Category: Whites

Alt Left: Why Should I Believe Things That Aren’t True?

Polar Bear: Yesterday at work, a Black woman defended a worthless Black and a woman with mental illness defended a guy with at least three mental illnesses. We all have biases, to see beyond them is rare. Men are more into truth and logic, parting the sea of emotion. Women are mostly swept away like ragdolls by the current in a flood of tears.

That’s tribal thinking. I don’t want to fall into that. I’ve often said about White nationalists that I can’t understand why the death of a White by a Black is more important to them than the death of a decent Black person by a Black. Why? Because they’re a member of my tribe? Did I know them? Did they do anything for me? They’d probably dislike me if I met them? Do I get a check from White Central Control every month so I should support all Whites? Why should I feel more for this guy just because he’s White. But he’s just like me! He’s White and I’m White! Goes the argument. And…?

This is supposed to be important or something? We’re not the same. He’s dead and I’m not. Why does his death diminish me more than the death of some good Black person? I just can’t fathom this type of thinking. Of course, being on the Left, I spent a lot of my time working my way out of tribal thinking. And I’ve always been a dissident and an iconoclast who was on the outs with mainstream opinion on most things. So I don’t care about peer pressure because I’m used to believing stuff that 80% of the world disagrees with.

Why Should I Believe Things That Aren’t Even True?

I dunno. Why should I believe something that’s not even true? I keep asking myself this over and over when I try to find out what actually happened, for good or for ill, for my side of the bad guys. I can’t think of any possible reason why I should believe lies about…much of anything! Everyone seems to be happy to, but it’s not for me.

Setting aside the metaphysical and religious where we all have our egoistic reasons to believe in what may well be falsehoods, and setting aside what one believes about oneself and society at large, I want to believe what’s true and disbelieve what’s not true. It’s ok to tell yourself as many lies as you have to about yourself and others to get along.

You may need to tell yourself enough lies to make it through the day without killing yourself, have a peaceful sleep, and look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without wanting to smash it. You may have to lie about others, saying they are wonderful when they are not, playing down their bad qualities, etc. You may have to lie about society by saying it’s the best of possible worlds when in fact your own life may be a shit sandwich to be swallowed whole, dammit! These are the prosaic, quotidian, metaphysical, social, personal, and religious aspects of life.

What I want to know the truth about is what I see on TV. The news, the facts, the everyday local, national, and political issues (in a word, Politics) that make our world go round. And in science too, I wish to know what is true and what is not true. Why should I believe a bunch of crap just because it makes me feel good or because I want my guys to be pure and the other guys to be evil? Forget it.

I’m not that weak! I can handle it if what I want to be true is not and vice versa. It’s ok. I can deal. I can handle it if my guys act bad and the other side acts good, although not too much please. But I support Assad in Syria and I’m the first to admit that he acts pretty damn bad. But this is what I wanted to know about him – precisely how bad he was and in which ways and what aspects of his purported evil were not true.

Believe it or not, the CIA does not want to believe any lies or so I have been told. There is what the CIA puts out for the masses, which is often a pile of the biggest steaming pile of crap you’ve ever seen. This is often put out via the media and the CIA itself even calls this material disinformation. The CIA people in charge of it know it’s all lies but they don’t care.

Then there is what the CIA puts out for itself. The CIA does not want to believe any crap or falsehoods about the world and the things it is analyzing. They have to know the truth, dammit! If you begin your analysis from a point of falsehood, your analysis is already flawed. And the CIA is all about proper analysis.

I’m on the Left, but I’m willing to acknowledge that leftwing regimes have done some pretty bad things. I support the Democrats, but I’m more than willing to acknowledge how awful they are. I’m a man, but I’m willing to acknowledge how generally awful we are as humans and how terribly we behave towards other humans (on the other hand, I still love being a man).

I’m White, but I’m willing to acknowledge that we Whites have treated non-Whites pretty terribly. I’m straight, but I acknowledge how homophobia has seriously harmed gays in the past. None of this is threatening to me. Why should it be. You have to know the dark side if you wish to walk in the light. By learning of the bad tendencies of Whites, men, straights, etc., I can see what I am vulnerable to and generally try to act in the opposite way. You can’t understand good until you understand evil and that they are two sides of the same coin.

Further, I don’t wish to be a hypocrite. Face it, humans are hypocrites. It’s just what we are, flat out, full stop, period. Perhaps we have to be this way. But hypocrisy seems to be one of the worst aspects of being human. There’s almost no way to justify it morally.

What will happen if my guys (the good guys) are losing and their guys (the bad guys) are winning? Nothing. The world will simply be a pile of shit, but I’m perfectly ok with that because that seems to be the dispensation for most of my life. I can be perfectly happy believing that the world is a pile of shit and that most people are complete idiots. Doesn’t mess up my day at all. I don’t need to believe that the world is some wonderful place for me to eke out some meager happiness in it.

Also, I’m used to depressing and disappointing things in my life. You might say it’s my life story. So when something lousy happens, it’s not a shock to me. It’s just the same old same old. That life often seems rather lousy is not that upsetting to me. I’ve felt this way forever. I simply try to escape from it by doing fun things all day so I can forget about all the lousiness. I focus on other things.

Just to show you how unbiased I am, on the Russian sites I am on, I am regarded as a pest and a troll because I often post things that go against the current narrative. The news de jour on those sites typically portrays Russian advances as much more advanced than I think they are. I chime in that no, we have not advanced that far at all. I share maps from viciously anti-Russian sites not because I like them but because I think they are accurate.

My brother often says, “Aha!” and thinks he wins arguments against me because I admitted that my side did something bad – lied, killed people, tortured people, acted horribly. According to my brother and most NPC’s, if you admit that your side did something bad, you automatically lost the argument because he will never admit that about his side.

Because my brother is a typical NPC. His side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. Anything that goes against that world view is “enemy propaganda.” He dismisses anything from the Left, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Belarus, Lebanon, Iraq, or China as automatically false if it doesn’t back up his views.

These are enemy nations and he rejects everything they say unless they make themselves look bad and his side look good, in which case they are somehow correct. Just about everyone is exactly like he is. Keep in mind that he has a 140+ IQ and a Master’s Degree. He’s also just about the most closed-minded person I’ve ever met, with the possible exception of my father, a Cold War liberal who also had a Master’s Degree.

Most Americans probably can’t even find Ukraine on a map. How do you expect them to be able to think critically about it?

Alt Left: Face It, Ukraine Is Pretty Much a Nazi Country: 20-33% of Ukrainians Are Nazis

 

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: So Time Magazine less than 2 years ago admitted there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s east, namely the Azov Battalion. Again, I believe you that there are nah-tsees in dah you-crane but I did not see a Nazi (lol) elsewhere. Seriously, the country is not overrun by the Hitlerjugend.

You just hate right-wingers and see the devil everywhere they gather. Putin is a mass murder who decimated Grozny with impunity. A few Hitler-hailin’ dickheads in Eastern Ukraine aren’t a real threat to anybody but the locals. And considering Putin already controlled Crimea and Donbass, he could have killed the Nazis there. Shelling other cities is not justifiable.

First of all, conservatives in most parts of the world are not really Nazis. However, rightwingers in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, France, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Austria can absolutely be Nazis, thought most rightwingers in the more western of these nations are not Nazis.

In the East it is different, and conservatism in those eastern countries simply tends to be Nazism. Nazism is a phenomenon of White Europeans, and there’s about zero support for it in most other parts of the world, though there are a few Nazis in places like Argentina, the UK, the US, Bolivia, Chile, India, Mongolia, and a few other places.

There aren’t really many Nazis left in the Donbass. Members of Nazi battalions, when captured by the separatists, were slowly beaten and tortured to death over a period of a day or time. Most of the pro-Ukies took off, but all of the rest of them went over to the separatists because the Ukie occupiers pissed so many people off.

Most of the Nazis in Crimea, what few were even there, presumably took off after independence. Keep in mind that when the “little green men” took over Crimea, the entire Ukrainian Army stationed in Crimea immediately surrendered to Russia. However, there is still some opposition to Russia in Crimea because when the Russians started this war, there was even some armed resistance in Crimea!

Ukraine Has a Nazi Problem, to Put It Mildly

It’s hard to say how many Nazis there are as so many “non-Nazis” go along with the Nazis due to fear, peer pressure, propaganda, or other reasons. The 20% of Ukrainians in Western Ukraine east of Kiev are absolutely Nazis, every last one of them. This is the homeland of Ukrainian nationalism.

Up to 33% of Ukrainians have extreme, almost fanatical, anti-Russian views. Though not strictly Nazis, they could be seen as Nazis in a “kill the Russians” sense. Plus they go along with the Nazis.

So 20-33% of Ukrainians are pretty much out and out Nazis or at least Ukrainian nationalist fascists of one type or another, and many of the rest are terrorized into going along with them. That’s not enough to make Ukraine a Nazi country, but it’s enough to make it so it has a severe Nazi problem.

Three Ukrainian Regions – East, Center, and South

Eastern and Southern Ukraine are Russian. This is where the separatists are or at least they are in the East in the Donbass. If they put the entire area east of the Dniper to a plebiscite, I’m pretty sure that they would vote to secede from Ukraine. Only part of this region, the Donbass, is now separate.

The area west of the Dniper and east of Kiev is called Central Ukraine, and it is completely different. It’s not really Nazi but it’s not pro-Russian at all. It’s pro-Ukrainian government. They’re somewhere in the middle of the pro-Russian East and the Nazi West.

But they are not pro-Russian at all, and Russia will have a very hard time occupying this place because the population will be so hostile.

The only place Russia can occupy is the South and the East, and they are having problems with anti-Russian demos right now.

Occupying Nazi Western Ukraine will be almost impossible because the population will be insanely hostile. I don’t know how they will do it. They probably won’t. But it will be a perennial problem. If the East goes independent or strongly pro-Russian, which is probable, and the Center is controlled by a pro-Russian demilitarized, neutral, and at least somewhat denazififed state, as is possible if difficult to carry out, the idea would be for Russia to say the Hell with the Nazi West.

Problem is all the Nazis in the rest of the country will flee there. And lots of advanced weapons are pouring in there, so it’s full of powerful weapons and armed to the teeth. Not to mention the population are already Nazi fanatics for a good 80 years now ever since 1941 and maybe even before from 1932 and the famine. The temptation is to say the Hell with it and let this Nazi state fester.

A new rump Ukraine state will be formed there, and I believe that NATO forces may even move in in large numbers to occupy it. It will then become a new “Ukraine” with the same dynamic in place – endless weapons supplies and NATO training to turn it into a cat’s paw to attack Russia with, although Russia will now have some geographic depth with Novorussia in the east and the pacified state in the center.

An insurgency against the Center and the East is already planned there, as all US factions from “right” to “center” to “left” are in agreement about bogging down Russia in a new Syria or Afghanistan. Call it the Syrianization of Ukraine. So the Ukraine  problem of 2014-present will simply move from Ukraine to Western Ukraine. At some point, Russia might have to go into Western Ukraine to clean those Nazis out, and it won’t be pretty.

Hitlery Clinton has already come out in support of Syrianization, as has (((Victoria Nuland))) who pretty much singlehandedly created this whole mess. Her husband is (((Donald Kagan))), one of the craziest, most vicious, and blood-drenched neocons of them all. They both installed (((Yatzeniuk))) as President, a fanatical Russia-hating nationalist and oligarch. So there’s a bit of an (((angle))) here as there is with so many lousy things, but that’s not the whole story, and this is what crazy antisemites miss.

These are just American Jewish neocons. They don’t represent Israel or American Jewry at all. Mostly they are just fanatical US imperialists. They’ve hitched themselves to US imperialism, but almost all US Gentiles are in the same sheep flock.

The Democratic Party and Joe Biden Started This War

(((Nuland))) is a neocon Clintonite.

When Biden came in, he brought back the neocons, many of whom had been thrown out by isolationist Trump. Both parties have a vast neocon faction, almost all of it Gentile, though a number of the leaders are Jewish.

Hence, anti-Russian policy was vastly ramped up. If Trump was still in, this war would not have happened. But the Democrats radically ramped up the aggression against Russia because the Democrats are now the McCarthyite party of Russia-haters, while Republicans are split between a base that is both pro- and anti-Russia, even if Republican politicians are whores with fingers to the wind who have no basic values at all other than “zero sum game” and “win at any cost.” So Biden and the Democratic Party’s foreign policy is worse than the Republicans, and Biden and the Democrats pretty much started this war.

A Recent Historical View of the Ukrainian Nazi Infestation

There are plenty of Nazis in Central Ukraine too, especially after eight years of incessant Nazi propaganda. It’s started to effect people, and even ordinary Ukies are a lot more anti-Russian and pro-Nazi than they were eight years ago. Also a lot of the Russian speakers simply left, especially the ones in the South and East.

It was like this all over the Donbass inside and outside of the separatist regions. Many of these people are coming home now on the backs of advancing Russian troops, and they are quite happy to be home.

The reason for the anti-Russian protests in the South is due to a variety of reasons.

First, many men are veterans of the war in the East.

Second, many Ukies have relatives or neighbors in the military currently fighting the Russians.

Third, eight years of brainwashing works.

Fourth, many people may have turned pro-Ukie and anti-Russian to avoid persecution.

Fifth, most of the Russian speakers took off.

The result is you now have quite a few pro-Ukies in the South, but they are still a minority. The majority are still Russian speakers, but they have been quiet and holed up inside for eight years, and a lot of them left and will presumably return. But there are definitely pro-Ukies in the West and even some in the East.

There Are No Pro-Ukrainians Left in the Donbass

When the operation in the Donbass started, the Ukie troops came in as liberators taking back the separatist zones for Ukraine. About 20% of the population greeted them at the entrances with cheers. So 20% of the population under the separatists were anti-separatist, but the separatists never did much about this.

