Rambo: I don’t see where gays are that powerful politically for non-gays to be so worried about. How many gays commit violent street crimes, commit racial hate crimes, proposition people on the street, abuse children, etc.? Maybe people should worry about stuff of real significance rather than media hype.
They are not politically powerful and they don’t do any of that stuff, but they are still annoying pests. What you just described are grizzly bears. Gays are more like clouds of mosquitoes. Annoying, but they won’t kill you, and they’re more of an annoyance than a threat.
I still think that straight men should avoid these guys at all costs. Unless you find one that is going to be cool, which is about 1% of them*.
There are young straight men who claim they can get along with these guys just fine. If that is your experience, great! All the power to you! If they respect you for being straight and leave you alone, they’re fine. I knew a few like that even back in the day. I think they figured out I was straight, and they never bothered to try anything. Plus they never mentioned their orientation. It was an open secret.
For straight men, gay men are just a plague. Nothing good ever comes of getting close to these guys. They just try to fuck you or brainwash you into thinking you’re gay. If they would ask us our sexual orientation before they hit on us, I would be a lot happier. It’s very insulting when they hit on you because you are thinking, “Why did this gay hit on me? Is it because he thought I was gay?” That’s the disturbing part of it. If they would say, “Well, you seem straight but I was just checking to make sure,” I would be less bothered.
This is what happens when you get close to these guys:
I had a fag boss once and he fired me for not having sex with him.
My friend rented a room and got a job from a faggot, and the fag said you either have sex with me or I fire you and throw you out of my apartment.
Another friend moved in with a faggot and then he lost his job. After a while, the fag said you either start having sex with me, or I throw you out. After a while my idiot friend started fucking this stupid faggot, and he turned into a bisexual dipshit. And that was the end of our friendship. I spent the night over there once before I released what was happening. I slept on the couch. I woke up in the middle of the night, and here was my best friend, getting fucked by some faggot! That was pretty traumatizing right there. The whole time I was there, this fag tried to brainwash me into thinking I was gay. That seems to be one of their favorite pastimes.
Bisexual men are all over the straight community, often married or with girlfriends, and they are a plague too. They’re like spies and they’re very hard to see, so they’re almost even worse. These idiots are to be avoided at all costs too. Pure pests.
None of these idiots, gay or bi, ever takes no for an answer. They’re the ultimate sexual harassers. For some reason they just keep trying to fuck you forever. If you have any of these guys anywhere near your life, they’re probably screwing it up.
I have a lot of past trauma due to these dipshits. Of course give them full rights – be friendly, kind, and decent to them – but be very wary around them, and don’t get too close to them. I want a divorce from these characters. Them over there, me over here. I wish them all the best, but we need to live separate lives, sorry.
*I have a cool gay friend now who lives in Canada. He respects me for being straight and he leaves me alone. He’s just fine. He does sort of flirt a bit, but as long as he respects my orientation, I don’t really mind that.
Shiv is an Indian commenter on this site, a young Indian man living in India who is not very happy there. This is a post from him about one downside of Indian culture. As you can see, he is quite homophobic. His views do not represent my own except perhaps deep down inside of me in my unconscious.
Why You Can’t Be A Nice & Friendly Person in India
Having lived in India, that’s one of the first things I had to come to terms with. Being kind, gentle, nice, and friendly are seen as a sign of weakness, and if you possess something “valuable” like good looks, fair skin, or a lot of money, then you are particularly preyed upon.
In India, it’s best to appear rude, abrasive, and unfriendly so as not to get bothered because the people are incredibly nosy. No one minds their own business, and everyone wants to scam you, rip you off, or worse, rape you.
Note that it’s not just women who get sexually assaulted but men too. If you are an attractive fair-skinned man then you will get harassed almost as much. You will be stared at and people will find all the excuses in the world to get your number.
Getting someone’s phone number is seen in Indian culture as a weird “win” for the stalker. They think if they have your phone number, then they can screw you. Heck, some even think that smiling at them or being friendly or kind means that you are romantically interested in them. I blame this on Bollywood and Indian television that make creepy stalking behavior appear romantic.
India is filled with more homo perverts than most of the world, but it’s swept under the rug, and we barely hear about it because India is supposed to be this “conservative, family-oriented, God-fearing” culture. In fact, the more sexually repressed a society is, the more sexually perverse and degenerate it seems to be.
India is not far behind in either way. India is filled with homo sodomites. I myself am scarred by an incident where a disgusting homo propositioned me for sex.
(RL:I would like to add that Shiv’s friends later beat up this man for propositioning Shiv for sex. I’m almost not bothered by that. I remember when Shiv told me, there was a part of me inside of myself that smiled. Gay men shouldn’t go around hitting on straight men. They could at least ask first for Chrissake. If they don’t, they’re asking for it.)
Most Indian male victims of sexual harassment never come forward because they are seen as weak.
Attractive fair-skinned Indian males are similarly fetishized by Indians and sought after. They too get in-boxed with creepy and filthy messages from perverted Indian men.
Like the guest writer, I also have a very strong, mostly unconscious, dislike, and disgust for any male homosexual behavior. It’s very common among straight men. I doubt if there is anything we like less than that.
A recent study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay pornography than by literal trays full of live maggots! Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad. One can argue where this revulsion comes from, whether it is genetic or cultural. It’s certainly cultural and whether it it inborn is up for dispute. At any rate, it exists. Gay men usually refuse to believe that this revulsion even exists at all. We also very much do not like people thinking we are gay, especially if they think that way because they think we act gay.
There’s probably no worse insult to a straight man than saying he acts like a homosexual, and straight women hate it just as much as straight men, if not more. That said, straight men are terribly ignorant about male homosexuality to the point of utter absurdity. They are always accusing other straight men of being gay. In fact, I think more straight men are gay-bashed that gay men.
Despite our disgust for male homosexuality, a lot of us hate homophobes even worse. I used to be mistaken for being gay a lot when I was younger and it’s still said from time to time, though now it’s not as much of an insult because it is “I’m a straight man who acts gay” which is not nearly as insulting to me as saying that I am gay! At least they acknowledge that I am straight!
This shows that it is not so much the accusation that we act like homosexuals that bother us but that that observation leads to the accusation that we are gay. So what we really do not like to be accused of is being gay, not so much acting gay. If all people ever said to be was that I was a straight guy who acted gay, I would not be so angry.
This is especially true because you do not have to be effeminate to be accused of acting gay. I don’t think I’m an effeminate man, and I’ve never seen myself that way. I really dislike that behavior and I think it’s contemptible. So saying I act that way is a particular insult.
I’m just a soft guy. On the other hand, most soft men I’ve known got called gay constantly. They were also often very handsome in a female or pretty sense – they were pretty boys. That seems to add to the gay accusation, though I’m not sure if looks alone is enough to get you accused of that though that’s happened a few times in our lives.
It is interesting, once again, that the insult that we are gay is what really bothers us, not so much that we act gay. That implies that this is the true insult – that one’s heterosexuality is not acknowledged. However, this much isn’t really the whole of it either because many people, especially women, thought I was bisexual because any women who can’t figure out a man likes women is too stupid to live. But this was almost as insulting. Just recognizing that I liked women was not enough, and in some ways it was almost worse because it was half of an apology, which is almost worse than no apology.
So looking at this anew, I think what makes us mad is not the suggestion that we don’t like women because that’s not often heard. It’s more the very suggestion that we have sex with men. That right there is the supreme insult – that we would dare to do these things at least on a regular basis.
However, there were quite a few times when even women accused me of being gay in the sense of not wanting to being attracted to women at all. This was particularly insulting.
So the insult is threefold.
That we are effeminate. Not so much that we “act gay” because no one knows what that means. But saying we act like a stereotypical homosexual man is very harmful and hurts us a lot. It’s a horrendous insult.
That we are not attracted to women and therefore have no interest in having sex with them. This almost worse than saying we are effeminate. There is something horrendously insulting to a straight man about someone saying that to him. We want our heterosexual component or our attraction to women acknowledged. You are taking a huge aspect of our lives and saying it doesn’t exist and then hating us on that basis.
