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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The surveys are all wrong.

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

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

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

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

The only thing stopping them is stigma.

Alt Left: Is Anti-Semitism Leftwing or Rightwing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Jewish Bolshevism Nonsense

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

  1. Jews
  2. Communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rahul:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Book Review: “The Negro in Jamaica: : Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London”

Book Review: The Negro in Jamaica: Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London, by Bedford Pim. 1868. London: Trubner & Company.

Great for the first half, the second half is rather boring. It concerns a report to a British anthropological society about the uprisings of the Blacks in Jamaica in the 1800’s when it was a British colony. The portrayal of Blacks here is not complementary at all, and it would be called racist in modern terms.

However, this portrayal is not racist at all. I believe it was simply observational with keen eye of objectivity. The Black man in the Caribbean and in Africa for that matter was a forlorn specimen, barbarous and savage in the worst possible way.

I will briefly add that the book is racist in the way it patronizingly defends colonialism and says the Blacks of Jamaica were not mistreated when obviously they were. The report also says that Blacks cannot govern themselves, which is dubious.  They can govern themselves. Not very well, but they can do it. They do it in the Caribbean, in Africa and even in large US cities. The only solution to this problem then was that Blacks should be put under permanent supervision of Whites until they had gradually become civilized.

By the way, this was also the colonially stated beneficent rationale for apartheid. For all I know, they may have been honest about it. South African Whites felt that Blacks had to be held under apartheid bondage until such time as they had achieved civilization enough to live on equal terms with Whites.

Be that as it may, apartheid was still immoral and had to be done away. Why? Because it was simply the right thing to do and for no other reason. The fact that South Africa has gone seriously downhill under Black rule is irrelevant. Humans have a right to self-rule, and whether they do so well or not so well is strictly up to them.

The solution advocated in this book is to continue to bring Blacks from Africa and work them on five year contracts for White plantation owners, after which they would be returned to Africa. One cannot help but notice that the endless insistence here that the Black man cannot rule himself just so happens to provide a rationale for Britain to retain the colonial possession of Jamaica. Wink win.

Although of course you can see shadows of this barbarous behavior in modern day Africa, the Caribbean and the US Black underclass, what is shocking is the growth of the Black middle class since the Civil Rights era and how they do not resemble the degraded race portrayed here in any way, shape, or form. A large percentage of the Blacks have become, in a word, civilized. The problem was not so much genetic or biological as cultural.

Via exposure to White society over 150+ years, a large percentage of Blacks, the Black middle class, have become civilized people. They bear no resemblance to the barbarous brutes in this book at all. One would be shocked if they were told that they were of the same race. Indeed the difference is so profound that the only sane conclusion is that we are talking about two different races, which is of course not true.

The message here is that integration is the way to go. The deficiencies of Blacks are not so much biological as cultural. All Blacks needed was the guiding hand of the civilizing impulse, as is the case with so many other human groups.

The other message is that White people are good for Blacks. I should amend this to say that good White people are good for Blacks. Obviously, White slavers or enforcers of Jim Crow in the US and elsewhere in the Americas was not good for Blacks, athough this book tries to make the case that it is.

It’s good for Blacks to mix with good, decent Whites or even to marry with said Whites. Left on their own to congregate in large cities, they act like crabs in a barrel, pulling down anyone who tries to escape and driving each other down to the lowest common denominator in a race for the bottom behaviorally. Large groups of Black people don’t seem to work. Blacks act best as a rather small minority, 20% or less, in a larger group of Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

The Blacks don’t have any numbers, so they don’t influence each other much. Further, the same Blacks who would obviously degrade quickly in the hood do much better when integrated, as they try to mimic the behavior of the races around them, races which tend to set the bar higher behaviorally.

Integration works. The way to ameliorate the Black problem in the US or any other land is to thoroughly mix them in small numbers with Whites, Hispanics or Asians. This brings out the best in the Blacks. It’s good for us, for them, and for society. Everyone wins.

Integration today, integration tomorrow, integration forever!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar”

The title is very misleading. There is a theory put out by White nationalists that Blacks could not even build a boat to get to Madagascar. Yet is appears that they did just that. Very short. Download as pdf for best experience.

Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar

Racism in Latin America, with an Emphasis on Anti-Black Racism

Tulio: It seems the Latin America right is mostly dominated by whites. I yet to see many dark brown Amerindian leaders of right wing movements in Latin America. They seem to be all people of European descent.