However, the Ukies conquered a lot of those towns but were never able to control them. The separatists fought an extremely dirty guerrilla war, not wearing uniforms, hiding among the population in yards and houses, jumping fences from house to house, on and on.

The Ukies would be lured into rooms where there were women and children present so the Ukies thought it was OK to come in. Then a hidden separatist would jump out and attack the Ukie soldiers. Obviously this endangered the women and kids too. There were booby-traps and hidden bombs everywhere.

The Ukies eventually decided that there was no way they were going to defeat them because they were too deeply rooted in the population. They also said that after months of brutal occupation, the entire pro-Ukie 20% had gone over to the separatists. The Ukies themselves admitted that they had no support in these towns and everyone was with the enemy. They described the situation as hopeless.

About half of the Donetsk and Lugansk states were controlled by the Ukies after they pushed the separatists out and them. Indeed the separatists were about ready to be defeated when Russia poured in and reversed the losses.

Alt Left: Repost: Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

This is an old piece but people are still commenting on it so I will republish it with an extensive introduction.

John Engelman is a race realist liberal who was a frequent commenter on the White nationalist American Renaissance. He’s not a White nationalist. He’s just a liberal who got mugged by Blacks several times, the last time leaving him with permanent injuries. He’s the proverbial “liberal who’s been mugged by life.”

As the old saw goes, White liberals are all liberals until they get mugged by a Black.” After that, maybe not so much. Nevertheless, I think he is wrong here.

I do not think agriculture was innovated in Babylonia 11,000 YBP. It would be news to me. I’ve always heard it was simultaneously innovated 9,000 YBP in three different places, though the latest information is that agriculture was actually innovated by Africans 12,000 YBP, starting with proto-agriculture in fencing off fields of edible foods (yes, that is proto-agriculture).

The Indians in California nearly cultivated individual oak trees for their acorns. I told my mother they way they treated those trees and the ground around them and asked her if that was agriculture. She said, “Not really, but it sure is awful close.” Keep in mind that agriculture does not necessarily involve sticking seeds in the ground.

Another fallacy is that because Africans, Papuans, etc. have quite low IQ’s now and are behind Whites and Asians, that this means it has always been way. This is a backwards projection of White Supremacist. “Whites are better now, so we’ve always better!” Not necessarily so! No one knows what the IQ’s of any groups were long ago, and higher IQ’s in Whites and Asians may well be a quite new development far along into the Holocene.

Furthermore, like it or not, Africans truly innovated almost all of the most important aspects of human civilization. Language, fire, stone tools, toys, agriculture, animal husbandry, art, decoration, jewelry, fishing with hooks, sewing – it all came out of Africa first, every single bit of it. When you see a Black person, you’re not looking at some alien species. You’re looking at your oldest grandparent of them all.

All humans came from African Blacks. For some reason, the idea that “Grandpa was a nigger” is insulting to White Nationalists, who go to great lengths to try to show that OOA is not true. This shows the extreme insecurity that lies at the base of all supremacism.

I told a Chinese commenter about this and he laughed and said Chinese people didn’t care if they came from Blacks. He said, “If you go back further than that, we were all frogs. We Chinese are just the latest model.” I told my mother what he said and how it differed from the insecurity of White Supremacists, and she said, “See! That proves that Asians are smarter than Whites. We Whites aren’t all that smart, you know.” I don’t know about that, but we are apparently more secure.

Also although the Out of Africa people left Africa at least 60,000 YBP, they didn’t progress all that much in the meantime, and in fact, they continued to resemble Blacks for a long time. Most of the OOA people looked like Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, and Melanesians until quite recently. The earliest White man looks like some sort of an ugly freak, resembling an African Bushman most of all. 20,000 years ago, Europeans looked like the Makah Indians of Washington State in skull structure. Go look at them. They look like Asiatics.

A Swedish girl from several thousand years ago has green eyes and quite dark, though not Black, skin. I’m not aware of any important human innovations that the OOA people made until the Holocene that were not made in Africa. Yes, they had arrowheads, but I think Africans had those too. The advancements of the White and Asian man, while impressive, are quite recent indeed.

European Whites have only appeared in the last 9,000 years. All “Whites” before then looked something like Arabs. So in a way, Arabs are “the oldest Whites of them all.” South Indian Dravidians and some odd-looking North Africans like Moabites may also be the remains of the most primitive Whites. The claimed achievements of Mesopotamia 11,000 YBP that the White Supremacists like to harp on were done by Arabs at a time when all Whites looked like Arabs. And White nationalists say Arabs are non-Whites or at the very least are
“mongrels” or “off-Whites.” So there.

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do.

The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice), and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania. I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant, or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

Alt Left: What Does Extreme Antisemitism Look Like?

It looks something like this. This is from a commenter who just appeared on my site. He will banned. If you go over to unz.com, a majority of the commenters on just about any post are about like this guy. And far too many of the articles are something along these lines. Unz is a Jew and why he allows this Nazi-style fanatical conspiratorial and obsessive antisemitism on there is beyond me. He even pushes it himself. Has he converted out? Does he have a death wish?

I hate to genocide-monger and Holocaust-scream. That’s what hysterical Jews do. But when antisemitism reaches a certain fever pitch, it’s the real deal, and trust me, this sort of antisemitism (which usually shades into Nazism) is definitely not good for the Jews. Homicide, mass murder, and even genocide of Jews has historically tailed this sort of talk.

I don’t mind critique of Jews or even limited antisemitism. “Water-cooler antisemitism” is fine with me. In fact, it’s virtually normal Gentile behavior. Jews are pretty hard people to like!But even there it would be better to limit your distaste for the group itself and keep an open mind about Jewish individuals, who in my experience are often great folks. Go ahead and dislike the group, but give the individual a chance. It’s only human.

But I won’t put up with homicidal or genocidal Nazi antisemitism. Another word for this type of antisemitism is obsessive, conspiratorial antisemitism. This sort of thing is not a Left value, nor is it an Alt Left value. On the other hand, cultural critique is fine and all ethnic groups are up for grabs as far as that goes.

I’m a weird person. I look at most every argument I come across with an open mind to see if it’s true. And I look at this sort of antisemitism with an open mind too. I will never agree to murder or even harm Jewish people for being Jewish, so that’s not up for grabs. But I always analyze this sort of thing with the idea of “Is what these people say about Jews actually true?” If what they say is true, then I will have no choice but to believe it. I still won’t want to kill them, but I’d have to admit that wild antisemites are right and Jews are just evil.

My careful opinion after reading this sort of thing for many years is that it’s basically nonsense. It’s simply not true. The problems of Whites are not being caused by a bunch of Jews. It’s capitalists who are parasitical, not Jews. Jews are White even if they won’t admit it. And they are smart. Jews don’t even run the media anymore. They did for a long time, but now the media is mostly run by these huge faceless multinational corporations who are into movies, music, TV, etc. too.

When I do my media research, I see a lot of media companies are being run by Gentiles. Have you noticed that the tone of the media doesn’t change one bit when ownership goes from Jewish to Gentile. I have. The media has a single mindset and media Jew and media Gentiles all pretty much think alike. I haven’t even seen coverage of Israel and the Middle East change that. The big media Gentiles are just as Zionist as the big media Jews. This implies that in the US, Zionism is simply a philosophy of the power elite, the rich and the corporations. Zionist power is American power. They’re tied at the hip.

Yes, Facebook censors the Israel-Palestine conflict because the owner is Jewish. But Gentile Twitter is just as censorious on the subject last time I checked.

Jews aren’t “forcing Whites out of their homes and businesses.” Good God, whatever gave him that idea?

Jews do not run America’s welfare, education and employment bureaucracies, sorry. Gentiles do, not that it matters.

To the extent that Whites are struggling and having problems, it’s due to a crisis in capitalism, not due to a bunch of Jews!

See why they call antisemitism “the socialism of fools.”

Obviously, I’m not endorsing the apparent homicidal and genocidal antisemitism below. This post is purely educational. All of this sort of antisemitism is just crazy and the people who perpetrate this type of thinking, in my opinion, have simply gone crazy. They think they’ve found the key to all the problems in the world. Simple! It’s all down to those damned Jews! Alas, if only it was that simple, but most important issues in society are confoundingly complex. Which, of course, is why humans opt for the easy answer that explains it all.

Antisemitic rant starts here:

The audacity! Jews have no right to be talking about Whites. The pretentiousness of being in control! The fantasies of global power!

Jews – you annoy people. You’re not smart. You cheat, lie, and steal from us. You’re deceitful, and parasitically annoying.

Jews manipulate the American education.

Jews FEAR the Brits. We have all they want: looks, intelligence, abilities, talents, godly pure non-mixed genes. Other races bring dark energy and result in a tragic Earth if we allow them to fulfill their desires.

What puzzles me is why have we allowed the Jews to think they are either White or smart.

Jews – we are always in control and will use violence to remove you.

Hitler was right.

We helped the enemy escape and take root in America, taking the Internet and the media. All TV networks are Jewish propaganda. The Jews put out lies for Whites using sources such as Jewbook.

We are becoming aware. God has asked me to expose the evildoers (Jews). My current mission is to show the Gentiles the truth behind the parasitic Jew. You Jews will try to force my Anglo fellows out of their homes and businesses take them by any means except it won’t work because you’re a bunch of scared cowards, twats, and pussies. We must take out the Jews now. It will be up to the middle class and the power class to do this.

They lie to Blacks. African Americans know the facts behind the Jews’ schemes and don’t fall for them.

The are the alien, the true enemy, and now it’s time to remove them from our America. The Jews are now operating our welfare, education, and employment bureaucracies. This is causing Whites to struggle and have a lot of difficulties.

The Jews refer to us as goyim. This must stop as this is an insult to us Gentiles. The Gentiles are God’s given Chosen, and the Jews are just jealous, sick, desperate filth.

Avoid Jews. Learn about them. Watch them, follow them, and engage anything Jewish to expose their agenda in America.

Alt Left: Cultural Left Identity Politics and Degeneracy Doesn’t Need Jews Anymore

Yes, Jews were influential in all of these movements at the start. But they’ve all gone mainstream now and there are not a lot of Jews to be seen. I get the feeling that once a movement loses its subversive “shock the Gentiles” character, the Jews get bored and take off for greener pastures.

Jews aren’t the source of all of White people’s problems. Every Jew in the US could go to Israel tomorrow and anti-White politics and the rest of the Cultural Left would keep chugging right along because racism against Whites has simply gone mainstream. A lot of non-Whites are drinking this Kool-Aid and there are plenty of self-hating Whites out there flagellating themselves.

For instance, let’s look at modern antiracism, especially Critical Race Theory, which is what almost all modern antiracism is anymore. CRT didn’t get cooked up by a bunch of Jews. Actually it came from intellectual Blacks, particularly Derrick Bell in the 1970’s, a Black legal scholar. Almost all of the big names in CRT nowadays are Blacks or other non-Whites. The few Whites seem to be Gentiles.White-hating doesn’t need Jews anymore. It’s on automatic.

Same with feminism, gay rights, trans rights, hatred of the West, worship of non-Whites and the rest of the loony Cultural Left. None of these things need Jews to keep going anymore. America’s Jews could all go to the moon and this sort of thing would keep chugging right along.

Feminist man-hatred has gone mainstream. There aren’t even many Jewish feminists at the top anymore.

Gays don’t need Jews to push a radical gay agenda. There aren’t even that many Jews at the top ranks of Gay Identity Politics (IP). There are just a bunch of homosexuals pushing a homosexual project, exactly as you might expect.

Trans IP gets called a Jewish project because a few rich Jews such as the Pritzkers fund it to some extent. On the  other hand,  this has also gone mainstream and even more disgustingly, a huge corporate capitalist Trans Industry consisting of sleazy pharmaceutical companies, surgeons, hospitals, and clinics doling out hormonal toxins and mutilating the bodies of anyone dumb enough to avail themselves of one of their hospital beds. Trans IP is now the Trans Industry, as capitalist as the tobacco industry and about as sleazy.

This is a mistake of crazy antisemites. Where the problem is capitalist corporate sleazeballs of any ethnicity, the crazy antisemite just sees a bunch of Jews. The antisemite says we don’t have capitalism in the US. Instead we have “some Jewed up bullshit.” Get rid of the Jews and Gentile capitalism will be all warm and fuzzy and nice. It will even cuddle up with when you go to sleep and lick your face lovingly.

This is folly! Ok, let’s try an experiment. Let’s let all of the US Jews take off for the moon. You think US capitalists will suddenly turn into nice people?

I’ve got some news for you. Jewish capitalists are capitalists. Gentile capitalists are capitalists. Capitalists of both groups act like…get this…capitalists! Isn’t that shocking?

Nevertheless, this has gone on automatic and it doesn’t need Jews anymore either. Jews aren’t any more tranny or gay than non-Jews.

Porn doesn’t need Jews either. Ever checked out Japanese porn? Not a Jew in sight. Swedish, Danish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Turkish, Greek, Dutch, Spanish, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, German, Colombian, Mexican, and Argentine porn is being pushed by…people of those ethnicities! Isn’t that surprising? Not a bunch of Jews. Probably not a Jew in sight in any of those national porn industries. British porn seems to be run by British Gentiles last time I checked.

Gentile men are just as perverted, sick, and twisted sexually as Jewish men. We’re not choirboys and Jewish men don’t have a patent on depravity. Gentile men are men. Jewish men are men. They act like…get this…men! Amazing, huh?

And in case you are wondering, yes,  I have seen national commercial porn from all of those countries.