That we have sex with men. Of course this is insulting but what is more insulting is other straight men acting uncomfortable around us because they think we screw guys. The idea that this guy won’t talk to me because he thinks I want to fuck him is unbelievably insulting. Furthermore, it’s completely untrue. It’s like being falsely accused of a crime. There is also a huge sense of disappointment there. In the neighborhood I live in, those are fighting words. You say that to a man around here and you are likely to get hit. You will first be asked to take it back and then if you don’t, you are probably going to get hit, at least once, in the face. And you will deserve it. 90% of the men around here will say you deserved it and no one will call the cops. It’s even worse than that. You can be killed for saying that to a man around here. I have wondered why these are fighting words around here and the conclusion I arrived at is that those are fighting words not because you say he acts gay or because you say he has no interest in women but because you are implying he has sex with men. It is for that reason that you might get hit or even killed. That’s the ultimate insult right there.
All three of these are extremely insulting and it’s hard to say that one is worse than the other. I’ve had people who thought I was gay change their minds and say I was bisexual and like me 10X more on that basis, and it didn’t feel 1% better. It almost made me even more mad.
I guess what it boils down to is people really do not want to be misjudged on the essential basis of what they are.
I’m not sure if I care if someone thinks I had sex with guys a few times experimentally. Not that I would ever say such a thing. Such behavior is epidemic among straight men. I’ve known 5-10 men who told me they had sex with men a few times experimentally but then they decided they didn’t like it and never did it again. And the number of women who say this about sex with women is epidemic too. I keep running into women my age who told me they had sex with a woman once or twice (usually once), apparently experimentally.
A number of times they concluded that they didn’t really like it and they were basically straight, so it was a sort of testing the waters sort of thing. Interestingly, all of the men who admitted this to me were outrageous playboys. I think every one of them had a 3-figure laycount. This implies that this sort of behavior is simply a byproduct of an extremely high sex drive. These men are “sex maniacs.” A former female commenter on this site said that a lot of such men were bisexual or had had sex with men before. A very high sex drive may include a tendency towards experimentation.
Many people used to think I was gay, but it was never everyone. Especially most people who grew up with me somehow knew it could not possibly be true. It was always the new people thinking that.
As such, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of homophobia. I must tell you that homophobia feels pretty terrible. There is something awful about it, and it is some sort of hate on one level or another. And you get it from women as much as from men. I’m not sure if it is worse to be accused of being gay if you are straight because you are being misunderstood on an essential level than it is if you are actually, gay and they are telling the truth about you.
But there is something awful about being misunderstood on a basic level like that.
When you meet a new person, you assume that they figure out certain things about you – your age, your dress style, your level of politeness, perhaps your intelligence or education, perhaps your moral level, whether you are white or blue collar, your level of masculinity or femininity, your ethnicity or race, obviously your sex or gender (same thing), your level of attractiveness, whether you are a pleasant or unpleasant person, your cultural level, your subculture (often based on hairstyle or clothing), your income, your hygiene and general level of cleanliness, your income (often based on your clothing), your relationship status (as in if you are married or if you have a SO), and last but not least, your sexual orientation!
So when I meet a new person, especially a man, I assume that he thinks I am a straight man. If he doesn’t think that, it’s a rude shock, and it seems like there’s no way I can talk to him. By the way, men make this assumption about other men all the time – we always try to guess the sexual orientation of every man we meet. Usually it just defaults to “this guy is (more or less but please don’t tell me the details) straight,” but in a few cases, it doesn’t.
The only distinction is something like “Basically Straight and I don’t want to hear anymore details about that please” versus “Gay and that means gay with a capital G.” We don’t try to negotiate the ins and outs of all the men who fall along the bisexual continuum or have sex with men at least sometimes but are not gay. It’s a black and white thing. Any man who tries to break it down past that very basic assumption is paranoid about male homosexuality – but the percentage of straight men who are absurdly paranoid about male homosexuality is extremely high.
There is even a certain way of conversing – I call it “straight man to straight man.” It’s a real style and almost all straight men will mimic this towards you. One thing about it is there an utter and absolute absence of any sense of sexual attraction about these interactions. Further, there is no mention of male homosexuality in any way. Or even sex if the friendship is new. Talking about sex too soon is seen as gay.
I remember my mother and her relatives though my cousin’s new husband was gay due to his behavior. But I never thought he acted gay. I told my Mom there was no way he was gay because when I talked to him for 15 minutes, there was a straight guy to straight guy vibe about it, a holistic one that cannot be put into words. Based on that, I told her there is no way he was gay.
The thing is that most gay men, even deeply closeted ones, cannot do this “straight guy to straight guy” vibe thing. They might be able to do it for a few minutes, but if you are one on one with them, their homosexuality almost always reveals itself. They just can’t keep it out of their presentation.
This is also interesting because it implies that in any significant interaction between men, men are not able to keep from revealing their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is such a huge part of us that it seeps into every interaction we have – even a basic conversation about the weather.
This is a strong argument against the Sex-Hating Left as seen in #metoo bullshit, which seems to want to ban any expression of sexuality, at least by men, overt or convert, from all public space (apparently sexual expression by women is fine and dandy).
We just can’t do that, or at least we men can’t. Our sex drive is so strong that it’s seeping out of all our pores all the time. Asking us to shut down such an overwhelming drive is not only ridiculous but unhuman and even downright anti-human. That’s why feminism is not only deeply man-hating but it is also at its core anti-human by seeking to suppress the very essential human aspects of males. The feminists are literally asking us to stop being ourselves. Not only is such a folly impossible but there is something terribly cruel about such a demand.
Also, gay men can’t help but reveal their homosexuality to you in any extended conversation. They usually act like they are attracted to you. Also, it is very hard to get close to these men.
One part of this straight man to straight man vibe is an extreme casualness and very much a lack of intimacy. Say we are hanging out for an evening. This right there raises a strong question of homosexuality – you are alone together, no one else around, other people will often see this behavior as homosexual, there is a possibility of some vague homosexual feelings leaking out, etc. Hence there is a strong need to defend against not these feelings but more their very potential. This what I could call the “gay tension” in these encounters. It’s not a resistance against something that is there but more against something that might be there. It’s a huge wall against a very possibility.
There is a distance or a lack of intimacy there expressed by an extreme “I don’t care” attitude and a lot of joking. Perhaps seriousness seems gay on some level. We also don’t even look at each other all that much. You aren’t supposed to. If you do, it’s seen as gay. You don’t talk about deep things. That might be seen as gay. You are supposed to talk about women at some point or another. If you don’t, it is suspicious. It also relieves a lot of the gay tension. This is sort of a test to make sure the other guy is not gay, but it’s also just a way of being straight.
I often feel that a lot of straight male intimacy or closeness is constructed around a lot of barriers against homosexuality. That’s why we do a lot of the things we do above – why we don’t look at each other all that much, why we joke and act frivolous, why we avoid deep discussions, especially about feelings. Perhaps this is all a defense against having any homosexual expression. We don’t feel this way anyway, but we still need to defend against the possibility that we might. Once again, it’s hard to explain.
We do feel very close to each to other. I have even been “in love” with some of my straight male friends before, but I would never do anything sexual with them. If you want to call me gay for making that statement, go right ahead. I’m not worried.
It was more of the platonic love one feels between oneself and a parent, sibling, or relative, something like that.
I once thought, “You know, if I was gay, I would fuck this guy.”
Once again, if you feel that makes me gay, go right ahead. I’m not worried. That’s how much I loved him. But since I wasn’t gay, I wouldn’t dare even touch him. I often feel that the platonic love between two straight male friends is one of the deepest relationships a straight man can feel. I often wonder if we feel deeper love towards our straight male friends than towards our girlfriends or wives. It’s hard to explain how deeply we feel for each other. Yet this love has an utter prohibition on any physical sexual expression similar to your love for your father or brother does.
I don’t like faggot, but I do use fag. I usually use it in a matter of fact way that is simply descriptive. The way I use it, it means the same thing as “gay men” except it’s one word instead of two. No pejorative sense implied. But even then, I don’t use it that much. Only with certain carefully selected bigots.