Yep. White people act pretty horrific down there.
I know you don’t like Chavez, but he is the hero of the Blacks and Browns down there. The opposition is mostly White and light-skinned. During the recent rioting, the opposition attacked some Black Venezuelans on the assumption that they were Chavez supporters and set them on fire in the streets.
The Opposition habitually called Chavez a mono or a monkey. He was a zambo, a mixture of Black, White, Indian. This mixture is pretty common in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. I have read interviews with members of the opposition. One was an unmarried White upper class man in his late 20’s who lived at home. He said he felt so insulted every time he saw Chavez because it was like his people (upper middle class Whites) were being ruled by their maids and gardeners. The idea that this proud White man should be ruled by his inferiors was infuriating.
Peru is an extremely racist society. Now it’s mostly against the Indians, it’s true. They hardly have any Blacks. There was recently a case of a beautiful Black woman who tried to get into an exclusive nightclub in the wealthy Miramar District of Lima and she was turned away at the door. I guess they had a “No Blacks” policy.
Chile is incredibly racist against Indians, and they are supposedly one of the most progressive countries down there. I had a friend whose father had worked in Allende’s administration. He was a sociology major and he was doing some work with the Mapuche Indians who  live in the South. But his racism against those Indians was off the charts. Chileans are extremely racist Peruvians, and most of it is wrapped around the idea that Peruvians have much more Indian blood than the Chileans do, though the average White Chilean is ~25% Indian.
I’m not sure how racist things are in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil. Some people say that Colombian Whites are extremely racist against Blacks, but others said it’s not the case.
Actually in Latin America there is the phenomenon of social race. A wealthy Latin American told me that even Black Latin Americans can be completely accepted in wealthy White circles if they only have enough money.
This phenomenon is called social race. It is especially prominent in places like Brazil. So a wealthy Black Brazilian can be effectively “White” and a poor White in a favela (there are many Whites in favelas) is effectively Black or mixed race (a wigger).
Racism is forbidden by law in Brazil but it still exists. I think there was a case recently where a White woman was in an elevator and she would not let a Black person in the elevator with her. It generated a lot of controversy. Nevertheless, there is a racial hierarchy. White women are regarded as wives and mothers but not so much as sex objects. In fact, they are too pure for that. Black women are regarded as unattractive. Their only use is maybe to be your maid. However, mixed race mulatta women are the most highly prized of all, and even White men see them as the sexiest women of all. They are sexualized as sex objects.
I had a White Brazilian woman who was my friend for a while. She mostly spoke Portuguese so it was hard to talk to her. I told her, “You try not to be racist against Blacks here, but it’s hard.” She agreed with me, and said, “Yes, I agree, we try not to be racist too, but it’s hard. We Whites have a saying here in Brazil, ‘If a Black doesn’t steal from you when he’s coming, he steals from you when he’s going.” In other words, if he doesn’t steal from you when he’s walking in the door, he will definitely steal from you when he is walking out the door. So even down there Blacks are regarded as thieves.
There’s not a lot of racism in the Caribbean because there are almost no Whites. However, the mulattos in Dominican Republic are extremely racist against the Blacks in Haiti. They still enslave them, for Chrissake.
Mexico, I am not sure, but in barrio culture here, low class Hispanics are much more racist against “mayate” Blacks than Whites are. The mestizos are openly racist, much more so than the Whites who probably think open racism is uncouth as Mexican Whites are very into being proper, mannered people. In there is open racism against Blacks in Mexico at least in the media. Further, the Mexican media is ~100% White. I have told Mexican-Americans that they are 4% Black and they don’t believe me. They also act a bit insulted. But it’s true. Every regular mestizo Mexican you meet is ~4% Black. The population just bred in with the Blacks and practically wiped them out except for a few around Veracruz. They simply bred them out of existence and everyone ended up with a bit of Black in them.

The Menace of Trump's Alter Ego Bolsonaro in Brazil

Tulio: Robert, do you have any thoughts on Bolsanaro? Looks like Brazil is about to take a hard right turn toward fascism. Steven Bannon is down there advising him. The thought of that fucker makes me physically ill.

He’s a monster, of course. I had no idea that half of Brazil’s population were reactionary Rightist maniacs. He’s worse than Trump. I have met two Brazilian Rightists and they were out and out monsters. Both absolutely hated democracy. One was a Brazilian Jew and the other is the former commenter Santoculto.
They’re murderous, as bad as the Bolivian, Venezuelan, Salvadoran, and Nicaraguan Right. They’re not as murderous as the Haitian, Guatemalan, Honduran, and Colombian Right, but they definitely kill people. A Black woman who organized in the Brazilian favelas was recently murdered by the Right government that is in power now.
This Bolsonaro had as part of his project putting on trial and executing all of the former armed rebels from the 1960’s. He has the support of the reactionary military in that. Thing is though, the last president was a former urban guerrilla from the 1960’s and her government was full of former guerrillas, so he’s openly advocating the trial and execution of  most of the former government.

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

The Murderous, Democracy-Hating Latin American Right

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

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

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

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

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

From Le Bon to Mussolini to Trump, a Single Unbroken Strand

DpFzByQUYAAeh-4
Le Bon -> Mussolini -> Trump.

DpFzHeYV4AA3Mdy
Le Bon -> Mussolini -> Trump.

And those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, of course.

The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.
– William Faulkner

And…There’s something to be admired about the way the Chinese always take the long view of history and reality itself for that matter.

Interviewer: What do you as Chinese premier, think of the French Revolution [that took place 200 years ago]?
Chou en Lai, Premier of the People’ Republic of China: It’s too soon to tell.
– Interview with Chinese premier Chou en Lai, 1970’s