Think about it. Suppose all the Jews in the US moved to the moon tomorrow. Do you have the slightest doubt that Gentile perverted men wouldn’t continue to run the porn industry? And the porn industry is full of Gentiles too.

The Jewish era of porn was in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Yes, there were many Jewish directors, actors, and actresses back then. Yes, there are still some Jewish directors. There are a few Jewish actors and actresses, but frankly their numbers are quite small. I can only think of one male and one female Jewish porn star. Jews were in porn when it was dissident and subversive. Once it went mainstream, I assume they got bored of it as it doesn’t give that “shock the Gentiles” kick anymore.

The 1970’s was also the Italian or Sicilian era of porn. If you watch one of those old porn movies, you see a bunch of Italian names on the credits at the end. Obviously the mafia was running the porn industry back then.

Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder, “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

If you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the out-group or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape, and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance, and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

Repost: Alt Left: Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

Old post but still getting comments, so it may as well get a repost. Plus I just reread it and it’s really cool!

Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

I’ve known Blacks who chucked Black Identity Politics and said, “I love White people!” There’s a whole sex kink out there like that for Black women who love White men. I’ve met many Black women with  this sex kink. There are Black men who think Whites are the bomb. I’ve met a lot of these folks. They admire Whites. They try to act like Whites. They see them as models of behavior.

And if you’re Black and you love White people, most Whites will let down their guard. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I compared them to Blacks locked into Black Identity Politics, and the Black Identity Politics people seemed much less happy. They were locked into a war. Racism was everywhere, fogging up their glasses, giving them scratchy throats, and causing rashes on their arms. They were living in enemy territory every day.

Gays who dropped gay politics were a lot more relaxed. Gays locked into gay Identity Politics always had their dukes up, surrounded by homophobes, getting in fistfights every day. Gay Identity Politics is a scary place. There’s a gay-basher hiding in every bush. It’s enough to drive you nuts.

Alt Left: A 100 IQ Doesn’t Mean Much of Anything, Really

Although American Whites (100) may collectively seem smarter than the Blacks(85) and Hispanics(90), they too are fucking stupid. An average IQ of 100 is nothing special. Even an IQ of 115 is nothing special when compared to people with IQ’s 125+. A whopping 86% of Whites have an IQ below 115!

Although those are the official numbers, I refuse to believe American Whites have an average IQ of 100. Europe’s White trash left for the new world. Sure there were some aristocrats and geniuses that may have made their way over here, but most of those people weren’t exactly high quality Whites. I estimate the average IQ of White Americans to be about 95. Europeans just seem more cultured and intelligent in comparison.

This disparity becomes readily apparent when you are in a flyover White trash red state. Everything is so rundown and the people are noticeably dirtier and uglier looking. You may not agree that White Americans as a collective have an average IQ of 95, but you have to admit that Middle America is blatantly dumber than Coastal America (east and west). Everybody, or at least the smart and talented people leave for the major cities, of which a disproportionate amount of are located on the East and West Coast.

There is a problem with your analysis.  First of all, a 100 IQ score means just about zip! Let us suppose that the average IQ scores doubled in the next 100 years. IQ’s rose on average of 100 points in the US. What would the average IQ in the US be? 100! So in that case, a 100 IQ score would be twice as high as it is today and we could no longer say that 100 IQ is not that smart. You follow? 100 is just sort of a placemarker or a tag. It all depends on how you are norming your population.

Also, you would think that an  IQ like mine (147) would be 47% smarter than an average IQ of 100, right? Nope! I believe a 145 IQ is literally 3-5 X more intelligent than an IQ of 100! I’m not sure how that works, but those scores are simply not linear numbers the way we normally think of them. They’re more like placeholders or points on a graph or dots on a chart.

Average IQ is 100 is because they’ve always normed these tests on US populations. Lately they switched to US Whites = 100 and that makes the average US IQ = 98. Our average IQ used to be 100.

So we’ve dropped 2 IQ points with all of this unrestricted low-quality immigration. Nothing wrong with immigration per se, but the last thing this country needs is more uneducated low skilled peasants and workers from the 3rd World. They’re a drag on the economy and they absolutely do increase the crime rate, run down cities, create gangs, etc. I speak about unrestricted Hispanic immigration, which is just stupid. With 10 fewer IQ points, of course they are going to drag places down, lower test scores, increase crime and probably gangs, etc.

That’s just a given. Now if you wanted to important Hispanics with average IQ = 98, I’d be right on board. In fact all of our legal immigration should be average IQ = 98 or maybe better yet, minimum 98 IQ to even get in in the first place. Letting in millions of dumber people to crash your country’s IQ score has to be one the stupidest things a country could do.

Alt Left: Two Populations with IQ’s of 87 Are the Same, Right?

Two groups with IQ’s of 85 will probably behave about the same, right? Nope!

That is because we are leaving out something very important, and  that is race. And race is absolutely real in a biological sense and you can make whatever you want of that. An 85 IQ US White, Persian in Iran, Chinese in China and US Black are going to act pretty different, though the American White and the Persian might act fairly similar. The races act different! I’m sorry but it’s just true. Open your eyes and ears. It’s only obvious.

A good IQ researcher over at Unz has written a number of articles where he claims that the IQ of your average human is  ~81. That’s terrible. It’s thought that you need a 90 IQ to create a decent modern society. That’s probably not completely true, but there’s something to it.

It also depends on the population. An Arab, North African or Central Asian IQ of 85 is simply not the same thing as a US Black IQ of 85. Go look around in Arabia, North Africa or Iran and get back to me. Even Pakistan is fairly civilized.

If those countries were full of US Blacks, the cities would look like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Oakland, etc. That’s why I get so upset with White nationalists snarly at Blacks that they only have 85 IQ’s. First of all, it’s probably 87 now. Second of all, that IQ score is no fault of their own. It is some sort of a product of genes and environment. Let’s put it this way. I don’t think the US Black 87 IQ is their fault at all! That’s simply the way they end up getting wired up.

If Tehran and Detroit have the same average IQ, there is something more going on with US Blacks.

I believe that is psychopathy. Your average US Black has a psychopathy score twice as high as the average White on the PCL. Say the average White score is 4 out of 0-40. Everything below 20 is considered in normal range, but you can be quite psychopathic and still be in the normal range. What can I say? We are apex predators, meat eaters and killers of our own kind from time immemorial. He aren’t like cows. We are more like bears or mountain lions.

Anyway if your average US Black has a PCL score of 8 to the average US White score of 4, that is going to make a tremendous amount of difference. That’s because there is a universe of difference between a PCL score of 1 and one of 19! They’re both completely normal non-psychopaths, but I guarantee you that folks at 19 on a PCL are going to act way worse than people with a PCL of one.

Blacks also seem to have elevated testosterone levels, and that is absolutely genetic. But they are only higher until age 32, after which they fall and are actually lower than Whites! I suspect that elevated testosterone plays a role in the extremely high crime rates of US Blacks.

Let’s not get too hung up on IQ.

Repost: I Admit I’m a Misanthrope and It’s One of my Worst Flaws

Good old post getting comments. I reiterated in a post today that I don’t hate good people who simply aren’t real sharp. That’s no fault of their own. We are all God’s children and we are at his mercy when it comes to handling out whatever gifts or handicaps He so cavalierly distributes among us. I know some pretty dumb people on Facebook, and I talk to them sometimes. They are a bit hard to talk to, but they are nice enough anyway.

But I really, really hate lack of wisdom, which is it seems like 95% of the population has at least about some things. I hate moral panics and mass hysterias. They’re ridiculous! How could you admit with a straight face that you are so stupid that you are caught up in a moral panic? I would be so embarrassed.

But as far as my haters go and all these people trying to figure me out, the take-home point is that I’m pretty much of a misanthrope and I think you’re all a bunch of idiots! Definitely my haters. They’re pure morons, every one of them. I almost hate them more for being stupid than for being haters. And if you study my life and my writing, you will see this theme – “You are all idiots!” repeated over and over, so it’s sort of the theme of my life.

Once you figure out that Lindsay thinks people are basically stupid goddamned fools, you will finally be onto me. “Lindsay thinks we are all idiots.” Bingo! There ya go. You got me. Another thing about my haters is they peg me wrong, but your haters will always do that if you are halfway decent because if they were objective about you, they wouldn’t have an argument to hate you. In order to hate you, they must distort you. Actually that’s a good thing to remind yourself if you are dealing with haters. The only reason they hate you is because they distort you. The only way they can hate you is to distort who you really are.

One of my haters on Reddit said a while back,

“Lindsay styles himself as this radical individualist type. On the other hand, maybe he’s just a weirdo. I think he’s just a weirdo.”

Well, fine, but at least one of my haters figured me out. I do see myself as a radical individualist type who deliberately takes unpopular decisions to portray bravery. I also take unpopular views because I like to show that what everyone believes is common knowledge is often a bunch of total horseshit. I like the “society is full of shit and is filling your head with lies” view. That’s sort of the purpose of this site – to write about very thing.

I’m pretty disgusted by humans. I don’t even really like them. Actually, I hate to admit it but I am a misanthrope. And I hate to say it even more, but the majority at least here in the US deserve every bit of my hatred. I hate them because they are stupid, and stupidity itself is a little bit dangerous by its very nature, so they frighten me.

They’re idiots. I hate idiots. Actually they’re worse than idiots. They’re dangerous idiots, and that’s the worst kind of idiot of all. So, yeah, I hate most Americans because they are goddamned dangerous idiots who threaten my peace of mind, well-being, reputation, and maybe even ability to earn a living.

If you study people with very high IQ’s around my range and up, you will see that they almost all feel this way. Worse, as IQ rises, misanthropy seems to rise in tandem just like clockwork. On Quora they often had people asking questions for people with certain IQ ranges. It was one of the only places you could talk like this because IQ is a very taboo subject in the US. The question would be, “People with IQ’s over 140, what you do think about bla bla bla?”

One thing I noticed is that once people got above 140, they seemed more and more misanthropic. And it was all tied up with the idea that they thought people were idiots. “I feel like I’m surrounded by retards!” was a comment I saw over and over. I suppose it just goes with the territory when you get up into that high of a range.

Above IQ 160, it’s not to find a complete misanthrope. They hate people because they think people are stupid. And to them, most people are stupid. Check out the classic article, The Outsiders about people, mostly men, who had IQ’s of over 160. Most of them were not in very good shape. They were typically unmarried and worked at low paying jobs or even lived in poverty,  and tended to dwell alone in apartments. Lack of girlfriends or wives and even out and out celibacy was very common. They were all thoroughly disgusted by having to live in a “world full of retards” as they see it.

When you are up here in the stratosphere, every people with average intelligence almost seem literally retarded. It’s disgusting but you feel bad about it for hating them and keep beating yourself up and trying to be nice to them and turn off the misanthropy. Which can  be done.

But when it comes to close friendships or meaningful relationships, about 30 IQ points is the limit. If someone is 30 IQ points above or below you, you will have a very hard time communicating. Some say that meaningful communication is either very difficult or even impossible. Yes, you can become friends, but it will be quite difficult. Leaders who have IQ’s 30+ IQ points above those below them are poor leaders. Their underlings don’t listen to them, and rebellions are common.

The best leaders are not geniuses. The best leaders for White people would have an IQ below 130. Above that and you will not be able to connect with your followers.

Repost: Alt Left: The Indian Personality: Superiority and Inferiority Complexes Intertwined

Another old post getting posted around the Net:

A fine new Indian Hindu commenter named Janardhan has appeared on our blog, and he repeats some of the same things that other insightful Hindus such as ILOR, Rahul, and Pranav have said. This shows us that not all Indian Hindus are bad people and that some of them are capable of looking inwards and trying to better their society. I consider both Rahul and Pranav at least to be strong Indian patriots who simply want the best for their country. As they see it, getting the best for India is going to require some massive changes, hence their critical patriotism.

Hindus have a strange mix of superiority and inferiority complexes. Deep down they massage their ego about how their civilization was ‘da greatest’ with a total ignorance about other civilizations and their achievements.

According to Hindus, Ancient India compared to the rest of the world is equivalent to comparing the city of Vienna during Mozart with highlanders in Papua New Guinea. As if Ancient India was like this huge Vienna while the rest of the world was primitive.

But during the last centuries they were first enslaved by Muslims from Central Asia/Persia (whom they consider savage bloodthirsty barbarians, ignoring the intellectual side of Islamic civilization, which itself was plagiarized to a good extent from Greek learning) and then by Europeans.

One difference was that in the case of Islamic invaders they could hide under the carpet the invaders’ intellectual side, and they are thus dehumanized as savage bloodthirsty monsters (this label is justified though, as the Islamic rulers were quite brutal). But when the Europeans, especially the British, came they could not ignore their obvious technological superiority with their steam engines and telegraphs.

Thus the conflicting superiority/inferiority complex feelings.

They were as per their myth Numero Uno Civilization in the world, but now they are nearly at the bottom. White people with their strange but seeming superior looks and behavior give us an inferiority complex.

Besides, even the Japanese/ Koreans are way ahead of us, and now the Chinese are racing ahead. Mainland Indians just cannot accept the rise of China:

“Those Chinkis like the Chinkis of Nepal and North Eastern Indians going ahead of us, not possible,” we say.

Thus the desire to prove ancient India being as technologically advanced as the modern world, since the modern technological world is 90% a White creation, and we cannot fathom a people other than us could have done so.

I think this is same with the Arabs with their Islam. Islam, the last word of God and having an Arab as its last and greatest prophet, has fallen behind the White nonbelievers. Oh, the horror.

Blacks? Well, most Indians consider Blacks as some savage monkey people anyway.

I would say we Indians are some of the most racist people in the world, but our racism is very subtle.

As someone who works in mental health, I would like to point out the obvious. A person with both a massive superiority and inferiority complex going at the same time is a common creature.