I don’t usually call lesbians dykes, but damn, that sure is tempting too. Ever seen a totally dyked-out butch lesbian? Isn’t there a huge part of you that wants to scream dyke just looking at her? What else can you call her? It’s the only word that fits. Plus, most lesbians are real mean, and they really, really hate men, so let’s face it, men, they’re pretty much earned our slurs, right?
Niggers, niggers, and niggers!
I know there are other slurs for Black people, but I couldn’t think of any, so I said niggers three times instead. Pardon my Tourette’s!
I really don’t like to use nigger, but I do use it when I’m alone if I’m really mad at some Black people. In other words, I use it when I talk to myself. I don’t wish to use it in conversation, though. I live with a White man now who refers to Blacks as niggers as a matter of course. He’s a Centrist Democrat and he supports civil rights 100% and does not support any racist project against Black people. On the other hand, I get the impression that he’s not real wild about Black people, not that he’s ever known any.
He calls Blacks niggers all the time, but I just can’t bring myself to do it, though I’d be more sociable if I did, let’s face it. It’s just such a horrible word, nigger. I can say it to myself, but even then only about select Blacks who have very much earned the epithet. But it’s so hard to say it to another human! There’s something so awful about it.
I ran into a gaggle of young ghetto Black women the other day. They were all hot, so of course I could not help looking at them because, you know, I’m not gay?
That’s what I’d say. If some shithead ever complained to me, “Look at that man over there! He’s looking at women!”…well, first of all, let’s hope I never meet anyone that stupid ever again. But should I have such a misfortune, I’d like to say, “Well, God bless him! At least he’s heterosexual!” With a shrug of my shoulders and a chuckle. Isn’t that the coolest thing you can say about some idiot bitching about a man trying to fulfill his basic human needs?
Cunts, I mean women, excuse me, just don’t get it. They are stark raving furious at us straight men because, get this – we have the temerity, the audacity, the very nerve – to actually look at women when we are out and about. According to cunts, this makes us evil. We men are literally evil for looking at women. Don’t ask me why they think this. They’re dumb bitches and lame cunts. What reason do they have for any crazy thing they think? Do you ask a two year old why they say or do anything? Ok, then.
Anyway, one of these Black cunts yelled, excuse me, shrieked at me, like a mammal in a zoo, “Why are you watching us?” How embarrassing. It would be even more embarrassing except that I, a human, just got yelled at by what appears to be an animal – not even a person – an animal. And dumb as a rock too. What…a…cunt! And she was looking at me too. I would look over there and she would look back at me. I wasn’t even looking at them that much. Look a bit, look away, you know how it goes.
I would like to point out that the behavior of this Black lame cunt was particularly outrageous. You simply don’t do that in a public place unless the man’s behavior is completely out of line. If you don’t like men looking at you, there are other things to do. You can always glare at them. Or ignore them. I get that all day long every single day. Hasn’t killed me yet.
Men look at women all the time as a matter of course. I’ve been doing it my whole life, and almost no one has ever yelled at me. They mostly just get resting bitch face and act like I’m not there.
We straight men literally cannot not look at hot women who are around us. You can try to do it, but something in your mind will keep pulling you back and almost forcing you to look at them. It’s a real struggle to not look at them. It’s like there’s this force constantly trying to break away and look at them. Cunts, I mean women, will still hate us and say we’re evil for looking at them anyway, so I don’t expect to convert anyone here. On the other hand, if there are any non-cunts out there – in other words, real women – this is to help you understand us better. You already suspected we couldn’t help it, right, ladies?
To yell at a man loudly in public for looking at you in the common, typical way that all normal men do is the utter nadir of uncivilized, base, rude, animalistic, and barbaric behavior. I don’t think Black people realize how Goddamned rude so many of them are or how outraged it makes so many of us uptight white bread picket fence housing tract suburban White folks.
I keep trying to explain to them how outraged this sort of rudeness makes us, and it’s like I’m talking to a wall. It’s an extreme, outrageous violation of everything we were brought up to be. It’s the opposite of everything we hold near and dear. Most Black people act like, “What’s the big deal?” They just don’t get it.
Ghetto Blacks engage in behavior, day in and day out, all day long, every day, all year long, until they die of the sort that you almost never see growing up in a White community. They do things routinely that would cause the most utterly scandalous outrage in the communities we grew up in and are still a part of. I don’t think Black people will ever comprehend how much this offends and outrages us.
Spics, Beaners, Latrinos, Mexicants, Miggers, and Mexiniggers!
I don’t like to use of those slurs towards Mexicans or Hispanics. Although you gotta admit, some of them are damn funny.
Latrinos? LOL oh man, whoever made that up is genius.
Miggers? Mexiniggers? Those are just mean, come on.
Beaners? Old and tired.
They’re all over around here, and honestly, they don’t act very bad at all. They’re quite tolerable on a day to day acquaintanceship basis. Now, once you start making friends with them, it’s a whole other ballgame, but still, a shocking number of them are quite decent people.
I take my car to a Guatemalan guy. I shop at a local store with a Salvadoran guy behind the counter. I just got my haircut by a Mexican woman. I just got my tires changed at a store that hires a bunch of Mexicans.
They are all immigrants. The immigrant Hispanics actually act better than the ones who are born here. Once they’re born here, they grow up as part of shitty, rude American culture
It’s generally better to take your car to “the Mexicans” as we call them here because they tend to be cheaper, and they do quite good work.
Also, they are very laid back. The Guatemalan guy lets me buy my own parts and bring them in. He just charges me labor. No White mechanic ever lets you do that.
Also, they don’t necessarily close at 5. White mechanic? 5:01, the door’s shut, and they won’t be very nice about it, either.
Plus, the “Mexicans” are usually very nice. The White guys? All White people know what uptight dicks White people can be. Uptight and downright unfriendly. The Mexicans are not like that at all. Very friendly, effusive, warm, outgoing. The Mexican mechanic is your best friend.
I practice my Spanish with all these guys, and they just love me to death for speaking three words of their language. Plus I can speak it far better than your average gringo idiot my age, so that gets points. They point to me and say with eyes open with wonder, “He speaks Spanish!” like they can’t believe their eyes. Plus, my accent is pretty good because I started learning at six. A guy at the bank likes to call the other bank tellers around. Then he tells me to say something in Spanish. I start rattling away and he turns to them and says, “See?” They shake their heads, “Yeah, you’re right.”
Towelheads, Ay-rabs, Mudslimes, Sandniggers, and Camel-jockeys!
I don’t use any of those slurs towards Arabs because I like Arabs. They’re too nice. How can you use a slur towards a nice person? How cold are you? We had Yemenis and Syrians here in this town. And I just met a Palestinian the other day. And Iraqis run the gas station. A Jordanian guy used to work there. The Yemenis, Palestinians, Iraqis, and the Jordanian were effusively friendly. Great people. The Syrians are a mixed bag but some were pretty friendly. They were Christians so they were a bit more reserved. The Muslims are so warm it’s shocking.
Dotheads and Curryniggers!
I don’t use any of those slurs towards Indians because I like Indians. Although curryniggers is funny! I gotta admit it!
We have Punjabis around here. They’re pretty nice. Not nearly as friendly as the Arabs or Hispanics but friendly enough. They sort of keep their distance for some odd reason. I think they don’t really wish to assimilate. And they look just like White people. Their religion is an improvement on shitty Hinduism. At least they’re monotheistic.
Chinks, Gooks, Slants, Chiggers, and Japs!
I don’t use any slurs against Asians. Chiggers is nice though, even though it’s really a biting insect. Some of them just deserve it. Come on. A Chinese dude. Trying to act like a rapper? Nigga please. Sit down. See that Black guy over there? Hand the mike to him, please. Thanks.
They’re just too nice and well behaved. How could you call such a decent, civilized, non-animalistic, respectable, well-mannered, well brought up, dignified, classy, polite person a Jap, chink, gook or God forbid, slant. The better a race acts, the harder it is to call them ugly names. The worse a group acts, the more calling them names seems like the right thing – or even the only thing – to do.