The Mysterious Incompetent Black Employee

Of course you can go on racist forums and see racists fomenting on and on about the incompetent Black employee, often offering examples of such. Fair enough. That’s their experience.
However, some of these stories didn’t have a whole lot behind them. Some just argued for a more relaxed style of working which doesn’t rise to the level of laziness unless you are a workaholic prig. There was also an idea that the employees could not wait to get out of the office at 5. But I worked at an office full of White and Amerindian employees who did the same thing. Once again this implies a more relaxed working style, which I for one don’t mind, as I am done with White workaholic bastards.
There are stories about coming in habitually late. My mother experienced a Black employee like that at the college she worked at. Her boss wanted to fire the woman but was stymied over union rules and fears of a discrimination lawsuit. You have to admit that being stymied from firing a lousy employee for reasons like that is disgusting.
I haven’t experienced much of the “incompetent Black employee.” Sure racists go on and on about it, but I have worked with significant numbers of Blacks over the years in many different occupations, and I saw very little evidence of this.
I worked in a medical coding office for a while, and we had some Blacks working there. Some even lived in the heart of the ghetto. They were all fine workers. Never saw any problems.
I worked as a security guard at one of the richest communities in the US. A young Black man worked with me. He was the “jolly Black” or easygoing Black guy type, but he did his job just fine. He was always happy and very friendly, and he had a lot of wisdom about life, including how to lead a less worried and stressed life.
Most of the rest of the jobs I worked at were in White communities, and there were only a few Blacks working there. The ones who worked there were just fine. I remember they fired a Black woman who worked night shift at my factory for no apparent reason other than to shove 16 hours of work on my swing shift. She was part of that ghetto culture, but she was basically a very good person. Many people who live in that culture are not bad people at all. This is what people don’t understand.
Of course I worked at jobs where they would not tolerate this nonsense anyway, so maybe I am looking at a self selected group.
Most of my experience was with Black educational professionals, both Black schoolteachers, Black administrators, and Blacks who worked in the district office. I saw almost no evidence of incompetence among any of these Black education professionals the entire time I worked in the field. And keep in mind that I worked in the heart of the ghetto in Compton and Gardena for a lot of that time. I met quite a few of these Black teachers and got to know some of them fairly well, especially the men. They were very nice people, and they were quite competent. I never got to know the women much for some reason.
I did work one day in Watts, and some Black kid stole my car battery. Some Black shop teacher helped me fix it. Things were extremely lax there and the students were almost completely useless, but even there I did not see evidence of incompetence among the Black school professionals. The administrators in Watts were mostly Black, and they were extremely laid back, relaxed, and easygoing. I didn’t see any incompetence and they were far less hard-ass than White administrators. The students were almost completely useless there anyway as I found in my joke of a day teaching, so why should the administrators care about much? They were keeping the ship going.
There was one Black teacher in Gardena who was apparently an alcoholic, and he showed movies all day. I suppose they had a hard time firing him for some reason. But he was so nice, friendly, happy go lucky, and easygoing that I almost didn’t even care that he was an alc. He was too pleasant of a person to hate.
Now you have to jump through a lot of educational and testing hoops to even do that job in the first in the first place, so maybe there is some self-selection.
I’m not saying there is nothing to the incompetent Black employee stereotype. I am simply suggesting that there is a lot less there than meets the eye. If it was omnipresent, I would have experienced it by now.
The way to deal with this problem to the extent it exists at all is to hold Black employees to the same high standards that you hold the rest of your employees. Fire them if they come in late all the time, screw off, or are incompetent. Hold the sword of firing over their heads at all times. Many Black adults, if held to high standards and demands and powerful threats of firing, will perform remarkably well on the job. Relaxed standards don’t help any race or group of people.

Mass Immigration Has Resulted in a Decline In the Intelligence of America

Sami: You may be right, but mass immigration from the 3rd world has been going on for 53 years. And only a 2 point IQ drop. That doesn’t strike me as, quite, catastrophic.

It has exploded in recent years. In the 1970’s, there were only 300-400,000 immigrants/year, and illegal immigration was almost zero. In the 80’s, it exploded and it’s been off the charts ever since. In addition, Hispanics have exploded as a percentage of the population from a very low number to ~17%. In fact, that could easily account for the decline right there – a relatively low IQ population (IQ = 90) exploding as a percentage of the population.
Let me tell you: This state was completely different in the 1970’s and early 80’s than it is today. My state is like the Goddamned United Nations now. You go to downtown LA and you would not even think you were in America. The Bay Area doesn’t look the United States either. In LA you can drive for miles and miles and scarcely see one sign in the English language.
I do not think a 2 point IQ drop is catastrophic, but it is a bit alarming. The very notion that mass immigration should result in national IQ drops alone is completely insane. What country would voluntarily mass import people of lower intelligence and subsequently lower the intelligence of the nation? It’s madness.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Mitch McConnell Is Gay

This post has been updated with a lot of new information further bolstering the case that Mitch McConnell is gay.
Mitch McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. It is sometimes said that Mitch McConnell is gay, and indeed this appears to be the case.
This is what we know about Mitch McConnell’s homosexuality:
What is known, though extremely covered up, is that around 1964, Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the US Army for an incident whereby Mitch McConnell propositioned another male solider and grabbed his penis at the same time. The soldier reported this to his superiors, who took action against McConnell. Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the Army for engaging in homosexual activity, but since he was a Senate aide in the summer, he used the Senator he worked for to pull punches and get the reason Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the Army changed from gay sex to having some sort of eye illness which it turns out he didn’t even have.
The Powers That Be then buried this case so deep that it took a progressive journalist forever digging through US government records to finally figure out what was going on. He was obstructed at every turn of the highway.
At any rate, what is known is that Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the US military for homosexual activity. And this needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Documentation on the case? Google is your friend.
There is further evidence for this charge. Mitch McConnell has been spotted in Thailand at least once or possibly more than once. Mitch McConnell was seen at private parties in Thailand where wealthy and powerful gay and bisexual American men procure young Thai males for gay sex. In at least one instance, Mitch McConnell was seen with one of his boy-toys at one of these parties.
These reports come from excellent sources very close to McConnell.
And although Mitch McConnell’s sexuality is a very tightly held secret, it is said that all of McConnell’s closest friends “are fully aware Mitch McConnell’s sexual orientation” and have agreed to keep it a closely held secret.
He is married to Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under George Bush. Chao’s family is an extremely corrupt political crime family connected to the fascist KMT in Taiwan. He has fathered a number of children by this woman, but many gay. Posters on gay bulletin boards report that Chao and McConnell have long had separate bedrooms.
I received some emails after this story was printed. A man told me that he knew the President of Kentucky State University very well. The University President told this man that it was well-known that Mitch McConnell was gay.
I received another email from a Louisville police officer. He told me that McConnell had been caught engaging in gay sex late at night with men in Louisville parks that were known as gay cruise spots. Higher-ups had ordered that McConnell be released each time. I do not know if he was arrested or simply detained in these cases. If he was just detained, there will be no police report. If he was arrested, there will be a report. However, a colleague of mine, a documentary filmmaker who is researching for a film on McConnell, did a search for police reports on any McConnell arrests and he could find any.
This post was recently linked to the Reddit group Gaybros. A commenter stated that McConnell is definitely gay and is a regular at a popular Washington DC gay bathhouse called The Crew Club.
I recently received a comment from Kentucky man who informed me that McConnell had molested a boy of unknown age when McConnell was judge executive in Kentucky. This boy is now a grown man and to this day, he is terrified of McConnell. From the comment:

McConnell is not so much as gay as a rapist that will fuck your kids when you’re not looking. You want to believe in demons? There, you’ve got one [in Mitch McConnell].