This is typical for Cluster B personality types: especially Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders. But it associated more with narcissism than anything else. In fact, all proper analyses of narcissism begin with the supposition that what is going on in narcissism is often a huge inferiority complex which is apparently being compensated for by its opposite, a huge superiority complex.

My view is that the worse the narcissist’s inferiority complex, the greater their superiority complex must be to compensate for it. Whereas if one feels only a bit inferior, one has only to feel a bit superior to compensate, as all human beings are trying to equalize things and get at what I call the “zero state” of perfect equilibrium where everything is ok.

Many analyses of the Indian personality on this site have noted the profound narcissism apparent in most Indian Hindus. In many cases, this also looks like solipsism, but then narcissism and solipsism tend to go together anyway (Look at the Jews, the most solipsistic people on Earth).

Repost: Alt Left: The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

Old post still getting posted around…

Seriously? writes:

This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘White man,’ including even of the British, because Whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between Black and White Americans, there is an even larger Indian-White income gap in favor of Indians.

India’s relationship with so-called White nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes, even over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourself. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you, so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them. Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no good qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place. It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind?

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything “Seriously?” says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around my town are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile and act like they think like you are an enemy spy, and they clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric, and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational trainwrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

Alt Left: How It All Began – Tracing the Roots of Modern-Day Identity Politics, SJWism, and Especially Wokeism

The First Privilege Walk.

Summary: This woke bullshit was a terrible idea back then when it started, and it’s probably an even more terrible idea now.

They would never join us, but I’d say the site in the link is Alt Left or at least a form of the Alt Left. All anti-IP, anti-SJW, or anti-woke liberalism and Leftism is really just Alt Leftism.

This site has already been described by a thoughtful author as “Anti-Woke Left.” The author writes on American Renaissance. It’s either Chris Roberts or Gregory Hood, but I’m inclined to think it’s Chris because he came out of the Left and continues to write about the Left at that extremely rightwing publication. Amren is a White nationalist publication or White Supremacist if you want to think that way. Problem is that the editor, Jared Taylor, thinks Asians are superior to Whites. So it’s hard to argue that he’s a White Supremacist.

I actually comment on there because nobody else will have me. I get banned from almost all Left and liberal sites very quickly for my anti-woke politics. On the other hand, the commenters are not just racist – they are wildly, fanatically, off-the-charts racist in a way that few Whites are anymore.

Which is one more reason why their project will fail. They refuse to tone it down, probably because they can’t. They can’t tone it down possibly because the project is inherently radical and extremist and hence will always only attract such types. There’s not much in the White Nationalist movement for the average White person.

This is one more reason we need to get away from this crap term White Supremacy. Yes, this was a powerful thing for a long time in this country, but it’s all but dead. Even Whites who like being White are hardly White Supremacists. And many non-Whites also very racist, especially against Blacks. They’re left out of this whole thing. The percentage of actual White Supremacists or potential White Nationalists among Whites ranges from 6-9%. That’s a very low number. It’s hard to see how this is a movement charging across the country enveloping everything in its grasp or how a whole political party has gone over to it.

How about White racist or racist Whites instead of this White Supremacy/ White Supremacist crap? How about anti-Black racism instead of calling anti-Black non-Whites White Supremacists? Even Blacks who step outside of the BLM/woke line are getting called White Supremacist. That’s pretty stupid. It just goes to show that in any contest about who is the most politically retarded, the Dogmatic Left is always near first place.

Alt Left: Neuveau Fascism in South America and Europe

Manuel Rodriguez: Back to politics. What is going on in Bolivia is worrying me. We have fascist squads lynching “undesirables” like peasants. We also see that there have been placed barricades with rubbish and tires that block vehicle mobilization, causing people to be fed up and remove the barricades. You know what this all reminds me? The guarimbas of 2014 in Venezuela and Nicaragua. I can see where this is going.

————————–
Separate: There is an tendency that is pretty worrying going on at least in Latin America.

The people are tired of the structural inequalities from the neoliberal policies of the right, causing them to lose in elections whenever they appear as they are, and the people are conscious enough.

The mutation consisted on swapping in the public’s mind the Traditional Right image with Center-Right, which seems like a more popular alternative. The complementary tactic is for thee Center-Right to dress up as the Center-Left, which in reality are already prepared sell-outs whose main purpose is try to divert votes from the Left to help the Right win.

The media did their thing, which was to help Center-Left Boric would win over the Leftist Jadue. The whole purpose of Center-Left Yaku Pérez’ candidacy was to make the Leftist Andrés Arauz lose.

That strategy seems to be being recently changing. They are changing the Center-Right for populist Trump-style fascist Far Right candidates. The most worrying thing is that they are getting a lot of support from the population. Bolsonaro is an classic example. Jose Antonio Kast is a more recent example. It seems that Vamos in Argentina is going to win in the parliament.

I would like to point out that the election in Ecuador was profoundly unfair. First of all, the main opposition party kept getting banned, and its leaders all have warrants out for their arrest on fake charges. This “lawfare” is similar to what was done in Brazil. By the way, the FBI greatly assisted the Brazilian fascists in the lawfare against the Left down there. The US is also engaging in lawfare against Venezuela.

Vamos are Argentine fascists?

Obviously Bolsonaro is a fascist, and Kast is clearly a Pinochet-style Chilean fascist.

Why are people voting fascist? I don’t get it. Although Chile and Argentine both have deep fascist blocs in each country, in my opinion mostly because those are majority-White countries. Brazil is also a majority-White country, which may be why they are going fascist too.

In Latin America nowadays, where you lack a White majority, fascism is hard to install because Latin non-Whites hate fascism. They’ve had quite enough of it. However, they do support it in Colombia. On the other hand, Colombia is also a fairly White country. Fascist roots in Colombia go back to Independence. The country simply has developed a culture of popular fascism for whatever reason. Turkey is very similar. The people get no benefit for voting fascist, but they keep doing it anyway.

There are fascist governments in non-White Haiti, Honduras, and Paraguay, but all of those are dictatorships. The Right seized power with fascist coups – armed in Haiti and Honduras and legislative in Paraguay – and they have ruled by dictatorship ever since.

In the Americas, Whiteness is associated with rightwing authoritarianism and fascism. In Europe this is not the case, but Whites are a huge majority over there. It appears that Whites go fascist when they are in the minority, but Argentina and Chile are majority-White, so I don’t get it.

Really any population descended from the Catholic Spaniards divides into the typical Far Right-Far versus Left Collectivist pattern. This pattern is also seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and Lebanon, all Mediterranean countries. This is also seen now somewhat in France. Spain, France, and Italy are Catholic, Greece is Orthodox, Turkey is Muslim, and Lebanon is mostly Catholic and Muslim. Mediterranean countries are collectivist, so politics tends to be collectivist. Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity are collectivist religions.

Left collectivism is Communism and socialism, while Right collectivism is fascism.

The Catholic East European fascism in Poland and Hungary is different and has a Catholic socially conservative and anti-Communist tint. Liberation theology never took hold in Eastern Europe except in Czechia, where there is a long tradition of “Catholic Communism.”

In Ukraine, the Baltics, and Belarus, the fascism is simply Nazism, pure and simple. Ukraine and Belarus are Orthodox, and the Baltics are Catholic (Lithuania) and Protestant (Latvia and Estonia). The Nazism here stems from World War and the independence movements in these countries making alliances with the Nazi occupiers who promised them independence. The Communists in turn were seen as anti-nationalists who thwarted these nations independence dreams. See below for more on that.

In Orthodox Georgia and Russia, fascism nationalist – ethnic nationalist in Georgia or simply nationalist or “Russian Empire nationalist” in Russia.

Protestant Northern Europe is more individualistic. The Right there is just about dead except in the UK and the Baltics. The Right in the UK is a pale copy of US politics. See below for the anti-Communist roots of the Right in the Baltics.

The Right in the northern individualist parts of Europe is mostly anti-Muslim. It’s conservatism is toned down like all politics in Northern Europe is toned down, so it’s not really fascist, instead a type of Woke Anti-Islam. Otherwise they are very left on social issues. One of their leaders in the Netherlands was a gay man. And they support a more socialist economics, but this is the case for both the Right and Left in most of Europe proper other than the Baltics.

The Economic Right is only popular in the UK, where the political economics mirrors the US, and in Czechia, the Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. In all of these places except the UK, it is an anti-Communist reaction where many people are angry about living under Communism in the past, so they have gone to extreme Right economics as an overreaction.

In Estonia and Latvia, support for the economic Right has been disastrous and has almost destroyed both countries. The Economic Right has little power in Russia and Belarus, with only 10-20% support. It is in power in Ukraine but only because Ukraine has outlawed the parties of half the population, the Russian-speakers. In the Baltics and Ukraine, the anger towards Communism is because the Communists stifled independence movements, though it was Communists who set them free. Anti-Communism is also part of Hungarian and Polish fascism. Anti-Communism in both countries often had an odd socialist tinge.

Repost: Do the Races Smell Different?

This is a repost of a very popular old article. Enjoy.

From a very interesting discussion over at American Renaissance in an article about how the Pill disrupts women’s sense of smell. The article itself is interesting. Females have an evolutionarily developed sense of smell that makes them prefer males who differ in a set of genes called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which governs the immune system.
When they choose men with a different set of MHC genes, the offspring gets a complementary set of MHC genes, or the best of both parties, and has an increased resistance to disease. However, women on the Pill lose this preference. Researchers worried that women on the Pill might lose interest in their boyfriends or husbands while on the Pill.

But the comments were even more interesting. I have been wanting to write for a long time about the notion that some Whites say that Black people stink, or smell bad. There did not seem to be a way of writing about this without sounding like a racist asshole, so I put it off.

A relative told me that many Whites say that Blacks smell bad. He even said that they are called “Stink Bugs” by some Hispanics here in California. I said that I had been around Blacks most of my life, including having Black girlfriends, Black best friends who I hung out with every day, and teaching whole classes full of Blacks every day for months on end, and I never noticed it.

It’s not really known what Blacks smell like to those who say they are stinkers. Some say they smell like sweat or onions, but a lot say that they just flat out stink, period.

There is also evidence that Northeast Asians find the odor of Blacks particularly offensive, perhaps more so than Whites do. Asians also say that we Whites stink too, but not as much as Blacks do. They often say that we smell like red meat. Some of this may have to do with diet. But one White Vietnam vet said that Vietnamese could hardly smell Blacks at all, but could smell a White a block away.

Even Hispanics are said to be stinky by some Whites.

So far, this post sounds pretty racist. Black folks are getting screwed like they always do. The other races think they’re stinky, and there’s no hope.
Ah.

But there is hope for Black folks. It seems that a lot of Blacks say that we Whites stink too. Equal time! In the comments to the article (which Amren will not keep and I could not get Google too cache), commenters noted that Blacks often refer to Whites as having a “wet dog smell”.

There is supposedly even a type of spray called “Wet Dog” that you can spray on yourself to give yourself a scent that Blacks hate, though this may be an urban myth. What a way to keep people away! Along the same lines, a female commenter said that a Black woman told her that Black females can’t stand to take showers with White women in gymnasiums or at school since they think White women smell terrible when they get wet.

Even other Whites say we Whites stink. A White woman said that White men often smell like corn on the cob. A White man said if you get a lot of White guys together in a locker room, they smell like rotten peppers.

I’m a little upset that in yet another lineup between the three great races, those darned cunning, inscrutable Oriental despots come out on top, smelling like a rose even.

But alas, all is not lost. It seems that some Whites say that foreign-born Asians and FOB’s (recent immigrants) smell bad. It’s something like sesame oil plus old socks with a drop of rice wine. It’s subtle, but one woman described it as almost nauseating. A White man who served in Vietnam said that he could smell differences between Vietnamese and Chinese (the Chinese stunk worse), so there may be national variations in stinkiness. I’m happy that some folks think Asians stink too. All’s fair.

I supposedly have a great sense of smell, but I’ve been missing out on all these stinky races. I can’t detect any racial or ethnic differences in smell, though I used to work with this nice older White woman who smelled horrible for some reason.

But I find it amusing that in this area of dictatorially enforced anti-racism that so many Blacks, Whites, and Asians all think the other races stink.

Psychopaths and Promiscuity

Nice bit from a commenter on psychopaths and promiscuity. Also goes quite a bit into Game behavior. My comments are outside of the quote marks.

Manuel Rodriguez: Hello Robert, I see that you haven’t posted about geopolitics in a while! Like Afghanistan or Peru.

I know. I need to.

I wanted to talk about other theme: psychopaths.

Putting aside their main characteristics, one of the main issues that I see with psychopaths/sociopaths not so much that they tend to leave a lot of children around. One can see differences between a simple womanizer or machista and a sociopath/psychopath.

In my highly patriarchal country, young men who are with women who are strong-willed and/or have a close family tend to stay with them for a short while, bear a child, and leave.

I don’t think much of this sort of behavior. I hate to use the word but a lot of Whites would call that “niggerish.” Not so much that you are acting like a Black man but more that you are acting like a certain sort of Black man. Whites are not wild about this behavior but if it happens, they want the man to support the kid. I lived in a White working class community recently and we saw a lot of young White men engaged in the behavior above. However, my mother told me that most of these young men did end up supporting their children. As a man in White culture, you are supposed to support your kids. If you don’t, people really look down on you.

This is a big difference between Black and White culture. Black culture simply doesn’t seem to care whether men support their kids or not.

Men young or old who catch a succulent type of female prey (women that are weaker-willed and are the “people pleaser” personality type and also isolated family-wise) will proceed to destroy her self-esteem, make her emotionally dependent on him, and in general reconfigure her brain so her only required duties are to satisfy his needs while he goes off with other women.