These are Islanders. I would never call them seaniggers, though I gotta admit, that’s pretty damn funny. I guess it just goes to show you that no matter where you go in the world, there’s always some type of nigger there, and most of them aren’t even Black. And that’s leaving out the wiggers! We’re all a bunch of niggers when it comes down to it. Sort of like World O’Niggers, ya know?
They’re very sensitive about being Islanders because pretty much nobody really likes them because they don’t act real great and they’re a poor fit for Western societies. Here we include the Samoans, Tongans, Hawaaians, Maoris, Chamorros, Marshall Islanders, Saipanese, Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians. There’s nothing really wrong with any of these jolly sun-and-surf loving folks, but then, I’ve never lived near large numbers of them. I used to teach Samoans in school, and a lot of them were pretty funny. They didn’t do any work, but they sure knew how to ham it up.
Abos and Lucys!
Abos of course are Aborigines. I’m afraid they’re not real well-suited for the modern world. Darwin thought they were so poorly adapted for modernity that they’d go extinct. That hasn’t happened yet. I must say I’ve never met me an Aborigine. Calling them Lucys after the primitive proto-hominid chick whose bones were left in Africa 3.3 million years ago is just mean. On the other hand, it’s also hilarious. They are pretty primitive looking, face it. I’d never call an Aborigine an Abo or especially a Lucy. These poor folks have enough problems in this world without us sitting back and using them as verbal dartboards.
We just can’t get away from these niggers, can we? We think we can escape them, but wherever you go in the world, it seems like you turn around, and whaddaya know, there’s some species of nigger standing right next to you. And most of them aren’t even Black! This is what Canadians call their Indians or Native Americans when they’re in a bad mood. I gotta admit it’s funny. I love all these nigger variations. Might as well spread these slurs around, right? Let’s be fair about this!
Kikes, Jewboys, ((( ))), and Yids!
I do use slurs towards Jews but only towards Israel-firsters and Israelis. They’re monsters anyway, so they’re lucky I even acknowledge their humanity, assuming they even have any, which is increasingly dubious. Aside from that, I could care less about Jews. If you want to know, I call them kikes, even in casual conversation with carefully selected bigots like myself. Coincidence marks ((( ))) are great conversation starters on the web but only for Israel-firsters. Because Israel firsters? That’s what they are. They’re a bunch of Goddamned kikes. You don’t like that? You think that’s antisemitic? Tell you what. You quit being a monster, and I’ll quit calling you a kike? Deal? Whaddaya say?
Dating sites are full of these scammers in the last few years.
A friend of mine almost got nailed for this. Admittedly, hers was a little different.
She out and out told him that she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. AOC in California is 18. Well, to a lot of men, “two weeks shy of my 18th birthday” means you’re 18 years old. I don’t care that he did this. In fact, I worry if I would have enough self-control not to.
However, several years ago, a miracle happened, Jesus came back down to Earth briefly and dropped an 18 year old girl in my lap to be my girlfriend. Then he flew back to Wherever.
Truth is she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday when we started dating or hanging out. We held hands, put our arms around each other, hugged a bit, and kissed pecks on the lips, but that was it. We figured that was legal, but I was really scared to take it any farther at all. But she kept bugging me to take it further and it was really hard to say no. She ended up falling head over heels on love with me, wanted to marry me, have my kids, the whole nine yards, then three months in, she dumps me. Anyway, dating’s not illegal. Anybody can date anyone. It’s having sex that might be illegal
They figure, “Fuck it, she’s basically 18.” I have no idea how the pigs would treat it nowadays. I assume the FBI pigs would probably put you on the Sex Crimes most wanted list for doing it with a girl two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. That’s how deranged the pigs and the system are nowadays, all thanks for feminists.
I grew up in the 1970’s, and no one gave two shits about jailbait teenage girls. They were known as “dangerous” because they’re horny as Hell, don’t have a lot of experience, often think boys their age are immature, and not a few of them love men. Not boys, men. College age men dating high school girls was an absolutely normal back then, but at some point, you might want to knock it off.
They let you get away with it for a few years, but as the man got older, they started cracking down. I remember a case of a divorced 53 year old man who had with a number of 15 year old high school girls in trade for pot and coke. Of course the little sluts knew exactly what they were doing. Most of them love to fuck and they were freely screwing this guy for dope of their own free will. No girl ever got harmed by this nonsense, which is consensual anyway.
Well, he got caught, and even though people were notoriously laissez-faire about this stuff back then. I don’t even recognize this planet anymore in regard to this issue as it seems like I’m living among pod people who are barely even and probably not human. That’s how different things are from 40 years ago. Anyway, this guy got three years in prison. Nowadays he’d probably get beat up as a “chomo,” but back then, prisoners were sane, and he’d probably be the hero of the prison for being an old dog and banging all those hottie JB’s. Yep, even prison convicts have gone insane. Back then, you were marked if you went after little girl children, but no inmate cared about jailbaits.
The interesting thing is that everyone in my family, including me, thought the guy deserved it. Three years seemed about right. There wasn’t really anything wrong with what he did, but we thought the age gap was too extreme. 18-23 year old guy and 15 year old girl, no one really cared. 30 year old guy and 15 year old guy would raise eyebrows, as it was very uncommon, but no one cared about that either. But 53 and 15? Not just one 15 year old girl, but several? Hey, wait a minute. There was something unseemly, disturbing, not quite right, etc. about it. Society has a right to any sort of reasonable morals it wants, and even back then, a lot of people thought 53 and multiple 15 year old girls went over the line.
See, back then, people were sane, not like nowadays when everyone’s a shithead. They believed in degrees and sliding scales and continua and extenuating factors and the spirit of the law, not the letter. Now everyone’s a black and white dipshit twitching with mass hysteria and wild-eyed with moral panic.
Here’s the write-up of the scam I found on the web. It matches what my friend went through.
1. You are on some kind of adult dating or chat site — either heterosexual or gay– where a person says they are over 18, and either sends you (or lures you into sending them) sexy pictures.
2. Then they say that they are actually 16, or 14, or some other age under 18.
3. Next, the “father”, the “mother” or a “detective” calls or texts you and demands money to keep them from filing charges. Often, the money is supposed to replace a “smashed phone”, “computer”, or something else… even a car that the “minor wrecked while going to meet up with you”. Sometimes they “send the minor to a juvenile military boot camp”.
4 The tip-off is that they want payment by Western Union, MoneyGram, iStore credit, Paypal.Me, Snapcash, Zelle, CashApp, money order, or gift cards BUT NOT by cash or checks. 5. Don’t buy gift cards and give them the numbers. Don’t Zelle or CashApp money. There is no minor child, no father, no mother, no detective, no wrecked car, no damaged garage door, and no ruined computer.
6. You are not alone. Questions about this scam come up several times a week here on AVVO.
7. Just to be clear: THIS IS A SCAM. THIS SCAM HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO FATHER, NO GIRL, NO FBI, NO DETECTIVE, NO COUNSELING, NO THERAPY, and NO EARLY TERMINATION FEES ON THE PHONE, and the “girl” does not have a hospital bill from “her” suicide attempt.
8. The best thing to do is block their numbers and ignore them. You can report them to the police for fraud and extortion, but without an ID that is a dead end. They use “burner” phones and spoof caller ID to make you think that it is the police number.
9. If you want to fool around with them, offer to send a check, or offer to meet them somewhere with cash. They WILL NOT give you their name or address, and will not meet with you. Green Dot cards & MoneyPak, Western Union, Target and Walmart gift cards, Cash App or Zelle, Bitcoin ATM machines, eBay, Google Play, iTunes, and Amazon prepaid/reloadable cards and the like are all ANONYMOUS ways to receive money, and the scammers will not identify themselves or they would risk being arrested for EXTORTION.
Now I don’t recommend being an asshole, and I’m a piss-poor asshole when it comes down to it, but if you can fake it, I don’t see a problem. Sort of like, “I’m not an asshole, but I play one on TV.” Like that. It’s’ a tragedy for a deep-down inside incorrigible nice guy like me that you just can’t be too nice of a guy to women.
