Do the Worst People Act the Best and the Best People Act the Worst?

If you spend a bit of time on Earth with your eyes open instead of half-shut like most folks, after a while you figure out that only only do the worst people feel the best, but also the best people feel the worst. This is part of the problem with the self-esteem movement. As self-esteem rises, behavior tends to deteriorate. Low self-esteem is unfortunate, but most such people often behave very well. By pushing excessive self-esteem on people, we are creating societies full of narcissistic, uncaring, callous people.

You are free to think about why this is – the paradox that the best act the worst and the worst act the best, but I think I’ve got it.

The worst people feel best because the worse someone acts, the less guilt they feel because people free of guilt tend to act bad. Guilt is like the brakes on a car. A person with no guilt is like a car with no brakes. It’s a menace to the other cars on the road.

The best people feel the worst probably because feeling the worst makes them act the best. In other words, extreme levels of guilt, though not optimal, seem to prevent most bad behavior, along with preventing a lot of behavior that is only slightly bad (and therefore normal) or not bad at all. This would be akin to a false positive.

So while high guilt levels select most bad behavior as bad and stop it, they also stop a lot of common and normal behavior on the false assumption that is seen as bad by society, and in addition (and here we come to the false positives) it selects a lot of perfectly normal behavior as bad.

So this sort of person has a selective device inside of them that is scanning the world for bad behavior that the might be engaging in or might choose to engage in. As such, it is preventing all sorts of behaviors – all bad behaviors for sure but also a lot of good behaviors.

These people are actually too good. They are nearly saints. But being a saint is quite painful, especially when one lives in a world of sinners. The saintly stride is a painful way to walk through life. In the car analogy above, this person is like someone who drives two-footed with one foot always on the brakes. Not only does this wear out the breaks but it also makes the person overly cautious on the road.

They drive slowly and wait too long to make turns. They’re not really hazards, but their overly inhibited driving obstructs other drivers and slows them down. Furthermore, it gets in the way of getting things done the same way excessive guilt often leads to a rather restricted and excessively cautious life.

Alt Left: “Child Molester” and “Pedophile” Are Not Synonyms

~75% of child molesters are non-pedophilic molesters. They’re no more pedophiles than any other man. This shows again that there is a difference between the terms pedophile and child molester. Most of this molesting tends to be in the family whereas pedophilic molesters tend to molest outside the family, in part because they often have no children of their own.

There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.

Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.

It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.

Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles  – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.

They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.

A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.

Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage. 

In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.

There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.