This type of behavior is pretty reprehensible too but I’ve talked to so many women who have come out of abusive relationships with exactly this type of man. I actually think ~1/3 of women prefer bad or abusive men.

The interesting thing I observed about the “old type” is that he often lives off the woman, be it taking her wage or making her work as a slave if he is a merchant or small-business owner. The man takes control of all the money in the household while nobody else knows how he spends it. He  spends most of his time outside the house, again, without the family knowing what he is doing.

This is terrible too.

Often the previously-mentioned other “subaltern” family members will  observe this and decide it’s not ok, but the wife will engage in self-delusion. She will automatically think and say that he is doing these things for a good and beneficial reason for the family, and she will scold or gaslight whoever brings it up and disagrees.

Stockholmed.

Another element that separates the old psychopaths from the young is that the old type doesn’t “pump and dump” women like young psychopaths do but instead actually supports the families of his various lovers based on how much how much surplus value he can appropriate from wife and family.

I think this occurs for a few reasons. The main one is that old men are seen by women, especially younger ones, as ugly, so they have to Run the “Resource Game” or Money Game mating strategy and the young women they can get are often a bit on the older side. As you mentioned in your own anecdotes, old men are not as physically attractive as their younger selves and getting young girls with a silver tongue alone is not an option anymore as you age.

Yep, I need money to get a young woman nowadays. Without money I am pretty much SOL with every young woman out there. It’s been a brutal lesson.

This is the thing that ticks me off about women, the fact that the male traits they find very attractive are the physical and personality traits of antisocial, abusive, and disagreeable men.

Yep, women love bad boys and hate nice guys. Feminists lie and say this is because nice guys aren’t really all that nice, but this is a bad argument because women love overtly bad man who act much worse than even bad-behaved nice guys. This is just women lying because telling the truth about normal female behavior makes them look bad.

Here is the brutal truth: Women don’t like nice or passive men because they think they’re pussies. Wimps. Sissies. Possibly gay. Momma’s boys. On and on.

Sort of story of my life here. My reputation on the Net is a psychopath who is some sort of font of pure evil, crime, depravity, and perversion, but the truth is I’m actually a really nice guy. Including with women. If you met me, you might think I’m about the nicest guy you’ve ever met. I’m not irritable at all. Not only that but I seem completely harmless. Nothing bothers me. I don’t much care about what people do to the point where nothing much that anyone does bugs me.

And I just found out that I’m passive.

An ex told me that. It was a hard pill to swallow, but I’ve probably been passive most of my life. And I’m starting to think that women really hate passive men.

I’ve sort of gotten beyond it these days by cultivating an air of scariness or danger. Sadly, this actually benefited me a lot in relationships with women. Women have fallen harder, crazier, and wilder in love with me than ever before since I started being mean and vicious to them sometimes. I only do it if they are really out of bounds, and some women simply don’t have enough evil in them to get too nasty, so there’s no need to pull out my Psycho role for them.

If you want some advise about women, I would say that if you are having nice guy or passive guy issues, start fighting back against the women in your life. Don’t just sit there and take it. And really rip them a new one when they get seriously out of line. I just cuss them out. I don’t hit them.

She will fly into a wild rage, but I’ve found that she might fall deeply in love too.

I think women want the men they fall in love with to be capable of pretty mean or bad behavior at times.

But only at times. Or they want him to stand up to her crap. Hell, I don’t know what it is, but tearing them to pieces in brutal fashion when they get insulting and abusive seems to work wonders.

I’ve wondered why this is and one reason is because when you tear her to bits verbally, you are saying you could care less if she walks out the door right now.

Most men are pussy beggars and pussy-whipped idiots. They’re afraid to unleash on their women for fear that she’ll cut off the sex, so they just sit there and take the abuse. The more they sit there and take the abuse, the more the woman thinks he’s a great big pussy for not standing up to her. So she gets angrier and angrier and more and more contemptuous of her pathetic pussy-whipped idiot of a man.

I was like this for many years. I was afraid that if I ripped her up bad, she would take off, and there goes the sex. And even back in the day, sex was not that easy to come by. Once you get a woman who is giving you lots of regular sex, it seems to be something you want to keep around because it’s quite difficult to find a new woman who will give you as much sex as this one is. Hence most men are operating from a position of Scarcity or Pussy Poverty. They’re desperate.

They think, “I can’t let her leave because she’s the only woman I can get.” That’s probably not true but that’s how the pathetic thinking goes. The woman looks at her man and thinks, “This guy is so pathetic that if I leave him, no way can he get another woman. He’s only with me because nobody else will have him.” This seems pathetic and I think it makes women furious and contemptuous.

Instead, when you blast her from here to Kingdom Come, you are saying that you don’t give a flying fuck if she walks out the door, never to be seen again. Because you don’t care if you get laid or not. Because of course you can replace this toxic bitch with a better-behaved and hopefully newer model anytime you want.

That is operating from position of Abundance or Pussy Wealth. It is good to cultivate an attitude of Abundance even if you are not actually in that position. Just lie to the world and tell the whole world that you have an Abundance mentality and can get a new woman just like that. Women are intrigued by men with an Abundance mentality because they are not pathetic, desperate pussy beggars like most men. Women find a man who has the attitude, “Woman, I could care less whether you have sex with me or not. There’s plenty more where you came from” absolutely fascinating. And in my opinion, it turns them on and even makes them fall in love with you.

I get that there are several reasons about this.

In prehistoric times, genes for good health and strength in men were extremely important. Men also needed “manlier” personality traits in order to fight off, hunt, and kill dangerous animals and to fight men from other tribes.

And because of the way our brains process emotions, we are easily misled by personality traits that we think signal one thing while in fact they signal something completely different. The irresponsible behavior of psychopaths might instead be perceived as high confidence.

“Female Game” reduces down to only two points:

1. Marry or get into a relationship with a man who is not a loser, one whose positive traits match the environmental needs of her environment.

2. Try to get a partner who is not abusive.

Sadly, while the first point makes sense biologically and is socially emphasized, the second point is never brought up despite all the issues women are facing today. Neither society nor mothers teach girls the traits they should look out for in order to avoid abusive and possibly life-threatening partners. I think that even given girls’ immaturity, this would be hugely useful to them as a life lesson. Older women via life experience have generally learned that bad boys are not good for them, especially in the long run.

Promiscuity is so common among psychopaths that it’s actually one of the diagnostic criteria. I’ve tried to give a few explanations for it even though I’m not a psychopath myself, and only a psychopath can truly under the thought processes of such a persons.

Possible reasons for the promiscuity of psychopaths:

1. It is an unintended effect of some features of the psychopaths such as low sensitivity to threats and the affective-interpersonal features that psychopaths have. Psychopaths might not take into account the the risks, consequences, and guilt syndromes of PIV sex such as pregnancies or how whether the woman will feel hurt or not. Instead they choose pleasure of risk and guilt.

2. It an intended effect, either consciously or unconsciously. In recent years, we have seen a number of psychopaths openly declare that they intend to have a lot of children while not investing in or supporting them. There are also many historical accounts of powerful and murderous men, including kings, who sired a lot of children, Genghis Kan being the most famous.

Since promiscuity is a trait and psychopaths have an easy ability to attract women thanks to their social skills, the condition might causing them to try to breed as prolifically as possible.

This makes sense when you think of how not only is psychopathy itself common in highly unfavorable conditions, but such environments cause even non-psychopathic men to have higher rates of promiscuity than men raised in better environments.

In this case, humans wouldn’t be too different from organisms who evolved in unfavorable environments via a strategy of high reproduction. This can be seen in plants that spread a lot of seeds, mushrooms that spread many spores, and prey species such as rabbits that suffer high mortality having frequent and large litters.

More on the Indian IQ

The debate on the Indian IQ continues. Looks like what he was getting at is the question of what is the genetic Indian IQ if we get rid of all of the environmental impediments such as malnutrition that are no doubt driving down their IQ scores. In this sense, the argument adds up.

RL: I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived (the mass culling events in Old Europe), though?”

Tamberlane: We can’t be sure that only the dumbest people survived either. Plagues and diseases don’t test for IQ before they infect you. The safest assumption is all people, regardless of their IQ, died proportionately. My point with the mass culling events in Europe was that survivors tend to have fewer genetic mutations and sturdier immune systems, which are signs of superior genetics (robust physique and facial symmetry i.e. beauty/handsomeness), which leads to a stronger, more robust stock. Plagues may not select for IQ, but they do select for other desirable superior traits. It doesn’t matter anyway, point being there were no mass culling events in India.

RL: But Indians are less intelligent than Blacks and Hispanics. The studies are quite clear about that.

Tamberlane: Yeah, only if you assume the average height of Indians (we’ll go with the male average for simplicity) is 5’7” or 5’7.5” or whatever the official number is for 2021.

“A secular trend in increase in height has been observed in developed countries since the late 19th century, mainly due to improvement in nutritional status as a result of socioeconomic development [1–4]. According to Tanner, growth of a population is a mirror that reflects conditions in society [5].

There has been intense research interest in the area of linear growth in developing countries, including India, because shorter height is associated with a number of consequences, such as poor cognitive development [6], obstetric emergencies [7], and low birthweight in the offspring of short women [8].

In addition, low birth-weight babies are more likely to suffer from growth faltering and become stunted adults, and thus the cycle of growth retardation is repeated [9].

Secular trends in height in different states of India in relation to socioeconomic characteristics and dietary intakes:

Height is singularly a good indicator of malnourishment or lack thereof. Average height of 5’.7.5” for Indians seems to be incorrect. They are simply not living up to their potential.

So ultimately you are comparing fully nourished Whites (5’10″) and Blacks (5’9″) to malnourished Indians (5’7”). And then claiming an average IQ of 81 is genetic. That’s like breaking Pajeet’s leg, having him recover for three months, and then having him race a White man and a Black man that have been practicing the 100 meter dash for the past three months. It is unreasonable and dishonest to expect Pajeet to comparatively perform even remotely well. The official “studies” do not account for the aforementioned topic. They display these numbers without any disclaimers and mislead the reader to form a false conclusion. That was the entire point of my comment.

RL: But you can’t adjust for low IQ Indians breeding like crazy. The IQ of the population is the IQ of the population. It’s the sum total of the IQ’s divided by the population…

Tamberlane: I was just giving a guesstimate.

RL: Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?

Tamberlane: Yes, but not the genetic average. When we look at Norwegians, Spaniards, Italians, American Whites, American Blacks, and Australians we are looking at the genetic average. When we are looking at Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, or even Africans we are not looking at the genetic average. Once again the studies lead us to form a false and dishonest conclusion.

RL: Ok, but we have to look at the population as a whole. The country is a shithole in part due to an average IQ of 81, correct?”

Tamberlane: Yes, that is correct.

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.

Game/PUA: Bad Boy Game and Thug Game

Game/PUA: Bad Boy Game and Thug Game

My advice to any Black readers would be if you have any sense at all to stay as far away from that ghetto culture as possible. I understand it might be appealing for a Black man who wants to run Bad Boy Game or Thug Game as a PUA/Game strategy to get laid to be a part of that culture or pretend to, but I don’t think it’s worth it. We White men are attracted to the bad boy aspects of our culture, and I am convinced that a lot of us act bad and commit crimes simply because women love bad men and criminals so much, so pretending to be somewhat sociopathic is a good way to get laid. If women demand sociopaths, fine! Then I will act like one! Is the thinking.

I’ve told women about my criminal past, and they often seem to get excited. They hardly ever act turned off. When I tell them I never got caught, they look amazed. They act like it makes them horny. I’m convinced that women like dangerous men. The trick is to act like enough of a dangerous man to get laid but then to make it fake enough so you stay out of jail. It’s not so much “be a criminal” as “act like a criminal without committing many crimes.” It’s like being an actor.

Women love dealers too, at least pot dealers. Tell a woman that you’re a drug dealer and she often acts very excited. They seem of like to be partners in your criminal enterprise too for some reason. It seems to make them excited. I think women want to be “bad girls” in the same way that a lot of us men want to be “bad boys.”

Lie Down with Dogs, Get up with Fleas

In response to the Bold Shooter post, I would like to add a couple of things.

I thought the shooter was White, but it looks like she’s Black also. Perhaps simply of the more light-skinned variety with died blond hair. By her clothing and jewelry belt, we can see that she’s pretty ghetto. The victim absolutely did not deserve to die, but looking at her photos, she was rather ghetto herself, albeit of the higher class sort that likes to appear classy and moneyed. I’m not trying to say she was a bad person because I have no idea how she behaved in her life. Thing is you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Be careful who you befriend and hang out with!

The point is if you are involved in that ghetto culture at all as a Black person, you’re already in danger, and you might be a menace yourself. It’s not just that that culture is full of lousy and dangerous people. It’s more that even the better ones as perhaps this victim was are also in danger merely by being part of that culture. It puts you at risk just being in proximity to those people.

I have heard LE people say that many homicide victims were not particularly bad people themselves, but they were often hanging out in some pretty shady and dangerous places. In other words, a lot of victims do sort of bring it on themselves a bit by going out of their way to put themselves in harm’s way.

Of course I’ve done this myself hanging out in punk rock clubs and living a drug dealing criminal* for 14 years. But the White soft drug dealing culture I was part of was hardly violent at all, although once I bought thousands of dollars worth of pot in a garage from some ~18 year old Hispanic kids.

The pot had reportedly come from the Eme or the Mexican Mafia. It was quite scary but it was also an incredible danger rush of the kind that only committing crimes gives you. I also learned in living like that what an incredible rush committing crimes and being a criminal is. The danger and exhilaration rush, a mix of terror and excitement) is hard to match. I understand why men do it just for the testosterone rush and the bad boy credentials you get. I don’t know what to say except be careful and try not to victimize innocent people.