I wouldn’t say you have to be a dick or an asshole to women like so many guys say. That may be true but I’m too nice for that. I just…can’t. I would say, though, that you can’t be too nice. They don’t like it. They think it means you’re a pussy, and they will try to walk all over you, wear your pants, and even break your balls in escalating order. Which are three things that will happen in most any serious relationship with a woman but that ought to be kept to a minimum.
Equality is not possible between the sexes. At the end of the day, we are just mammals like those dumb dogs and cats running around your house. Nor are we all that different. The truth is just as in nature, somebody’s got to be the dominant one, and someone has to be the submissive one. Just like in that pack of cats in your house. There’s always Top Cat and there’s always Designated Victim Cat.
You got a choice. You either dom her or she’s going to dom you. Which way is it going to be? Most women don’t want to dom men, which is why ball-breaking bitches are so miserable with their wimpy husbands. She wants you to dom her. If you can do it as kindly and decently as possible, you reached the Golden Mean. And God bless ya.
Women simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a man. They’re too wrapped up in being an utterly solipsistic woman to be any good at that. It’s not that women don’t care about men. It’s more that their solipsism prevents them from understanding us. They’re so busy thinking about themselves all the time (and women are the vainest creatures on God’s green earth) that they simply don’t have time to think about us!
After age 35 or especially 40, most women have come to figure us out pretty well, and the ones who still date us have made some sort of peace with us, usually along the lines of:
“Yes, men are dogs, but I kind of like dogs. In fact, it’s nice because when I get a boyfriend or a husband, I also get a pet dog at the same time! I don’t even have to go to the pet store! And he’s housebroken to boot. Two for one deal!”
I have women aged 35-50 tell me:
“Men will fuck anything.”
A 50 year old woman I dated said afterwards:
“Men will fuck anything. Sad but true.”
A 43 year old woman I dated said women don’t dress up for men.
“There’s no need to dress up for men. Men will screw anything.”
They dress up to impress other women! Basically we men don’t care what clothes women wear, and most of us would probably prefer that a lot of them don’t wear any at all.
A 35 year old woman I dated and who was unfortunately a girlfriend for a time told me matter of factly,
“Men will screw anything.”
As she’d probably screwed half the men in LA, I’d consider her a reliable source.
These women make this comment above matter of factly as if you were talking about the nature of atoms and molecules: that’s just the way it goes.
Of course this is true and it’s only mostly men who have argued with me about this, but I think they doth protest a bit too much.
A man will fuck a woman, a teenage girl, an old lady, a little girl, a man, an animal – Hell, a man will probably fuck a hole in the wall if you grease it up enough.
This is how a nonpedophilic man can have sex with a little girl, or an 18 year old man can rape a 70 year old woman, or a pedophile can brutally rape an 80 year old woman. This is how a straight man can have sex with a man, and trust me, quite a few of them do. When it comes to sex, men are simply downright animalistic.
Sex is utilitarian for men. It’s like stuffing your face when you’re famished. A pole wants a hole. It’s pretty simple.
By age ~50, a lot of women have more or less started to figure us out, which is often a case of discovering a lot of rather unpleasant truths.
If you want to understand men, ask an older woman. Ask an old lady. Hell, if you want to know the truth about anything, ask an old lady! They’ve got a lifetime of wisdom and nothing to defend anymore, so they won’t have defenses getting in the way of brutal truths.
If you want to understand women, ask a man, especially a player or a womanizer. The men in my life who understood women best of all were all players and womanizers.
Neither sex can be objective about the other. Women can’t analyze women because they refuse to believe there is anything wrong with women, and boy is there! This is the essential flaw of feminism and it is why feminists, who claim to be the world’s leading experts on women, paradoxically often don’t seem to know shit about them.
I will give feminists credit though. A lot of them, especially radical feminists, have the bad side of men down. I’ve never seen better analyses of the bad side of men than from radfems. Of course they think we are all bad side and 0% good side, so they’re only half right.
Men can’t understand men because we won’t say there’s anything wrong with men, although we may be a bit more hardheaded than women in this way.
Want to know who really understands men? Believe it or not, gay men! They literally spend their whole lives studying us under delighted microscopic vision. They get us. They also love us too, which is nice, as it implies that once people truly figure out men, they are still capable of loving us anyway, which I always regarded as dubious.
Sometimes it’s better to be ignorant. There’s a problem called “knowing someone too well.” I love women, but I often feel that I “know them too well,” if you catch my drift.
And a lot of women know men “too well.” Most prostitutes are probably experts on men. Have you noticed how many of them hate men? Well, they hate us because they know us too well. They’ve really and truly figured us out and learned what psychopathic shits we really are. They’ve seen our bad side in Technicolor way too many times.
A female friend once shocked me when she said that players and womanizers hate women. Well, some do and some don’t. Most are cynical about women.
“The reason players hate women is because they’ve figured out what women are really like.”
Well, maybe so. Like I said, sometimes ignorance is bliss, and familiarity breeds contempt. It may be better to stay in dark about a lot of other people and groups of people.
Young women in their 20’s are often outraged about and in total war against male nature, which they think is outrageous, gross, and disgusting. It is indeed all of those things of course, and I would be the first to admit it. This is one of the main things that make young women such silly creatures – getting all upset about things that cannot be changed.
After age 30, most women have settled down and decided that men are just the way they, are and there’s nothing to be done about that, so you might as well accept it as long as you’re not a Lesbian Separatist.
The ones who still can’t accept our basic porcine and canine nature remain riled up and ranting and raving about men into their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and beyond. We call these pathetic creatures “feminists.” They are railing against the basic nature of men, which is like screaming that rocks act like rocks. It’s totally pointless.
You either make some peace with us (and most women do), or you turn into a celibate feminist cat lady, or you can always go lez, and a lot of women after age 40 do just that. I dated a 50 year old woman once, and she told me 20% of the single women her age were lesbians. I said, “Huh?” and then I asked if she meant that they had been straight but had a ton of bad experiences with men, so they went over to the other team. She shrugged and said this was the case.
Feminists are basically tilting at windmills their whole lives and screaming at us men to change. It makes about as much sense as screaming at your dog to quit acting like a dog.
We’re not changing, ladies, and you won’t like us if we do anyway.
Thanks, ladies! I’m sure there’s no double standard there or anything like that!
Generally speaking, there’s no such thing as vaginas that are “too tight,” ladies, although mostly young women complain about it a lot. 21% of women experience painful sex. Some of the time? All of the time? No idea. I haven’t noticed it much in my life. Really the vagina is an amazing organ, a muscle in fact. And it stretches and shrinks to accomodate whatever penis happens to be parking in its garage at the time.
A woman on the Net said she knew a couple, a little Filipina who was 5’1 married to this big tall Black guy who looked like a football player. Apparently he was pretty big too if you know what I mean. She asked the Filipina about it and she giggled and said, “Well, yes, it did hurt a bit, but it seemed to fit in pretty well anyway.” As I said, a vagina is this amazing expanding organ. So too tight is bullshit. You aren’t too tight. You are too “uptight.” These young women have some inhibitions about sex, and that’s the reason for the “too tight” bullshit. The solution, as with so many things in life, is to relax, but that’s often easier said than done.
“Too tight” is something like vaginismus, though in the pure disorder, you simply cannot even get in at all, not even with a crowbar. It’s due to emotional inhibitions about sex, mostly inherited from your wonderful parents. There are videos on the subject on Youtube and all these young women are chiming in saying it’s not their fault that their parents saddled them with this problem.
Of course female sexual dysfunction is regarded as a tragedy by women, including my mother. I’ve told her about these women, and her face got long, “That’s sad…” she said. Ok, sure, give them solace. But have you ever seen the way the same women, including my mother, react to male sexual dysfunction? Ahem.
My Mom is furious at the very idea that any young man would ever be impotent at any time for any reason. She’s hopping mad about it and she thinks it is ridiculous, preposterous, and contemptible that any younger man should ever experience this. Obviously, my Mom doesn’t have a dick because if she was honest and she had a dick (admittedly few of us dick-havers our honest about our possession), she would never say that.