Judge Executive is not a judge. It is more like the head of the county, sort of like “mayor of the county.” While he was Judge Executive, McConnell made a name for himself in prosecuting rapists, child molesters and sexual assaulters. If this report is true, it looks like we might be looking at a case of reaction formation, which would not be unusual for a politician as many politicians use this defense mechanism.
Mitch McConnell is definitely gay and has been actively engaging in homosexual sex since adolescence.

Alt Left: Is US Immigration Dysgenic?

Sami: Very good points, Thinking Mouse.
The majority of our immigration comes from Latin American, average present IQ 90-95, and from East Asia, average present IQ 100-107. This averages out to close to 100 as it is, if you look at those two groups in combination. And this doesn’t take into account the Flynn Effect (though, unfortunately, I doubt Mexican American Barrio culture, as it presently is, at least, is something that would do much to accelerate the Flynn Effect, sorry to say.
And we get smaller input from places like the Middle East, present average IQ 84-90, if Richard Lynn’s methods for assessing this are valid (highly questionable, at best). However, Arab Americans and Iranian Americans both have average incomes and average levels of educational attainment — both considered to be rough proxies for average IQ — than the White American average. So, it is clear, that within American culture (in stark contrast to the case with Europe) those groups seem to be Flynn-effected upward.
In short, I am unconvinced that our present immigration policy is dysgenic.

Instead of simply not being Flynn-effected, I would argue that barrio culture is actually IQ-impairing. I don’t have any evidence for that, but I can hardly think of a more aggressively, belligerently, arrogantly ignorant culture in the US. Even US Black culture is more educated and intellectual than US barrio culture. Isn’t that pitiful?
Latin America does NOT have an average IQ of 90-95. Most of the immigration is from Mexico, IQ 90. The rest is from Central America, IQ 85-90. Average IQ of Hispanics in the US is ~90. We don’t get that much immigration from East Asia. China is where most of it comes from, IQ 105. Combined together, you get IQ 96, but there are many more Hispanics, so that lowers it to ~93. At the end of the day we don’t know what the IQ of immigrants, legal and illegal, is in the US.
Hispanic IQ in the US is not undergoing any Flynn rises compared to Whites. It just stays at 90. Arab and Iranian IQ is not high, but in the US, they may be selected. Anyway, they appear much smarter than Hispanics here in the US, whatever their IQ’s are.
You have only to look at large Hispanic communities to see that the IQ is not the same as a nearby White town. This Hispanic city here may have an IQ of 93. I came from a nearby White town which probably had IQ of 100. The differences were so stark it was shocking. So you can see that even seven IQ points at a macro scale like that has a huge effect on the intelligence of a city. You can really see IQ differences when you look at whole cities full of people of different IQ’s.
US IQ has always been 100. In recent years it has fallen to 98. How did that happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

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

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Praise for the Conservative Left

Although the SJW author of the piece that quotes Selbourne in the New Statesman attacks Selbourne, what Selbourne describes is nothing less than the Alt Left itself.
In a very early bulletin board post, a poster described my Alternative Left as conservative Leftists.” When Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York in 1969, he called himself a left conservative. Mailer has continued to describe himself as a left conservative to this day.
Well, that’s exactly what we are.
We are somewhat socially conservative on the Cultural Left Freakshow, but we are Left on everything else. According to our dispensation, Selbourne would be Alt Left, as he despises the moronic SJW Left. And as he brilliantly points out, the unlimited freedoms (not really unlimited though as look at how SJW Feminism wants to stop heterosexual flirting, dating and sex) to be as weird and crazy as you want are really the freedoms of neoliberalism.
This is radical individualism taken to its ultimate without any regard for the good of society. And radical individualism in Culture goes right along with radical individualism is business and the rest of society. If government has to get out of the lives of all the SJW freaks, then obviously it has to get out of the lives of US business and the rich too, right?

Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also.

Capitalism runs on a culture of individualism, and radical individualism is the ultimate capitalist society. Capitalists say, “There is no such thing as society.”
And in a Cultural Left world where everyone is running around flying their freak flag du jour, there’s no society either. Everyone has a different hair color. Everyone has a different sexual micro-orientation and gender micro-identity.
Everyone is divided against everyone else. The women workers are egged on to hate the male workers. The Black workers are egged on to hate the White workers. The gay workers are encouraged to hate the straight workers. The tranny workers are prompted to hate the cisgender workers. Everyone hates everyone. No one works together on any societal goals because everyone hates each other too much.
Now that the working class is divided into factions at each other’s throats, society is demolished, all humans are atomized, and the capitalists can go on their merry rapacious way, destroying everything in their path, including whatever is left of society, like they always do.

In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence.

I like how he describes the Cultural Left as the free market of culture. That’s exactly what it is!

David Selbourne, in the left-of-center New Statesmen, writes::
With socialism at the end of its historical evolution, the “Left” now lacks a coherent sense of what progress is. It has only a ragbag of causes and issues, rational and irrational, urgent and idle: a politics of personal rights and ‘lifestyle choices’, of anti-racism and environmental protection, of multicultural separatism, individual identity and gender, and much else besides.
Neither rhyme nor reason — and certainly not socialist reason — can be made of it, especially when mere transgression is confused with progress.
In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence. Nor is today’s ‘freedom’n’liberty’, whether Right or ‘Left’, the freedom fought for in the Reformation or in the revolutionary overthrow of the anciens régimes. It is not the freedom for which the 19th-century emancipationists and the suffragettes struggled. It is the freedom to do what one wants and the devil take the hindmost. No wonder that the far Right is advancing.
There is ignorance too in this pseudo-Left Libertarianism. It is reactionary, not progressive, to promote the expansion of individual freedoms without regard to the interests of the social order as a whole. Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also. The rapacious equity trader has as much right to be free as you or me; these ‘rights’ differ only in scale and consequence, not in essence.