The thing is you start getting above street level dealing into say, selling pounds, and you are running with the big boys now, and things start to get shadier. Also these people often live restricted “Don’t want to meet any new people” lifestyles, and generally you hear about them all the time because you get your pot from them in a roundabout way, but then you almost never see them, and no way can you go over to their house and meet them. But generally the White pot-dealing culture wasn’t very dangerous even as you got into the higher levels. Whites just aren’t that violent. Even White criminals are not that violent.

Demographics and Especially Population Movements Spell Doom for the Republican Party

Present demographics in the US means that demographics is not on the side of the Republicans. Whites, the base of the Republican Party, continue to decline every year while the Hispanic population grows.

Even more important than that is a general movement of blue staters to red states and almost no movement in the other direction. Show me one red state that is losing population because it’s people are moving to blue states. There’s no such thing.

There’s more going on than that. Blue states have a far larger population than red states.

Virginia turned blue because Northerners kept moving down there for high paying jobs.

Georgia and North Carolina are on the same track for the same reason, and both may well in fact have gone over. Northeasterners have flooded to the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and Atlanta has been attracting floods of Northeasterners for a long time. The Republicans just stole a Senate seat in North Carolina due to mass election fraud, otherwise the Democrat would have won.

Florida is the only state resisting the trend towards blue due to continuous injections of rightwing Latin American immigrants and their offspring into the state.

New Hampshire has gone blue, probably due to invasion from more liberal NE states.

Pennsylvania is already history for the Republicans the same reason, mostly liberals moving out of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area into the Philadelphia area.

Ohio and Iowa are on tied, but they have been tied for a long time, or at least Ohio has been.

Ohio swung hard to the right in 2016 or Trump in line with working class Whites voting Republican. But it swung back pretty hard in the other direction in 2020. In the last election, the electorate voted 51% Democrat. It’s only staying red due to massive election fraud and especially gerrymandering at the state Legislature level.

Iowa was a Democratic state that recently went red as part of a trend of working class White states going red, similar to Ohio, which it resembles. As in Ohio though, it swung back hard blue in the 2020 election. I’m convinced Democrats won the Senate seat there in 2020.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are all long gone over to the Democrats despite massive election fraud on the part of Republicans. The legislatures of Michigan and especially Wisconsin remain in Republican hands due to massive gerrymandering by Republicans. In order to Democrats to win 51% of the Legislature, they would have to win 65% of the state vote, a near impossibility. The Republicans have gerrymandered themselves in for life.

Missouri and South Carolina are both trending blue, slowly but surely. Republicans only won by three points in South Carolina last election. I’m not sure why either state is going over unless it’s part of a general trend. Missouri used to be the bellweather state, but it went hard Right with the movement of the White working class in that direction in recent years, so it’s no longer a weathervane state. However, it swung somewhat back towards blue in 2020.

Colorado and New Mexico are solid blue now. In Colorado, this is due to mass influx of Californians to the state. New Mexico’s been fairly blue for some time and has only gotten more so.

Nevada’s pretty much gone for the Republicans for the same reason – Californians moving in. It’s been a traditionally conservative Republican state, but with so many Californians moving into the Reno and especially Las Vegas areas, it seems gone to the Republicans, although it’s still a bit close there.

Arizona appears barely blue now for the same reason – Californians flooding in to Tuscon and especially Phoenix – but it’s very much on the verge, and the legislature is still red, probably due to gerrymandering.

Blue states are getting bluer. I can’t think of one blue state that is becoming less blue.

Beyond that and even more ominous for Republicans is that almost all red states are getting less red with time. The average heavily-red state went a full ten percentage points blue in the last election, from Wyoming to West Virginia to Alabama. That’s terrifying from a Republican point of view.

The future looks ominous indeed for the Republican Party. The only way they can stay in power will be by stealing elections, which they are already good at, or moving to the left, which they almost cannot do because if the Republican Party moves left, it won’t be the Republican Party anymore.

It’s not so much racial demographics as mass movement from blue states to red states and almost zero movement in the other direction.

Want to See the Future of America? Look at Latin America

White nationalists are constantly fearmongering that the future of the US is South Africa.

Let’s look at some statistics:

Percentage          Whites   Blacks  Other

US                      62         13       25

South Africa        9           88       3

Tell you what. When the Black population of the US nears 88%, come talk to me about how we are turning into South Africa. Until then, it’s just more White nationalist lunacy and idiocy and even, I might add, mental disorder (paranoia).

Instead, look south. Yes, yes, yes look to Latin America. A 100X yes! However, I cannot find a Latin American country which will resemble the US in the future. Look at California. Our state is probably the future of the country. Liberal Democrats, basically, and trending left. We’re almost going social democrat here; we’re hardly even liberals anymore!

Other than that, a number of our cities have degraded somewhat because as a city goes from White to Hispanic, there is a decline, though not a great one. It becomes a fairly upgraded version of Mexico. But crime is pretty low and behavior is pretty civilized. Be careful who you make friends with because a lot of Hispanics are not ok. They don’t bother strangers. The gang feuds are often not major problems, and they leave Whites out of it, as we are not in their wars.

Most Hispanics IMHO consider themselves honorary Whites or almost Whites. They don’t look at us as aliens. They all came from countries were Whites are just another meaningless ethnic group. Most don’t hate Whites at all.

Where a city goes full Mexican, it essentially collapses and turns into Mexico. As long as there is a base of at least 10% Whites to keep the lights on, collapse is averted. Hispanics need Whites. They can’t really cut it without us.

Other than that, there is a sense of alienation in Hispanic cities as if one is living in a foreign country in your own land, along with foreign mariachi music and a fairly foreign and quite socially conservative culture. The men are very macho so if you act masculine, you’re one of them. It’s a patriarchal society, so if you’re a man, you’re now part of the ruling group.

Spanish is spoken everywhere, so you might want to learn a phrase or two. You speak two sentences of their language, and they treat you like family and almost try to hug you. I speak Spanish fairly well so they love me.

Plus I don’t hate Hispanics. I’ve almost become an honorary Mexican myself. Mexican after all is not a racial group. Most of them are pretty nice people, especially the recent immigrants who hardly speak a word of English. I speak Spanish to them so they treat me like a hero.

There’s little feminism because most Hispanics hate feminism (social conservatives). Gays are very toned town too if they exist at all because the culture doesn’t like it. Young Hispanic gays in cities like mine usually just take off for some gay Mecca. Homosexual behavior in straight men, common among Whites if not hip, is extremely frowned upon. You call a man a fag here, and you will get hit! However, among 2nd and especially 3rd generation young Hispanics, all of this is changing, and there is a lot of SJWism, BLM support, and acceptance of sexual weirdness.

Overall, Hispanics are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can live with them, or at least I can. I will not live with Blacks, that is, cities with large Black populations. Get out of here with that noise.

Alt Left: Banned Again

LOL just got banned from another Facebook group! Yay! First thing you need to know is I get banned from almost all Facebook groups. When I come to a Facebook group, if I hate it, I usually think, “How can I get banned from here as quickly as possible?” And then I proceed to do just that. And I’m usually banned in less than an hour. Half those Facebook groups? Why do they even exist? I figure they exist for guys like me to troll them and see how fast I can get banned, right? What other reason could they possibly have for their pathetic existence?!

The group is called This Is Why Conservatives Call Us Snowflakes. I figured the group is Alt Left, but it’s really not. It’s just the usual SJW idiots, except that they are slightly less crazy than the ordinary SJW idiots. There are a lot of these “lesser brands” about nowadays. I’m not real happy with this trend. It’s still the same poison, just more diluted this time. If you’re going to make a break with the Cultural Left, it has to be total.

Here’s the problem right here:

Hate speech of any kind is not allowed. No racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc allowed. Respect people’s pronouns & identities. No slurs of any kind are allowed. Mayo, Karen, etc are allowed tho

Ok, that’s not Alt Left at all. No Alt Left group would ever put anything that stupid on there. Of course, I think Alt Left groups should ban people for using certain slurs or possibly for severe bigoted language. Emphasis on severe. Every time I see one of these No Hate Speech signs, I want to bang my head on the desk. Because anyone who puts up a sign like that thinks “hate speech” is, just about, anything. And everything. And the kitchen sink.

There’s no attempt at nuance, and if you’re not doing nuance, you’re nowhere near being a self-actualized humans. Because one of the only things separating us elevated types for the usual fucktard rabble is…nuance, a sense of proportion, taking things case by case, the spirit of the law and not the letter, take each case separately and evaluate, things  like tone, intent, humor, basically, a sense of scale. All of which is always missing in any idiot tard who puts up a NO HATE SPEECH sign.

Notice that the only slurs they allow are mayo and Karen. Karen is just a slur for a certain type of nosey and annoying suburban White woman. More globally, it is a slur against White women period. Mayo is a shitty slur against White people. So these are just standard SJWtards. The only people it’s ok to hate are White people and White women. Everything else is bigotry, including calling trannies trannies, which, by the way, is one of my favorite pastimes.

I probably got banned for transphobia. That’s what I usually get banned for nowadays. I love to misgender these people because to me, it’s misgendering when you refer to a man who thinks he’s a woman as a woman. He’s not a woman. He’s a man who thinks he’s a woman. Likewise, it’s misgendering to refer to a woman who thinks she’s a man as a man. Of course she’s not a man. She’s a woman who thinks she’s a man.

And I just love to call those people trannies. How can you not love that word? Listen to it. Swirl it around on your tongue like a fine wine. Savor it. Smack your lips a few times. Doesn’t that word tranny just have the greatest mouthfeel?

I also love to call trannies mentally ill because that’s exactly what they are. If you are a man who thinks you’re a woman, 90% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. If you are a woman who thinks she’s a man, 95% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. Except for a few early onset cases which I am willing to make amends for (though they’re still not the opposite sex), a man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man.

No one even knows what any of that shit above means. What’s hate speech? Define it. Give me a good, concise definition that everyone can agree on. I don’t usually use other racial slurs when I write, but boy is it tempting! I so wanted to call a Japanese guy a Jap the other day! Why? I dunno. Because these shitwad SJW’s told me I can’t, that’s why! If you tell me there’s words I am banned from saying because they are offensive, those are probably the first words I am going to use in my next sentence to you.

Come on. We came out of the punk rock movement, Goddamn it. You have any idea what the punk rock movement was like? Like,  nothing is sacred. Like, giving the finger to everything. Like, breaking all the rules. Like, saying all the words you’re not supposed to say. Why? For the living fuck of it, that’s why. Which is to say, no reason at all!

We came out of the Goddamned punk rock movement, and you think we’re going to listen to SJW Miss Manners telling us to watch our language? LOL. Get out. Half of our songs had slurs in them. That was the whole idea. Not to hurt people’s feelings, but just to piss all over everything, the whole system. Tell us we can’t say something, and we’d say it. Tell us we couldn’t wear something, we’d wear it. Tell us not to say, do, or wear something because it’s mean, Hell, that’s even more reason to break the rules! It was all about pissing people off? Who? Everyone! Why? For no damned reason at all!

I won’t say those words for any particular reason and certainly not to hurt people. I’ll only say them because you, an authoritarian shitwad, ordered me not to! Hey, I’m still a rebellious teenager in a 63 year old body, sorry.

I do use words like this in my personal life. But not commonly and even then, only a few special words for certain folks who’ve really got it coming to them!

Slurs! Let’s Talk about Slurs!

Slurs! Let’s Talk about Slurs!

Fags, Faggots, and Dykes!

I don’t like faggot, but I do use fag. I usually use it in a matter of fact way that is simply descriptive. The way I use it, it means the same thing as “gay men” except it’s one word instead of two. No pejorative sense implied. But even then, I don’t use it that much. Only with certain carefully selected bigots.

I don’t usually call lesbians dykes, but damn, that sure is tempting too. Ever seen a totally dyked-out butch lesbian? Isn’t there a huge part of you that wants to scream dyke just looking at her? What else can you call her? It’s the only word that fits. Plus, most lesbians are real mean, and they really, really hate men, so let’s face it, men, they’re pretty much earned our slurs, right?

Niggers, niggers, and niggers!

I know there are other slurs for Black people, but I couldn’t think of any, so I said niggers three times instead. Pardon my Tourette’s!

I really don’t like to use nigger, but I do use it when I’m alone if I’m really mad at some Black people. In other words, I use it when I talk to myself. I don’t wish to use it in conversation, though. I live with a White man now who refers to Blacks as niggers as a matter of course. He’s a Centrist Democrat and he supports civil rights 100% and does not support any racist project against Black people. On the other hand, I get the impression that he’s not real wild about Black people, not that he’s ever known any.

He calls Blacks niggers all the time, but I just can’t bring myself to do it, though I’d be more sociable if I did, let’s face it. It’s just such a horrible word, nigger. I can say it to myself, but even then only about select Blacks who have very much earned the epithet. But it’s so hard to say it to another human! There’s something so awful about it.

I ran into a gaggle of young ghetto Black women the other day. They were all hot, so of course I could not help looking at them because, you know, I’m not gay?

That’s what I’d say. If some shithead ever complained to me, “Look at that man over there! He’s looking at women!”…well, first of all, let’s hope I never meet anyone that stupid ever again. But should I have such a misfortune, I’d like to say, “Well, God bless him! At least he’s heterosexual!” With a shrug of my shoulders and a chuckle. Isn’t that the coolest thing you can say about some idiot bitching about a man trying to fulfill his basic human needs?

Cunts, I mean women, excuse me, just don’t get it. They are stark raving furious at us straight men because, get this – we have the temerity, the audacity, the very nerve – to actually look at women when we are out and about. According to cunts, this makes us evil. We men are literally evil for looking at women. Don’t ask me why they think this. They’re dumb bitches and lame cunts. What reason do they have for any crazy thing they think? Do you ask a two year old why they say or do anything? Ok, then.