I’ve met a number of other women with the same notion. Obviously, women don’t know much about dicks. The truth is that sporadic or occasional impotence is absolutely normal in any man of any age. Any negative emotion can cause it. It’s mostly caused by performance anxiety and not so often by inhibitions of homosexuality, which is what everyone thinks causes it, except they’re wrong as usual.
And if you can get it up at some point, you’re not really impotent.
If you can’t get it up, just go do something else. Eat her pussy or something. Focus on her. Forget about your stupid defiant dick. You’re thinking about it and that’s why you have a problem right there. You do that for a while, and sooner or later, you’ll get it up and be able to have sex. It’s estimated that by age 40 all men who have had a lot of sex have been impotent at least one time. Any man who hasn’t is either lying or hasn’t had much sex. Or he has a Viagra prescription.
The more sex you have and the more women you’re with, the more likely it is to occur because sex gets better as you get comfortable with a woman and start doing it a lot. Each new woman you sleep with is a whole separate universe and brings a whole new set of everything to the sexual table, and each new woman is a remarkably new and rather frightening experience. So players and womanizers have tended to experience more impotence than most men, if only as a consequence of having much more sex with many more women.
A study estimated that it takes six months for a couple to get their sex completely worked out and compatible with each other.
Another study found that in the case of a quick, highly desired encounter with a new, highly anticipated woman, 50% of men are impotent.
As I said, sporadic or occasional impotence is normal in any man of any age. Now when it starts happening all the time, you have yourself an impotence problem. Secondary impotence, it’s called. Even these tend to be time-limited. I read an article recently about a young man who experienced performance anxiety impotence that went on for some time. He told his father and his father said he had had a couple of bouts with it too, once at university and another time when he had caught his wife having an affair.
Of course women are complete shits about this subject but it’s more due to ignorance then evil, Women are total emo cases, and the more emo you are, the more likely your dick’s emergency light comes on. In other words, if women had dicks, they’d be dealing with impotence quite a bit. I’m sure of it. The only way to be sure you are never impotent is to be a machine and have no emotions, but even stud bulls have off days.
The problem is that we are in such a crazy moral panic and mass hysteria over this subject right now that anyone who simply recites the good, hard, solid science behind this matter, as discovered in many good laboratory studies, will get accused of being a pedophile. Because the science, according to the modern craziness, is “pro-pedophile.”
This is nonsense. Science isn’t pro anything or anti anything. If it is, it’s not science, it’s politics. Which is what a lot of what passes for science nowadays, especially in the pathetic social sciences (which aren’t even sciences) right now, especially when it’s driven by SJWism, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory, three viciously anti-science plagues menacing our society.
I’ve done a lot of research on this subject because it interests me. Now the morons, which is 95% of humans, think that makes you guilty right there. If you study it, you do it. If you talk or write about it, you do it. Your average idiot actually believes that. Of course it’s true in some cases, but pro-pedophile types are pretty easy to spot. I’ve seen quite a few of their webpages. They’re not very shy about it.
I’m also interested in a million things, including a lot of sick and fucked up things I would never think of doing. I do seem to have some sort of attraction to sick and fucked up stuff. I don’t do these things, but for some reason, I am fascinated by them. How about if I write next time about the coprophiles, or shiteaters? What do you all think? Good subject for a post? No? Too bad, I’ll write about them anyway!
Anyway the figures are absolutely shocking:
3% of men are pure pedophiles, having more attraction to girls age 2-10 than to mature females. That’s absolutely bizarre. That’s 3.3 million American men right there. Now, as long as these guys don’t touch any kids, I don’t care what their sexual orientation is. We are not into the era of thought crimes, but we are headed that way. This is why I appear to be defending these people sometimes.
If they are not offending, I have beef with them, and any man with an orientation like this can’t help it anyway. It appears to be a developmental disorder like homosexuality, transsexualism and so many other things.
The debate about this has gotten so heated. People want to execute every “pedophile” in the US or at least lock them up for life. I’m not willing to execute 3.3 million American men and I’m not willing to lock them all up for life either. I don’t have any solutions to this mess, but those are not the way to go.
Beyond that, 18% of men are more attracted to females under age 15 (some say under 13) than to mature females. Most everyone would call these men pedophiles, but in the literature they are calling them hebephiles (maximal attraction to 11-14 year old girls, though the attraction does go up to age 15 in the hebephiles I have seen). That figure is truly shocking to me!
Most of these men probably have strong drives towards mature women, so they can substitute a prosocial drive for an antisocial one. But the way most Americans see it, 21% of all US men are pedophiles!I’m not about to condemn 20% of my brothers. I love my fellow men too much. I’m not about to jump on board this Misandry Train and condemn tens of millions of men to the gallows or life imprisonment. It’s bizarre.
26% of all men are as attracted or more attracted to girls under 15 than they are to mature females. Of the 26%, 3% of them or 10% of the total, are literal pedophiles. The rest are hebephiles or at least most people would see them that way. The vast majority of these men probably have strong attraction to mature females too, hence they can put aside their urges for young girls and focus on mature teenagers (16-17) and women (18+), hence they are not particularly dangerous.
That is absolutely shocking! How could 1/4 of all men have such a strong orientation to girls under 15, even preferring them to mature females? It boggles the mind.
Now almost everyone you tell this to will raise a fit, start screaming and yelling, and will quickly accuse you of being a pedophile yourself.
Beyond that, how on Earth has such a strong attraction or even preference for girls under 15 compared to mature females even evolve in our species (because it must be evolved).
The commenter here attempts to answer that question in terms of evolutionary biology. He is responding to this post:
bluestar: Well, the truth is that a certain amount of pedophilic attraction is normal for men and makes biological sense. Because what matters is the amount of offspring a female can give a man over the long-term, men have evolved to prefer young, nulliparous females that have all their fertile years ahead of them.
In primitive societies it’s common for men to pursue little girls for marriage. It makes more biological sense for men to chase after 8 yo girls who have all their fertile years ahead of them than 30 yr olds who have used up half of their fertility.
We see a similar thing in Hamadryas baboons. When the males come up to maturity they become interested in the juvenile females and want to take them into their harems. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
Men in hunter-gatherer societies do the same thing. This practice is often called “woman theft” which makes it sound like the men are kidnapping 25 yr olds, but they’re usually much younger than that. Chagnon saw men in the Yanomamo tribe in Venezuela often kidnap “unripe” girls from neighbouring villages. Native American tribes would often kidnap little girls from other tribes. A famous case of this is Cynthia Parker, who was kidnapped at about age 10 and lived with the Comanche tribe for over 20 years, having 3 kids with the chief.
Hamadryas baboons are very interesting as the modern human mating may have evolved something like the generalized polygyny system they use.
The whole topic of pedophilia is so taboo that evolutionary psychologists won’t touch it. It just has to be completely evolutionarily maladaptive and abnormal!
This is precisely the function of the media in a capitalist society. The Chinese media is not like this because, duh, China is not a capitalist country! Nor is the Iranian media because Iran is not a capitalist country. In fact, Iran is almost something like “Islamic Communism.” I’m not wild about Ayatollah Khomeini, but he did have a strong social justice streak.
The Revolution was populist, pro-independence, and anti-imperialist. Iran is almost based on a Muslim version of Liberation Theology or “the preferential option of the poor.” The social safety net is huge in Iran. Also, much of the economy is run by the state. It’s actually run by religious charities, often with ties to the military and the IRGC. I believe these religious charities do not operate at a profit. Small businesses are not bothered at all, as in all Muslim countries. I was reading Ayatollah Khameini’s tweets for a while on Twitter, and I could have been reading Che Guevara. Basically the same message.
Islam is just not friendly to neoliberal economics or radical individualism. It is a very collectivist religion in a very collectivist society.
Neoliberalism hasn’t caught on much of anywhere in the Muslim world other than Indonesia and the Southern Philippines, and they had to murder 1 million Communists in cold blood to get there in Indonesia and the Moros have always rejected Catholic rule in both a political and economic sense. it is notable that the Maoist NPA are also huge in Mindanao, home of the Moros.