I would actually agree with the following, and this is why I am an extreme statist at heart because face facts, socialism is statism taken to its ultimate ends.
From the Libertarian author:

It grabbed the methods of conservatism, embracing state power as the means of planning permissable changes and preventing others.

We don’t hate the state. We love the state! The state is the people personified as a single governmental entity, acting in the interests of the people to whom it serves, as Mao points out.

“The effort to escape from State control has always been the sign of liberty; the effort to enforce State control has always been the sign of Conservative reaction.” For this reason: “Socialism, in so far as it postulates State control, is Conservative in thought.”
Oliver Brett, Defense of Liberty, 1922

Fine. We are conservatives then. We are the Conservative Left!

Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton, concurred: “The truly ‘radical’ movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, ‘radical’ is today almost synonymous with ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. …It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, ‘progressive’ and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.”
Socialism and Modern Life, 1952

Fine, not a problem! I was always wondering when the Rightists and Libertarians would reclaim the word liberal.

Walter Lippman wrote: “…I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word.”
Carl A. Keyser, Spare None: the Federal Octopus: How it Grew and Other Tales, 1972
 

Sounds good.
Liberal historically has never meant anything like US social liberalism. In most of the world, liberal is a dirty word. It’s synonymous with neoliberalism. Liberalism in economics means classical liberal or neoclassical economics. It’s Ricardo and Smith all the way to Mises and Hayek, without stopping.
In the rest of the world, it tends to mean the “free minds and free markets” garbage that American reactionary foreign policy claims to support in their lying propaganda. Note once again the tie-in of social freedoms with freedom of Capital. You want free elections, gay rights, feminism, porn, civil liberties and the rest? Fine, you have to let the market run free with no restictions from the state whatsoever.
According to this nonsense, you can’t have free minds without free markets, and you can’t have free markets without free minds. Any restrictions on the free market are automatically symptomatic of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
This is why every Left government on Earth immediately gets called a dictatorship by US foreign policy. Because to the sick American way, socialism in any way,  shape or form is automatically undemocratic and dictatorial by its very nature.
This nonsense places economics over politics as Economics Uber Alles. Here economics determines the nature of the state.
If the market is free, you have a democracy automatically, no questions asked. Never mind the death squads that just murdered 200,000 people and all the peaceful opposition, the election that was just stolen, the US sponsored coup to “restore democracy” that resulted in the 17 year long “democracy saving” dictatorship, the politicized police, army, judiciary, the rich owning all the media and rendering freedom of speech a sick joke, the money-based elections giving rise to the “democracy of the dollar” and the dictatorship over the people.
And if  you have any type of socialism, you automatically have a dictatorship. I suppose Norway and Sweden must be dictatorships then. Never mind that you have the freest and fairest elections on Earth as they have in Venezuela. No matter. Elections can never be free enough in a socialist country. Even if they are the freest and fairest elections on Earth, it’s automatically a dictatorship simply by dint of being socialist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: A Conversation about the Plague Called Modern Feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Feminist Cancer Strikes Oxford, Soon Goes Malignant