Anyway, one of these Black cunts yelled, excuse me, shrieked at me, like a mammal in a zoo, “Why are you watching us?” How embarrassing. It would be even more embarrassing except that I, a human, just got yelled at by what appears to be an animal – not even a person – an animal. And dumb as a rock too. What…a…cunt! And she was looking at me too. I would look over there and she would look back at me. I wasn’t even looking at them that much. Look a bit, look away, you know how it goes.

I would like to point out that the behavior of this Black lame cunt was particularly outrageous. You simply don’t do that in a public place unless the man’s behavior is completely out of line. If you don’t like men looking at you, there are other things to do. You can always glare at them. Or ignore them. I get that all day long every single day. Hasn’t killed me yet.

Men look at women all the time as a matter of course. I’ve been doing it my whole life, and almost no one has ever yelled at me. They mostly just get resting bitch face and act like I’m not there.

We straight men literally cannot not look at hot women who are around us. You can try to do it, but something in your mind will keep pulling you back and almost forcing you to look at them. It’s a real struggle to not look at them. It’s like there’s this force constantly trying to break away and look at them. Cunts, I mean women, will still hate us and say we’re evil for looking at them anyway, so I don’t expect to convert anyone here. On the other hand, if there are any non-cunts out there – in other words, real women – this is to help you understand us better. You already suspected we couldn’t help it, right, ladies?

To yell at a man loudly in public for looking at you in the common, typical way that all normal men do is the utter nadir of uncivilized, base, rude, animalistic, and barbaric behavior. I don’t think Black people realize how Goddamned rude so many of them are or how outraged it makes so many of us uptight white bread picket fence housing tract suburban White folks.

I keep trying to explain to them how outraged this sort of rudeness makes us, and it’s like I’m talking to a wall. It’s an extreme, outrageous violation of everything we were brought up to be. It’s the opposite of everything we hold near and dear. Most Black people act like, “What’s the big deal?” They just don’t get it.

Ghetto Blacks engage in behavior, day in and day out, all day long, every day, all year long, until they die of the sort that you almost never see growing up in a White community. They do things routinely that would cause the most utterly scandalous outrage in the communities we grew up in and are still a part of. I don’t think Black people will ever comprehend how much this offends and outrages us.

Spics, Beaners, Latrinos, Mexicants, Miggers, and Mexiniggers!

I don’t like to use of those slurs towards Mexicans or Hispanics. Although you gotta admit, some of them are damn funny.

Mexicants? +1.

Latrinos? LOL oh man, whoever made that up is genius.

Miggers? Mexiniggers? Those are just mean, come on.

Spics? Old.

Beaners? Old and tired.

They’re all over around here, and honestly, they don’t act very bad at all. They’re quite tolerable on a day to day acquaintanceship basis. Now, once you start making friends with them, it’s a whole other ballgame, but still, a shocking number of them are quite decent people.

I take my car to a Guatemalan guy. I shop at a local store with a Salvadoran guy behind the counter. I just got my haircut by a Mexican woman. I just got my tires changed at a store that hires a bunch of Mexicans.

They are all immigrants. The immigrant Hispanics actually act better than the ones who are born here. Once they’re born here, they grow up as part of shitty, rude American culture

It’s generally better to take your car to “the Mexicans” as we call them here because they tend to be cheaper, and they do quite good work.

Also, they are very laid back. The Guatemalan guy lets me buy my own parts and bring them in. He just charges me labor. No White mechanic ever lets you do that.

Also, they don’t necessarily close at 5. White mechanic? 5:01, the door’s shut, and they won’t be very nice about it, either.

Plus, the “Mexicans” are usually very nice. The White guys? All White people know what uptight dicks White people can be. Uptight and downright unfriendly. The Mexicans are not like that at all. Very friendly, effusive, warm, outgoing. The Mexican mechanic is your best friend.

I practice my Spanish with all these guys, and they just love me to death for speaking three words of their language. Plus I can speak it far better than your average gringo idiot my age, so that gets points. They point to me and say with eyes open with wonder, “He speaks Spanish!” like they can’t believe their eyes. Plus, my accent is pretty good because I started learning at six. A guy at the bank likes to call the other bank tellers around. Then he tells me to say something in Spanish. I start rattling away and he turns to them and says, “See?” They shake their heads, “Yeah, you’re right.”

Towelheads, Ay-rabs, Mudslimes, Sandniggers, and Camel-jockeys!

I don’t use any of those slurs towards Arabs because I like Arabs. They’re too nice. How can you use a slur towards a nice person? How cold are you? We had Yemenis and Syrians here in this town. And I just met a Palestinian the other day. And Iraqis run the gas station. A Jordanian guy used to work there. The Yemenis, Palestinians, Iraqis, and the Jordanian were effusively friendly. Great people. The Syrians are a mixed bag but some were pretty friendly. They were Christians so they were a bit more reserved. The Muslims are so warm it’s shocking.

Dotheads and Curryniggers!

I don’t use any of those slurs towards Indians because I like Indians. Although curryniggers is funny! I gotta admit it!

We have Punjabis around here. They’re pretty nice. Not nearly as friendly as the Arabs or Hispanics but friendly enough. They sort of keep their distance for some odd reason. I think they don’t really wish to assimilate. And they look just like White people. Their religion is an improvement on shitty Hinduism. At least they’re monotheistic.

Chinks, Gooks, Slants, Chiggers, and Japs!

I don’t use any slurs against Asians. Chiggers is nice though, even though it’s really a biting insect. Some of them just deserve it. Come on. A Chinese dude. Trying to act like a rapper? Nigga please. Sit down. See that Black guy over there? Hand the mike to him, please. Thanks.

They’re just too nice and well behaved. How could you call such a decent, civilized, non-animalistic, respectable, well-mannered, well brought up, dignified, classy, polite person a Jap, chink, gook or God forbid, slant. The better a race acts, the harder it is to call them ugly names. The worse a group acts, the more calling them names seems like the right thing – or even the only thing – to do.

Seaniggers!

These are Islanders. I would never call them seaniggers, though I gotta admit, that’s pretty damn funny. I guess it just goes to show you that no matter where you go in the world, there’s always some type of nigger there, and most of them aren’t even Black. And that’s leaving out the wiggers! We’re all a bunch of niggers when it comes down to it. Sort of like World O’Niggers, ya know?

They’re very sensitive about being Islanders because pretty much nobody really likes them because they don’t act real great and they’re a poor fit for Western societies. Here we include the Samoans, Tongans, Hawaaians, Maoris, Chamorros, Marshall Islanders, Saipanese, Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians. There’s nothing really wrong with any of these jolly sun-and-surf loving folks, but then, I’ve never lived near large numbers of them. I used to teach Samoans in school, and a lot of them were pretty funny. They didn’t do any work, but they sure knew how to ham it up.

Abos and Lucys!

Abos of course are Aborigines. I’m afraid they’re not real well-suited for the modern world. Darwin thought they were so poorly adapted for modernity that they’d go extinct. That hasn’t happened yet. I must say I’ve never met me an Aborigine. Calling them Lucys after the primitive proto-hominid chick whose bones were left in Africa 3.3 million years ago is just mean. On the other hand, it’s also hilarious. They are pretty primitive looking, face it. I’d never call an Aborigine an Abo or especially a Lucy. These poor folks have enough problems in this world without us sitting back and using them as verbal dartboards.

Prairie Niggers!

We just can’t get away from these niggers, can we? We think we can escape them, but wherever you go in the world, it seems like you turn around, and whaddaya know, there’s some species of nigger standing right next to you. And most of them aren’t even Black! This is what Canadians call their Indians or Native Americans when they’re in a bad mood. I gotta admit it’s funny. I love all these nigger variations. Might as well spread these slurs around, right? Let’s be fair about this!

Kikes, Jewboys, ((( ))), and Yids!

I do use slurs towards Jews but only towards Israel-firsters and Israelis. They’re monsters anyway, so they’re lucky I even acknowledge their humanity, assuming they even have any, which is increasingly dubious. Aside from that, I could care less about Jews. If you want to know, I call them kikes, even in casual conversation with carefully selected bigots like myself. Coincidence marks ((( ))) are great conversation starters on the web but only for Israel-firsters. Because Israel firsters? That’s what they are. They’re a bunch of Goddamned kikes. You don’t like that? You think that’s antisemitic? Tell you what. You quit being a monster, and I’ll quit calling you a kike? Deal? Whaddaya say?

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

There are two supermarkets in town.

We call one “The Mexi-Mart,” because it’s oriented towards “the Mexicans.” Almost everyone who works there is an Hispanic who speaks Spanish. Almost the entire clientele are Hispanics, many of whom do not speak English. The food is geared towards such a clientele. Don’t even bother to ask them to carry, say, Italian sausage. Don’t ask for anything ethnic. See, Mexicans…or the recent immigrants anyway…only eat one type of food. They eat Mexican food. That’s it. Nothing else. For their whole lives, as long as they live here. Now, the ones who are born here apparently start to develop a palate for different types of food.

Also, they don’t care for health food. Like, any. The thing about Mexicans is that they refuse to eat healthy food. Even after they are born here, they think “health food” is a bad joke. I’ve asked them about certain items in the store and referred to them as health food before, and the second generation Mexican said, “Heath food?!” Like, “Who in the Hell would eat anything that stupid?”

The thing is in the US, the poorer you are, the worse you eat. Which is why a lot of poor people basically deserve every bit of those lousy diseases they get from eating that crap food. They’re committing suicide by fork! Why should I be sorry? Middle class, upper middle class, and upper class people all try to eat well. Healthy food is for those who have money. Everyone else thinks it’s stupid.

The Mexi-Mart has good prices and an easygoing atmosphere. Except I’m banned now for six months for no good reason.

So then there’s the White-Mart. That’s the nicer store that carries everything you could imagine, including expensive and gourmet items, has everything in stock, and even carries health food. They’re more uptight because, you know, Whites are uptight! But they’re not so bad after all. Anyway, the atmosphere is a lot more – high class. It’s not that poor people act bad but more that they have this sort of degraded quality about them. No one who doesn’t speak English shops at the White-Mart. Some 2nd generation+ Hispanics shop there. Lots of White people do. A few Indians do.

There’s no such thing as Black people in my town for all intents and purposes. There are a few here and there. They’re sort of like tourist attractions.

“There! A Black person! Get a picture, quick! Before it runs away!”

You know, like that.

I agree that referring to one supermarket as the Mexi-Mart and the other – the better one, no less – as the White-Mart is horrendously racist. It’s just terrible. I’m an awful person for doing that. I deserve to be cancelled in every way. Oh wait, I already am.

My Mom thinks it’s funny though.

“Where’d you go shopping?”

“Oh, you know, the White-Mart.”

“Hahahaha!”

She’s been trying to get me to go to this new Mexi-Mart, and I just might do it. The food’s always cheaper at a Mexi-Mart.

I finally figured out that people actually pay more money just to shop at a nice, civilized, White-people type place that implies you’ve got some money. They could just as easily slum it up at the cut-rate joint, but you know, that looks just so tacky. Yep. People will actually pay more money for an item just so they have to buy it in some slummy place. That’s seems dumb to me because I love to slum it up, but hey, humans are weird. It’s all about your public image.

Alt Left: A Black Person Wrote This

Growing up, I lived through true systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you it is real. The problem is, it is not coming from White people. Systemic racism in the US is Black racism against Whites! American Black culture was born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system at that time. Yet it has failed to change with the times in society.

Black African Culture is not one that can mix with other cultures because it is by design rebellious and resistant. Everything from language to appearance is almost the direct opposite of “White culture,” for lack of a better term. Asking White people to accept or adapt to the Black culture that has formed in America is not practical or even possible because it is in direct conflict with and geared to rebel against White people and to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

This really isn’t hard to understand. In American Black culture, all White people are “the enemy” from the start. Whites built the civilization that Blacks aspire to but which they aren’t capable of creating among or by themselves. The core mentality – that White people and what White people have created are “the enemy” which must be destroyed – has to change before anything else can.

Black American culture, which is inherently rebellious and based on resentment or hatred of others, is not sustainable, even for it’s own people. Once the rest of society distances itself from that culture, the same rebellious, resentful mentality will cause the people to turn inward against each other because that is all those people know. We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

They are right about systemic race problems, but they are looking to make changes in all the wrong places.

Everyone’s going to scream that this is racism or even ultra-racism. The automatic assumption is he’s a White nationalist, except he’s just some Black guy who got to know his people a little too well.

The truly disturbing thing about this post is: Just how much of it is really true?

For starters, I don’t think Blacks are out to destroy White civilization. The ones here seem like they are, but they’re just idiots. Blacks in general in most of the world do not have destruction of White civilization on their agenda. Further, Blacks are only 13% of the population. 13% of the people will never destroy the civilization of the majority. They just can’t, and most of them don’t even think about it anyway. They’re too busy fucking, getting high, and Holocausting each other to think about us very much, if you ask me.

I agree that Black culture doesn’t mix well with other cultures, but Arab and Islamic societies seem to have figured out a way to work them in. In Latin America, everyone is so mixed that there is no Black culture, for all intents and purposes.

It is basically rebellious and resentful here in the West, but is that true in the Caribbean? Dubious. In Africa? Not really. Only in South Africa.

I agree that here in the US, the rebellion and resentfulness have turned inward onto themselves. That’s clear to me.

I agree that Whites are the enemy, yet nevertheless, many Blacks (a majority?) all want the society that the White Man Built. Except left to their own devices with such a society handed to them on a silver platter, indeed they cannot maintain it. Look at any majority Black large city.