Pakistan, too, has inherited the selfish economics and even feudalism in land tenure straight from Indian Hinduism. They even have caste, which would be considered an aberration in any decent Muslim society.
All of the Arab countries are basically socialist at least in name, and that was never a hard sell there. It’s true that 100 years ago, the Arab lands were mostly feudal in nature, with big landowners and peasants in debt bondage. They rich had co-opted the religious authorities like they always do, and the mullahs preached that Islamic feudalism was right and proper because the Prophet had said, “It is normal that some are rich and some are poor.” But it was always a hard sell, and it had a very weak foundation.
After independence, socialism was instituted in most if not all Arab countries at least in name. In particular, huge land reforms were done in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Palestine. I assume something like that was done in Algeria too. It was a very easy sell, and everyone went along with it without a hitch. The mullahs quickly changed from support for feudalism to support for socialism.
Hamas rules Gaza and I was shocked at how huge the social safety net is. The many religious charities run the safety net, which is distributed under the rubric of Islam. This is done instead of the state doling it out.
Mohammad himself didn’t have much to say about economics, but he wasn’t a neoliberal capitalist or a feudalist.
In Christian societies, the rich have utter contempt and hatred for the poor, who they regard as little more than human garbage. If you want to see this philosophy in action, look at the classism in Latin America. As all Muslims are part of the umma, and hence, as all are brothers and sisters, it is simply unconscionable that wealthy Muslims would be able to openly hate poor Muslims. You simply cannot treat your fellow Muslims like that. It’s not officially haram but it might as well be.
European Style Fascism in the Middle East
It is instructive that the only place in the Arab world where neoliberal economics and in particular Libertarianism took hold was in Lebanon, and even there, it was only among Catholic Maronites. Most Arab Christians look east to Antioch (and before that, Constantinople) to the Eastern Orthodox church, which is really just the eastern wing of Catholicism.
The Maronites, though, deride Antioch and instead look to Rome. They see themselves as European people instead of Arabs. Many deny that they are Arabs and instead refer to themselves as “Phoenicians.” It is interesting that the only real classical fascism in the Arab World took hold in the Lebanese Maronites, where the Gameyels imported it from Europe in the 1930’s.
The Jews of Israel also developed a very European form of fascism starting with Jabotinsky and his book The Iron Wall in 1921. This man was an open fascist. He is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party. During the 1940’s, the armed Jewish rebels split into leftwingers who were almost Communists and rightwingers who were more or less fascists.
The Kahanists today look a lot like a European fascist party. And in fact, the entire Israeli rightwing around Likud, etc. looks pretty fascist in a European sense. So Israeli Jews are really Jewish fascists or fascist Jews. It has never been an easy ride for liberal and secular US Jews to support the Orthodox religious fanatics and rightwingers if not out and out fascists in the Likud, etc. in Israel. This was always completely unstable, and after that latest war, it’s finally starting to fall apart. But the seeds of destruction were already there.
But note that the Jews of Israel very much look to the West and see themselves as Europeans (which many are for all intents and purposes). They align themselves with the Judeo-Christian European society that many of them came from.
Half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi Jews from the Arab World, and they have always had a Judeo-Islamic culture. However, when they moved to Israel, this was dismantled by perhaps not entirely. They rejected it due to the association of Arabs and Islam with the enemy, which is correct.
Economics and Catholicism
This radical classism and near-feudalism in Latin America was supported by the Catholic Church, which was always a very rightwing institution because they were always in bed with the rich. There were always Left splits in Catholicism like Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker. The Catholic clergy in the US has tended to be quite leftwing.
There is a long history of “Catholic Communism” in the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the Basque Country, France, Italy, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay. The IRA was a leftwing Catholic armed group. A lot of priests were caught hiding IRA cadre. So was the ETA in the Basque Country of Spain.
Catholic Leftism never caught on in Poland and Lithuania due to hatred of Russia and the USSR. Nevertheless, both are more or less socialist countries.
Even today there is an active “Catholic Communist” movement in Cuba that is very lively. In Honduras and Colombia, Catholic priests actually led guerrilla bands. Liberation Theoloy is something like “Jesus Christ with an AK-47.” The Leftist who recently took power in Paraguay was a former Catholic priest.
The ELN was founded by a priest, Camilo Torres, and many Catholic clergy even supported the Shining Path! Edith Lagos, a 20 year old woman, was the leader of a very early Shining Path column in Peru. She was killed in 1980 and the entire town of Ayacucho, 30,0000 people, came out for her funeral which was held at midnight. The lines of mourners stretched through the whole city. All of the priests in town blessed her body, and she was given a proper Catholic funeral.
I believe that the PT or Workers Party of Brazil has a large Liberation Theology component. The Catholic clergy had an excellent relationship with the FARC in Colombia. Of course, the Catholic clergy played a big role in Venezeula, and Hugo Chavez himself was a practicing Catholic. The FMLN Salvadoran rebels were explicitly Catholic, as were the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One of the Sandinists’ top leaders, Tomas Borge, was a Catholic priest. Jean-Paul Aristide in Haiti was a Catholic priest. Catholic believers are now allowed to join the Communist Party in Cuba, and near the end of his life, Fidel Castro said he was a “cultural Catholic.”
After Vatican 2 and Liberation Theology began to spread out via the seminal documents written by Gustavo Gutierrez in Brazil, “A Theology of Liberation,” otherwise known as “exercising the preferential option for the poor,” it began to spread in Latin America. It started with local priests and especially Catholic lay workers in impoverished areas and then slowly spread. Even today, Catholic layworkers and especially seminaries are very leftwing, while the Vatican itself is not. A lot of seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality, and the gay priests and lay workers are quite open about it. It is estimated that 15% of Catholic priests are gay.
Absolutely superb comment from Francis Melville on this post.
Well, the Democrats used to be the Victorian prudish ones during the whole Nineteenth Century and through Wilson, and remained so wherever their voting base was Catholic up to 1965 when the Vatican II Council turned the Catholic Church into a liberal thing on most issues that had to ally with liberal forces to get heard in the political arena.
After all, the moral base of the Democratic Party was established under Jackson, and it formed under the influence of the most Calvinistic and sectarian part of the American public opinion.
Up through Wilson, the Democratic Party was more clearly rightwing than the Republican on most issues, while the Republicans took pride in being centre of the road. Even when they came to be the party of Big Business, their principle was clear: separation between church and state and even more between bedroom and state.
They believed you were entitled to a religious life, however wacko, provided you kept it for yourself and never planned to use government to promote it, and you were therefore entitled to any kind of sex life, however un-American, provided you did not involve the Party institutions nor aggressed any non-consenting victim.
Sexual virtue signalling was a Democratic thing as everything populist in general has always been. The alignment changed during the 20th century with Prohibition and consequently progressive thinkers of European origin aligning themselves systematically with the Democratic Party, in particular when the main presenters of these progressive currents happened to be Jews.
But even during the 1950’s as the Catholic church had remained the last bulwark of anti-sexual moralism on the backdrop of a Protestant world which had then succumbed to Utilitarianism, most regressive laws passed by the state in sexual affairs were passed under a Democratic banner. Worse, the Catholic world, like also the Muslim and Hindu world of that time, having little to do with higher morality, was more open to homosexuality and pederasty than to any heterosexual romance, as the latter was deemed a far greater danger to family life.
The McCarthy Era was driven by Irish Catholicism, and Irish Catholics loved to present themselves as the only true representatives and saviors of American values.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were gradually morphing into the party of absolute egoism and negation of public good. Swingers as had been produced by the Sexual Revolution of late Sixties and early Seventies proved to be egoists to a supreme degree and chose to be Republicans Ayn Rand style, most contrary to the hope entertained by Marcuse and others that Sexual Liberation would be the first stepping stone out of capitalistic Puritanism into the Long March towards a more just society.