Feminist poison strikes Oxford, turns many female students into man-scared and man-hating dykes or shut-ins, turns men into terrified incels. 
This is leftwing progress! The Modern Left is pathetic!
[By Damian Thomson, from The Spectator, 13 June 2015] Oxford’s New Feminist Hit Squad: Cute Tumblr. Scary Politics.
“We’re at the tail end of Trinity term at Oxford, when the university finally begins to look like the ‘city of dreaming spires’ depicted in the postcards. The dismal weather cheers up; the quadrangles are soaked in sunlight; and the students — just about to leave for the summer — grab these precious few weeks to do Oxfordy things like punting and slurping Pimm’s.
Even the swots and the lefties are filled with the spirit of Brideshead. Parties spring up on every available lawn; the chatter of gossip and teasing grows louder and louder until the sun goes down, people start throwing up and the college authorities herd the revellers on to the street.
But this year a group of undergraduates — mostly women — will be shunning all this. They will be staying in their college rooms, fingers flying across their keyboards as they scowl at the screen. They are the hard core of a feminist cult that has gripped Oxford and makes life miserable for hundreds of undergraduates across the university. The cult uses Facebook to snoop on students who aren’t ‘proper’ feminists. It tries to force young women to use its extreme rhetoric and denounces them if they don’t.
Its digital tirades can poison college life. One young woman told me that new friends she’d made at Oxford suddenly shunned her in the dining hall after the word went out that she held ‘incorrect’ views on women’s rights. (She was so worried about repercussions that she asked me not to mention which area of women’s rights she felt strongly about.)
I’m going to call the cult ‘Country Living’. That’s not quite accurate: it’s actually spelled without the ‘o’, a gynecological pun that’s the only evidence of a sense of humor you’ll find among its leaders. I reckon calling it Country Living will make them cross. Which, to be fair, is not difficult. These lasses are very, very cross all the time. If there was an Oxford blue for taking offence, they’d be champions.
Country Living is an internet cult that polices behavior both online and offline. Its manifesto can be read by anyone who visits its page on the blogging platform Tumblr, which is mocked up to look like a 1970’s student magazine. Here we learn that anyone can become a C-word, which is a badge of honor, not a term of abuse. Those four letters have been ‘reclaimed’ by the group. (Like feminists everywhere, Country Living does a lot of reclaiming.)
But to earn this honor you must pass tests as severe as the binge-drinking initiation rituals of an all-male Oxford dining society. You must promise to ‘accept that gender is a social construction and embrace its fluidity’. You must ‘recognize your place and privilege within intersectionality’.
And if you fail to do these things, Country Living wants to know. It has spies all over Oxford. They’re not necessarily ‘members’ of the group — as with many religious cults, it’s not clear who is and isn’t a member, and fellow-travelers are often the most snoopy zealots.
A student can be chatting with friends in the Missing Bean, an espresso bar in quaint Turl Street, and say something ‘problematic’ — the Country Living buzzword, meaning anything that deviates from its rigid feminist doctrine, obsessed with transsexual rights. The Country ladies are ferocious earwiggers, and if the student is on the cult’s radar, the remark will find its way back to HQ. Which, bizarrely, is not an office but a Facebook group.
This is where Country Living rules on the correct ideological approach to any current issue. Its Facebook pages are designed as a ‘safe space’ for feminists — meaning an unsafe space for anyone who deviates from the line. As with many sectarian outfits, the smaller the deviation, the bigger the hissy fit. ‘The ultimate crime is not being a Tory man, but being the wrong sort of feminist,’ explains one woman student who, like everyone I talked to, asked not to be named.
The Country set love shutting down debates on their pages. Just after the general election, whose result came as a nasty shock to them, their Facebook administrator Shaina Yang announced that ‘I can’t allow these discussions [about the Tory victory] to continue until we release a clarified statement of what CL rules say is okay and isn’t okay on this topic.’ No wonder that, according to a survey by the Oxford Tab newspaper, a third of Country Living Facebook members were ‘too nervous’ to post in the group.
Such nervousness isn’t confined to Facebook. ‘The influence of CL goes way beyond its membership,’ says one male undergraduate. ‘Girls who come up to Oxford as mild feminists pick up the message that they have to take offence at anything that might be considered misogynistic. So boys have to monitor their own language, pretend to be worked up about trans issues, if they’re to stand any chance of getting laid.’ Something similar happened during the early Seventies heyday of old-style feminism, when guys would denounce patriarchy in order to get laid. But they didn’t have an internet Stasi to worry about.
Adds another student: ‘You see members of the college rugby club glancing around anxiously to see if there are any women present before they can tell a joke. Ironically, they’re the ones who need a safe space.’ I ask him how he can tell the difference between Country sympathizers and the hard core. ‘Weirdly dyed hair is one clue,’ he says. ‘But a better one is “problematic”. The hard core insert it into practically every sentence.’
All this is Oxford at its worst. The university has always been a playground for egomaniacs and control freaks, unlike milder, more studious Cambridge. Although there are Country members in other universities, its origins are no accident.
‘We insist that grammar and spelling are elitist and don’t matter because of a hundred years of linguistic study showing that. When people who insist on hyper-patriotism get language wrong, we use the errors in their language to suggest they aren’t qualified to judge complex matters.’ That’s a comment by one Alyson Cruise on a financial website, bearing the same photograph as the Country Facebook admin Alyson Cruise, a trans woman at St Catherine’s College (who didn’t respond when I contacted her).
If they’re the same person, then it’s bit rich of Cruise to judge errors in language, since her own grasp of syntax on Facebook is pretty rudimentary. But the urge to correct the grammar of the lower orders is very Oxonian. No other university is so intellectually snobbish. Even the Bullingdon Club is at times — look at the proportion of Firsts and future power brokers among its members. Country Living would hate the comparison, but they and the Bullers are both elitist, secretive and enjoy ridiculing people on the basis of linguistic clues. Among the Oxford social elite, letting slip a lower-middle-class word such as ‘lounge’ is what the hyper-feminists would call ‘problematic’. ‘I’d love to see a fights between CL and the Bullingdon,’ muses a student. ‘The feminists would scratch their eyes out before they’d thrown their first chair.’
Unlike the 235-year-old Bullingdon, however, Country Living is unlikely to become a venerable Oxford institution. A backlash is under way. Louisa Manning, an ex-member, has broken ranks to denounce its ‘patronizing, self-righteous tone’ — and revealed that as a mixed-race woman, she had been instructed by the group ‘to identify as white when talking to people of color’. She also accused the administrators of ‘Facebook-stalking members’ profiles’ to determine whether they were ‘legit feminists’.
She also accused the group of spreading a version of politically correct racism. People of mixed race — like herself — felt they were being ‘erased’ because they didn’t fit neatly into an ethnic category. She wrote: ‘Being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of “passing privilege” and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of color.’
Imagine if allegations of racial bullying were made against a Tory drinking club. The Oxford University authorities would investigate immediately. But Country Living is left-wing, so it is left alone.
Fortunately the group is unstable and beginning to divide into factions. Ordinary undergraduates are finally summoning up the nerve to tease them. The chances are that Country Living — like thousands of cults throughout history — will tear itself apart in an orgy of name-calling, finger-pointing and accusations of heresy. But not before its fanatics have succeeded in spoiling university life for other students — and themselves.”

Magic in the Celtic World from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

New from Francis Miville.