Black people need to live with others. Gathering together masses of Black people unmixed with others just doesn’t seem to work out well.

In a lot of ways, Black Culture is the polar opposite of White Culture, but when you get towards more middle class and/or educated Blacks, the differences between them and us are not severe. Sure, there are differences all right, and I don’t necessarily want a Black girlfriend who hangs mostly with Blacks unless they act pretty White. I’m just not into that culture of theirs, not that it’s terrible in modified form, but it’s just not my culture, and it’s not for me. They can have it.

It is true that asking Whites to adopt Black culture will never work, though many wiggers are trying their darndest. Still, most Whites find this culture abhorrent and want nothing to do with it. It’s like a negation or a polar opposite of everything we believe and value. In addition, this culture is opposed to us, so why would we join a culture that hates us?

to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

Well, yeah, but in North Africa and the Sahel, the Islamic Black Culture is not really so bad. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the Dark Continent forever, probably from the start and certainly before Livingston. This only happens in a place like South Africa, where Whites are 9%, and non-Whites, most of whom are Black, are 91%. Also those Blacks are very unintelligent. US Blacks are much more intelligent than South African Blacks, with an IQ that is ~20 points higher. That’s almost 1.5 standard deviations and this explains much of why US Blacks act so much better in so many ways than African Blacks.

And no, White nationalists, the future of the US is not South Africa! The future of the US is a 91% Black America? Get real.

We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

I agree that we see it in every case where large numbers of Blacks are crowded together, such as in larger cities, typically where they form a majority.

He’s also probably right that there is far more systemic or institutional racism among Blacks towards Whites than the other way around. I’m not really buying the systemic or institutional racism thing. I think it’s mostly a bunch of crap.

Alt Left: Yes, There is Little Classism in Muslim Countries (Because It’s Against Islam)

James Schipper: Was it really very different (highly classist) in Islam?

Yes, Islamic countries are just not like that.

I can’t think of any Arab country that is like that.

No North African country is like that.

Neither Malaysia nor Afghanistan nor the Caucasus nor Xinjiang nor the Stans is not like that. However, Afghanistan was feudal or semi-feudal until recently. That’s why Communism was fairly popular there. An outsider went there in the 1950’s, and he saw groups of young men chanting with their fists in the air, “Kill the rich!” I suppose the Communist revolution did a land reform and got rid of this feudal land tenure system.

Communism was an easy sell in Bosnia and Albania, but Islam is weak there.

Corruption is a bad problem in the Arab World and a rich elite bled Lebanon dry for decades, but they are widely hated, and there is little to no class hatred in Lebanon.

I can’t see any class hatred in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or even in UAE.

I’ve never heard of any real classism in the Sahel, but no one there has any money anyway.

The only African countries with a history of classism were the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa, but there it was racialized, and the classism was imported from Christian Europe. Classism among the Whites of these states themselves was not a problem.

Angola has become very unequal due to oil wealth, but the system is not popular, and most people are ending up poor. They had a successful Communist revolution that remained in power for a long time. The anti-Communist rebels didn’t even have much ideology. Jonas Savimbi of UNITA started out as a Maoist and switched to rightwing capitalist to get money from the West for his revolution.

Africa just doesn’t have a history of European classism. It was always a relatively egalitarian village society. Sure, the chiefs were rich, but they were supposed to provide for everyone.

All of the Gulf Arab states have such extensive social democracies that in a lot of cases, you hardly even have to work. Education and health care is free and housing may be subsidized. UAE is a very rich country and capitalism roars right along, but I don’t see a lot of class hatred. For one thing, everyone in the Gulf is well-off.

As I said, it was different before. Read Ghassan Khanafani (one of the founders of the PFLP) on the lives of fellahin or peasants in debt bondage in semi-feudal Palestine in the 1930’s. Nasser did a land reform in Egypt in the 50’s and he was a hero all over the Arab World. People said they went to Yemen in the 1960’s, and there were Nasser portraits everywhere in the homes of working class people. Nasser’s land reform set off a wave of land reforms in the Arab World. In Syria and Iraq, they were done by the socialist Baath Party. There was never much resistance to the Baath’s socialism. There were large state sectors and good social democracies. Even Saddam was basically a socialist.

Bangladesh is a problem. Pakistan has been discussed but it is Indianized and Hinduized. The same problem may be going on in Bangladesh. The class hatred is vicious in India, but it’s coded as caste hatred instead. So Pakistan and Bangladesh have a sort of Hinduized Islam. But the poverty and class hatred is not nearly as bad in those two states as it is in India and Nepal.

Bahrain and Indonesia are problems for whatever reasons but in Indonesia they had to kill 1 million Communists to get their crappy rightwing capitalist dictatorship. And in the last several years they have been led by a social democrat.

Turkey does have problems with its capitalist class in terms of exploitation of workers. After World War 2, there was a Communist revolution and the Commies almost won. However, there is a huge underground Leftist and Communist movement that regularly sets the factories and yachts of the rich on fire! They’re quite popular. The Kurdish PKK was also Left. Islam is rather weak in Turkey though, and Turkey is Europeanized. Erdogan is actually quite socialist. He’s more socialist than Biden. His brand is Islamism is heavy on the social justice end.

 

Alt Left: Francis Melville on the the Two Principal US Political Parties Views on Sexual Purity and Moral Sanctimoniousness

Absolutely superb comment from Francis Melville on this post.

Well, the Democrats used to be the Victorian prudish ones during the whole Nineteenth Century and through Wilson, and remained so wherever their voting base was Catholic up to 1965 when the Vatican II Council turned the Catholic Church into a liberal thing on most issues that had to ally with liberal forces to get heard in the political arena.

After all, the moral base of the Democratic Party was established under Jackson, and it formed under the influence of the most Calvinistic and sectarian part of the American public opinion.

Up through Wilson, the Democratic Party was more clearly rightwing than the Republican on most issues, while the Republicans took pride in being centre of the road. Even when they came to be the party of Big Business, their principle was clear: separation between church and state and even more between bedroom and state.

They believed you were entitled to a religious life, however wacko, provided you kept it for yourself and never planned to use government to promote it, and you were therefore entitled to any kind of sex life, however un-American, provided you did not involve the Party institutions nor aggressed any non-consenting victim.

Sexual virtue signalling was a Democratic thing as everything populist in general has always been. The alignment changed during the 20th century with Prohibition and consequently progressive thinkers of European origin aligning themselves systematically with the Democratic Party, in particular when the main presenters of these progressive currents happened to be Jews.

But even during the 1950’s as the Catholic church had remained the last bulwark of anti-sexual moralism on the backdrop of a Protestant world which had then succumbed to Utilitarianism, most regressive laws passed by the state in sexual affairs were passed under a Democratic banner. Worse, the Catholic world, like also the Muslim and Hindu world of that time, having little to do with higher morality, was more open to homosexuality and pederasty than to any heterosexual romance, as the latter was deemed a far greater danger to family life.

The McCarthy Era was driven by Irish Catholicism, and Irish Catholics loved to present themselves as the only true representatives and saviors of American values.

Meanwhile, the Republicans were gradually morphing into the party of absolute egoism and negation of public good. Swingers as had been produced by the Sexual Revolution of late Sixties and early Seventies proved to be egoists to a supreme degree and chose to be Republicans Ayn Rand style, most contrary to the hope entertained by Marcuse and others that Sexual Liberation would be the first stepping stone out of capitalistic Puritanism into the Long March towards a more just society.

In general, sexually speaking, dominant males’ dream is not sexual free choice for all but for themselves only as a tiny group on the backdrop of a puritanical society guaranteeing them an endless supply of innocent female prey that will make an exception to the Puritanism only under economic duress and due to the prohibition of them being pursued by impoverished males.

Reagan Republicans’ alliance with Moral Majority is to be seen in that perspective, both inside the non-believing wing of the Republican Party and inside the Evangelist sects also, where the main preachers always copy the great polygamous Biblical patriarchs, while imposing Puritanism on the masses of their attendants that haven’t studied the Bible deeply enough to know and realize the game.

The fake Protestant Republicans made their show in pure contradiction with what the Republicans, even the very right-wing ones, had been through. Eisenhower embraced religion in pure contradiction with that party’s stance of refusal of any reference to religion in the political sphere.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were quietly reverting, under corporate donor pressure and especially under Zionist Jewish pressure, to what they had been in Dixie times – there is no need to look further. The Democratic Party never stopped being multicultural, and that included necessarily that religious identities of all sorts had never ceased to be the party of confusion between the political and the religious spheres.

Traditionally, it was the Catholic Church as a provider of militants from Irish and Latino backgrounds, but now that since Vatican II the Roman Church no longer wanted to play the same role as it used to, a Virtual Catholic Church has formed.

It is made up of an alliance of Whites claiming progressivism but practicing astrology and other occult sciences as to cater for their own spiritual needs and more colored people practicing non-Christian ultra-conservative religions such as Islam and Hinduism, and calling for the unification of the world under this undefined-but-more-totalitarian-than-ever faith.

Celts who leave Catholicism and revert back to some sort Druidism are always puritanical to the highest degree, as they equate sexual energy with ultimate financial capital and as always being against of any form of social justice scheme, since they believe in karma, not divine grace.

It must be first well-understood that contrary to what a superficial cultural cliché teaches about Germanic conqueror tribes enslaving peaceful Celtic ones, Germanic cultures have always fallen for hippie (long hair, self-indulgence, social redistribution in favor of workers and artists) values when left alone to themselves in small nations, and Celtic cultures for skinhead or Hell’s Angels values (shaven heads, androgynous look, food fascism under various pretexts, indifference to misery).

Alt Left: The Idiocy and Uselessness of Modern Anti-racism

The Nigger Word

I refuse to call it the n-word as I’m not a hypersensitive homosexual. I’m a real man, so I can handle real words, even not-nice words. I’m tough enough. I can deal. Throw it at me. All you got. I’ll sit here and take it like a man.

A 15 year old girl calls her White friends niggers on a video because that is what she and her friends call each other and her life is wrecked by the Fuddy Duddy Antiracist Left. You know, like Black people do?

A country singer calls his friend a nigger as they are going home on a weekend and his career is almost wrecked. He and his friends call each other niggers. You know, like Black people do?

A professor of Chinese discusses a phrase called nee gah in Chinese, which means something or other. Anyway it’s frequently used, whatever the Hell it means. Some sissy Black guys heard that word and wet the bed that night because they hallucinated that the professor he said “nigger.”What a bunch of homos.

A law professor puts a question on a test about discrimination law. It describes an incident where a White woman calls a Black women a nigger, among other things. Some Black girlyman sees it and says he almost had a heart attack. If he’s that much of a sissy, I’m sorry he didn’t have a heart attack! Last thing we need is more pussy men.

Various people have been fired from high-paying jobs and got their careers wrecked for having discussions along the lines of, “Hey, if Black people can say nigger, why can’t we Whites say it?” There is a reasonable answer to this from Black people – that it means one thing when Blacks say it and another when Whites do – but that’s not always the case and anyway, it’s a reasonable area of discussion.

We can’t even say the word or write it out because too many Black manginas might wet their pants. Oh poor babies!

Black Men Have Turned into a Bunch of Crybaby Sissies

Hey stupid Black people! We aren’t talking about you, you wet blanket, no fun, party pooper, crybaby sissies! I thought you Black men were tough. All I see is a bunch of crybabies anymore.

What the Hell, men? Black men act like girls now. Someone says one word and they piss their pants and say they’re having a heart attack. You all are acting like a bunch of faggots, man.

Knock it off and man up. That was one thing we White people liked about  Black men. At least you’re masculine! You’re masculine as Hell! Too masculine really. Well, that’s all gone now. You say one word to a Black guy and he says you broke his eardrum and he will need two months of therapy. Nothing but a bunch of girlymen. Pathetic!

Some guy says uses the term Black hole when discussing matters relating to a mostly Black city council and the NAACP, now an utterly worthless organization of morons and dipshits, has a shit-fit. These dumbass Blacks thought he was calling Black people “Black holes” when really he was using the term astronomically in some sense.

All of this shows useless, pointless, and ultimately insane modern anti-racism is.

Martin had a point. So did Malcolm. So did the Panthers. They were at least talking about some real shit. Now it’s nothing but a bunch of queers and screaming vixen who get offended and wet their pants 500 times a day. Oh poor babies! Need to go to your safe space now so you can cry?

The Problem of Hate Facts

James Watson the discover of the double helix DNA structure, tells the truth, that Black people simply are not as smart as White people, and his career is wrecked. Because everyone said he told a racist lie. But what he said is straight up pure scientific fact. No one who studies these matters regards this as a controversial statement anymore. The debate ended decades ago. But the word never filtered down to popular culture, which is still pushing the belief, moronic on its face, that the human races are basically equal. They evolved differently in different places, so why on Earth would anyone expect them to be equal.

Even the expectation is idiotic. It’s barely even a hypothesis worth testing as it’s so stupid that it almost blows it at the hypothesis level. Yet this retarded belief in the equality of the races in all things is the current view of mainstream US society. Deviate from it and tell the scientific truth at your own risk. If you tell the truth, you lose your job and your career. The only way to stay afloat in this dumb society is mouth a bunch of stupid lies that anyone with half a brain knows is wrong. It’s almost like Idiocracy has already arrived.

Repost: A Skunk and Potatoes Man

Repost from the old site.

When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.

The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.

We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.

Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.

You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.

You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.

You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.

You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!

I think you get the picture.

This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.

In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.

I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?

Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.

Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.

There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.

There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.

Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.

You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.

It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.

I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.

Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.

There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.

Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.

I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.

As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.

So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.

Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.

I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.

Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.

Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”

Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.

Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.

As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.

The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.

Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.

After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.

I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.

Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.

I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.

Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.

Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)