Francis Miville: There was a reason why the Celtic cultural world crumbled and was ready to assimilate into the nearest conquering empire passing nearby. Gauls literally begged the Greeks to conquer them, and as they proved too self-interested as merchants, they turned to the Romans as to the second best choice long before Cesar came.
The Celtic world was more and more definitely with the centuries passing a culture based upon the preeminence of magic and of magic of a very malevolent kind. Druidic civilization was no fun at all. Celtic civilization was quite like the Brahmanical one in its worst aspects but without any encompassing universalistic cosmogony.
It was a universe without any power above that of the elite of all-powerful manipulators having been selected through proof of their psychopathic mind before being taught any bit of initiation knowledge. Above the stage of a mere brute, you spent your own life dodging evil spells and casting ones in return.
The only late exceptions which explain their further survival were Ireland, Scotland, and Brittany on both sides of the Channel. This is because it was rather the invention of something radically new by a certain kind of Christians together with a new kind of Celtic languages that bore very little relationship to the original.
But Celtic Christianity as it was called came to be later on considered as heretical from the point of view of more classical theology, as it was based on much magic too, though of a more seductive than warlike kind. In the case of Ireland and Brittany, the magicians proved to be oligarchically-minded to the worst degree as all magicians are. These magicians offered their services to the best payers, that is to say the Norman and French invaders. In exchange, the oligarchs were given as a natural resource the whole populace that the magicians controlled as a  passive herd.
In Scotland the whole people succeeded as magicians to enter the British Empire as mafia-minded dominants of a worse kind than Anglo-Saxons proper, while playing a key role in the setting up of Masonry.
Magical cultures are all social horrors.

Alt Left: Who's White? A Caucasian Roundup, or Ultra-Pan-Aryanism

Thinking Mouse: I didn’t read the article and now see you disagree with me, but I’ll explain why I think this category is appropriate.
Since I’m largely anti-HBD (though the African non-African dichotomy might have some merit), especially to the traits affecting many types of social capital, I really just see race as the social constructs and their origin. So when people look different, that could have an affect on the perception people have, and it used to in the past.
I think its that you are raised in America with its diversity, and maybe your lack of racism has made you accept more swarthier people as fulfilling the roles of good citizens, and therefore get an pass to the all so important group. In my view, by your criteria for an race, we might as well say that an Frenchman with dark hair and large nostrils/bulgy nose is Chinese cause they don’t look “that different”. Blue eyes and pink nipples are almost unique to Whites, that’s like indispensable right there.

Of course Arabs are White, especially North Africans like Moroccans and Algerians. However, there are Black people in those countries and they don’t count. Most Libyans are White. So are most Tunisians and most Egyptians. There are non-White Egyptians in the South. I had an Egyptian girlfriend once who would be more properly characterized as a light skinned Black woman. Light Egyptians and Moroccans openly identify as White.
Most Saudis and Yemenis are White. The Yemenis we have here are all White and identify as White. All Syrians are White and the ones here also identify as White. Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis and Gulf types are mostly White. However there are a few Blacks among these people in Iraq and the Gulf. Prince Bandar is not a White man.
Of course Persians and most Afghans are White. Afghans even identify as White. The ones I know told me they are Aryans, the original Whites. But some Afghans are Asiatics, like the Hazara. Most Pakistanis are White, and some even identify as White. There are some non-Whites down in the South, but all the ones I have met are as White as I am.
Many but not all North Indians are White, especially Punjabis, many of whom are as White as I am. Quite a few Uighurs and Nepalis are White, but many are not. Groups like the Mansi are similar and you have to look at them on an individual basis.
Of course Chechens, Azeris, Georgians, Armenians and the rest of the people of the Caucasus are White. Also Azeris, Armenians and Chechens at least identify as White.
Most Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks, etc. and many Siberians from around the Altai are best seen as mixed race. Many Tatars and Bashkirs are also mixed race. All of these groups are so mixed with Asiatics that they can’t really properly be called Whites.
I would look at facial and bone structure. Really all Caucasoids are simply Whites. Look at the face and if the face looks like a White person’s face, no matter the skin color, they are White.

Intellectual Cultures Around the World That Are Superior to America's

One thing I have noticed is that people from other cultures acknowledge the existence of intelligence far more than Americans.
Arabs, South Indians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Turks, Khmer, and especially Chinese people have extreme reverence for intelligence and education.
If they spend any time with me at all, almost all of them act like they are almost stunned to the point of fainting by the breadth of my knowledge. They simply don’t believe that I learned it all from reading. I must have lived in these countries that I talk about.
Mexicans come from a complete retard culture in Mexico itself, but the less intelligent ones, especially if they were born in Mexico, often acknowledge that some people are wicked smart. If they were born here, they were born into Mexican-American culture, one of the most retarded and ferociously anti-intellectual cultures on Earth. Like I said, even Mexico has a more intellectual culture than US Mexican Americans. Mexico’s higher level culture is even more intellectual than that of America itself.
When you get down to South Americans, they are much more likely to acknowledge that intelligence is a thing and a good thing at at that. This is because South America in places like Colombia, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina have retained a lot of the intellectual culture of Old Spain, including a reverence for literature and what my Argentine girlfriend called “men of letters.” Peruvians and Argentines in particular are very intellectual and especially literary.
Brazil’s culture is pretty stupid, but at the higher levels where people are much Whiter, it is highly intellectual and often very educated. In particular they take pride in their knowledge of the Portuguese language, which is not an easy language to completely master at all. The extreme hedonism of Brazilian culture, even among White Brazilians, somewhat masks the intellectual culture of the Whiter Brazilians.

On Black Women and Prostitution

I am getting an awful lot of blowback on writing about my recent discovery that Black women are far more likely to be prostitutes or quasi-prostitutes than other races of women. This is something that finally dawned on me after six decades of living. It has been suggested that my observation, admittedly not made on a scientific basis but instead on intuition, is simply false.
Well, here are some facts.
Black girls are 13% of all girls in the US. However, 55% of girls arrested for prostitution are Black. So Black girls are 13% of the population but 55% of the girl prostitutes. That’s almost as bad as the outsized homicide rate, where Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 53% of the homicides. The homicide rate is starkly elevated and caused many to sit up and take notice with shock in part because it confirms what they always suspected anyway. The prostitution rate is even more elevated and once again confirms what people suspected based on intuition.
The linked article offers many possible reasons. 49% of Black minors do not graduate from high school. That is an extremely high dropout rate of almost half of all Black minors. However, 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution dropped out of high school. So the Black girl prostitute population is a population of school dropouts who grew up without significant parental figures.
The article also said that 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution grew up in homes without either a mother or a father.
From the article:

The fact that more than half of girls who end up turning to lives of prostitution have grown up without fathers, suggests a need for male attention and acceptance. Additionally, the fact that more than ¾ of the girls who end up selling themselves grow up missing one of their parents is a sign that we need to rally behind our children as a community and support our single-parent families, remembering the notion that “it takes a village to raise a child….We need to teach our girls to value themselves and create a culture that supports that value.

Another possible reason for the high numbers of Black females working as prostitutes is the possibility that prostitution is tolerated in the Black community as no big deal. However else they feel about it, prostitution is definitely not tolerated or considered a legitimate job in White, Hispanic, and Asian communities. It is considered a shameful and lowly way to make a living. If prostitution is seen as a legitimate way to earn a living in Black communities, it should be no surprise that Black women are so over-represented among prostitutes.
From the linked study above:

For example, in their study, Carmen and Moody intimate tolerance of prostitution by
the Black community:
Prostitution was no alien thing to black women, who have been sexually exploited since slavery. In every Southern city in the 1920’s and ’30’s, the red-light district was on the other side of the tracks in the black ghetto, and young white boys “discovered their manhood” with the help of the two dollar whore.” Prostitutes were integrating blacks and whites long before there was a civil rights movement.
Arlene Carmen and Howard Moody, “Working Women: The Subterranean World of Prostitution.”

Pimping may also be seen as no big deal or as a reasonable way to make a living in the Black community. This is suggested by anecdotal evidence that almost 100% of street pimps are Black, and these Black street pimps are some of the most horrible human beings you will ever meet.
From New York City. In Brooklyn, Black women make up 1/3 of all women in the borough, but they are 94% of the women arrested for prostitution. This shows how few non-Black women wish to work as prostitutes. Non-Black women make up 2/3 of the population of Brooklyn, an area where prostitution is rife, yet make up almost none of the very common prostitutes on the street, almost all of whom are Black.
One reason that Black women are so commonly arrested for prostitution is that they are far more likely to be streetwalkers than other races of women where women tend to see streetwalking as the lowest of the low.
Here a Black woman who traveled around Europe and Africa as a single traveler was mistaken as a prostitute everywhere she went in Europe. In Barcelona, she was told that there were certain streets she should not walk down after 8 PM because everyone would think she was a prostitute. She goes walking down a street in Barcelona, and every hundred feet there is a new Black woman prostituting herself on the corner. They are all from Africa. How many people in Spain are Black? The number must be very low, maybe 2%. Yet they are 100% of the prostitutes on a major street in Barcelona. A Black female commenter discusses how she was walking down a street in Greece at night, a street filled with African prostitutes glaring at her as if she was one of them.
Twelve women on a tour in Dubai try to get into a bar. They are all barred except for two of them. Later we find out that the other ten were barred on the grounds that they were suspected prostitutes.
As you can see this problem of Black women being seen as prostitutes is related to the fact that so many of them are just that. Among other reasons why this is bad is that Black female travelers get mistaken for whores everywhere they go, much to their consternation. So this harms the Black women who are not prostitutes too.

High Illegitimacy Rates and Dysfunction among Lower Class Blacks

Greg Rambo: “The current plight of Black America has more to do with the government’s subsidizing of pregnancy and desertion than anything else.”* When you have a nearly 75% out of wedlock birth rate, you’re asking for disaster.
* T. Sowell

We don’t really support them anymore. Welfare is $300/month. Black women have out of wedlock rates like that all over the Black world and they don’t get a nickel.
Further this is based on a delusion. First that Black women have kids to get the check when the check doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of raising a kid. Socialist states all over the world subsidize children with fathers or not and we don’t see epidemics of illegitimacy. So if those women are having kids to get checks, they’re retarded. You get a check for $300, but it costs so much more than that to raise the kid? How are you coming out ahead? You sink yourself further into the hole with every new kid you have. It also suggests that Black women will start acting more responsible if we cut off the checks. Well they won’t. This is happening for societal reasons not monetary reasons. Another suggestion is that if we cut off the checks, these Black men will suddenly start sticking around and supporting their kids. Yeah, right! Come on.
Illegitimacy itself is not a serious problem if you look at it statistically. There are effects but they are moderate rather than major. The problem is the rate of it. A community can handle a 25% illegitimacy rate. It cannot handle a 70% rate. When illegitimacy rates get that high, you get additive effects to the illegitimacy due to the sheer prevalence of it. What happens that rates that high tend to cause the entire community to unravel, while lower rates dd not.
There is another reason. A moral reason. It is the argument that children need to be supported. Single motherhood is not optimal, but as a socialist, I refuse to cut off funds for single mothers and their children.
Give them the check in the form or rent vouchers, IBT cards, cards to pay their bills, whatever. Not just cash in their hands. In the 1990’s, Richard Nixon himself bemoaned the Clinton welfare “reforms.” in an interview. He shook his head at the interviewer and said in a note of dismay and disgust:
“I can’t believe what we are doing nowadays…I mean…beating up on the single Moms…of all things…come on…”
Although I agree that the high illegitimacy birth rate is catastrophic for Black people. It’s not doing them any favors and I think Blacks would act a lot better if that rate would go down. Before 1960, the Black illegitimacy rate was 20%, and it seems like they acted a lot better than they do now, but there could be other reasons why the behavior went down.
Illegitimacy and being raised by a single mother predict a lot of bad things.
Basically:
The girls develop Daddy issues and often turn into sluts trying to fuck their way to an ethereal Daddy who is always fading out of the picture.
The boys turn into criminals.
I don’t want to beat up on single Moms. They get beat up enough. But it’s not the ultimate family arrangement, and it does cause some problems in the offspring.