In general, sexually speaking, dominant males’ dream is not sexual free choice for all but for themselves only as a tiny group on the backdrop of a puritanical society guaranteeing them an endless supply of innocent female prey that will make an exception to the Puritanism only under economic duress and due to the prohibition of them being pursued by impoverished males.
Reagan Republicans’ alliance with Moral Majority is to be seen in that perspective, both inside the non-believing wing of the Republican Party and inside the Evangelist sects also, where the main preachers always copy the great polygamous Biblical patriarchs, while imposing Puritanism on the masses of their attendants that haven’t studied the Bible deeply enough to know and realize the game.
The fake Protestant Republicans made their show in pure contradiction with what the Republicans, even the very right-wing ones, had been through. Eisenhower embraced religion in pure contradiction with that party’s stance of refusal of any reference to religion in the political sphere.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were quietly reverting, under corporate donor pressure and especially under Zionist Jewish pressure, to what they had been in Dixie times – there is no need to look further. The Democratic Party never stopped being multicultural, and that included necessarily that religious identities of all sorts had never ceased to be the party of confusion between the political and the religious spheres.
Traditionally, it was the Catholic Church as a provider of militants from Irish and Latino backgrounds, but now that since Vatican II the Roman Church no longer wanted to play the same role as it used to, a Virtual Catholic Church has formed.
It is made up of an alliance of Whites claiming progressivism but practicing astrology and other occult sciences as to cater for their own spiritual needs and more colored people practicing non-Christian ultra-conservative religions such as Islam and Hinduism, and calling for the unification of the world under this undefined-but-more-totalitarian-than-ever faith.
Celts who leave Catholicism and revert back to some sort Druidism are always puritanical to the highest degree, as they equate sexual energy with ultimate financial capital and as always being against of any form of social justice scheme, since they believe in karma, not divine grace.
It must be first well-understood that contrary to what a superficial cultural cliché teaches about Germanic conqueror tribes enslaving peaceful Celtic ones, Germanic cultures have always fallen for hippie (long hair, self-indulgence, social redistribution in favor of workers and artists) values when left alone to themselves in small nations, and Celtic cultures for skinhead or Hell’s Angels values (shaven heads, androgynous look, food fascism under various pretexts, indifference to misery).
16+ is another way of saying mature females because females have a full sexually mature female body by that age.
Before that age from 13-15, the female body is developing and changing from a girl’s body into a woman’s body, and in certain ways, it is not fully sexually mature.
The curves that men like so much in a woman’s body, mostly a consequence of enlarged hips, buttocks, and breasts, develop over this period.
13-14 year old girls often have stick-like straight bodies similar to a boy’s body. For this reason, a lot of men find them not fully attractive. That stick-like body is a killer at least for me and some men I know.
A 15 year old girl is just odd. Frequently their bodies simply appear out of sorts as if they are not developing properly. Their bodies often look “awkward.” Of course, this is around the age that teenagers are often “awkward” anyway, and if you approach one of these “awkward”-looking 15 year old girls and try to talk to her, she will often give you a response that is rather “awkward.” I was on Kik a while ago, and a 15 year old girl messaged me apparently wanting to talk dirty. I talked to her for just a tiny bit with no serious dirty talking before I blocked her out of fear.
Nowadays they will put you in jail for the crime of “talking dirty” to a girl that age, which is a ridiculous crime in my opinion. Anyone can say anything to anybody within reason. The whole idea of crimes called “illegal talking” is perverse and bizarre. However, the way she approached me in a flirtatious manner was also rather awkward. She didn’t even know how to talk dirty in the few sentences we exchanged.
13 year old girls still have what my friends call “those little girl faces,” and they and I both regard it as a turnoff. My Mom said it’s probably “baby fat” that is present in the faces of all little girls. The baby fat probably starts to go away around age 14.
If you look at a grown woman, her face is rather bony. It is not bony in a bad way, but it is quite hardened. The most beautiful women have prominently bony faces with “sharp” and well-defined features. Noses and upper cheekbones are some of the important bones in woman’s face in terms of beauty. In fatter women, these bony features tend to be covered up with fat, which can make fatter women less attractive, though I admit there are some fat and even very fat women who have absolutely gorgeous faces.
During this period, the breasts often grow larger, and there are also changes in their appearance that are hard for me to quantify, but I will only say if you have seen enough of them, there appears to be something “wrong” with the breasts of 13-16 year old girls, and I don’t mean in just size. It is something about their general appearance and also I believe the appearance of the areola. But I’m not an expert on breasts, so I’m guessing here.
Pubic hair growth is complete by age 14 in the female, but it does grow a bit more to areas that are normally shaved nowadays to the inner things, the perineum, the area around the anus, and even in some cases above the public mons towards the navel in a long thin line.
These are called “happy trails” and back in the day (the 1960’s and 1970’s) you saw them occasionally. I remember one of the female lifeguards at the pool we went to used to have one which she sported in proud and showing manner. My eyes always drifted right to it as a teenage boy, and she always smiled at that. Nowadays it would be regarded by most younger men are horrible and disgusting. Nowadays they’d probably ban a teenage boy from a pool for even looking at a young lifeguard’s happy trail.
The vagina and anus probably grow between 13-16 in size and shape as does the rest of the body. As female height is complete by about age 16 (there is another inch or two of growth that may occur at age 17), the organs of the body should all also be fully developed by 16. In Yemen, they often marry girls at age 13 to grown men. I was not aware that sex with between men and girls that age was dangerous, but there are reports that some of these girls die with complications from having sex with these men, possibly because hard sex with a large male penis is too much for a 13 year old girl’s vagina to cope with. But don’t quote me on that.
Also, 13-15 year old girls have anuses that are smaller than that of a grown woman. In my lifetime (though it has been 20 years since my last such conversation) I have talked to girls around that age about anal sex. Some of said that they did it, but they only liked smaller or “thinner” penises. I’ve never heard a grown woman say such a thing, so this implies that in girls this age, the anus is smaller than adult size.
Of course it becomes increasingly more difficult for girls to get pregnant as we descend from 15 down to 13 years old. Females are not fully fertile until age 16. This implies once again that females are fully developed at that age, not only in organ size and height but in other ways too.
Females do grow a bit after 16-17. Around ages ~18-19, females hips widen quite a bit. This is done in order to be more able to carry a baby. Girls under 18 have hips that are not really wide enough to carry a baby, hence there are many more birth complications with girls that age, with consequences for both the girl and the baby.
This is why girls around age ~16-17 have bodies that seem to be the perfect female body, which in nature barely exists. They have the fully rounded body of a female with full female breasts, but their hips have not widened yet. So you end up with skinny girls who are very curvy. It’s a male dream. However, this dream woman is an aberration, and she is not even very physically or genetically fit. What you are seeing is a woman who is not yet developed enough to carry a baby, so it is not natural or normal for a female to be this way.
The ideal female for males is an abnormal female such as barely exists in any full-grown woman. The truth is that curves and big breasts go with heavier women. Thinner women tend to have smaller breasts and less curved bodies. Some almost have the stick-like figures of boys or 13-14 year old girls.
You love big tits but you hate fatties. You’re out of luck, pal. You love thin women but you hate small tits. Sorry guy, your model’s been out of order forever.
You got one or the other. You want big tits? Fine, accept a little fattiness. You want thin bodies. No problem, but smaller breasts come with that model.
The male ideal, a thin but curved woman with big breasts, is basically a nonexistent creature, though some 16-17 year old girls look this way, but that body is abnormal and will function poorly in some ways.
21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!
I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study. The studies compared male reactions to females under 13 with reactions to females 16+.
Whenever anything is that common, there is probably a genetic tendency for it. Also, age preference in males cannot be corrected by any experimental means. Things that cannot be corrected in the lab are usually thought to be hardwired and biologically based.
So why are 20% (!) of all men basically preferential pedophiles?
It appears that there is a genetic preference for pubertal age girls that has been encoded in males and is present in a sizeable minority of them. The reasons for this are up for grabs, but among the Yanonamo Indians of Venezuela, men usually grab a wife at age 12 and often fight other men for girls that age. Sex may not take place for a few years later, but at least they nab them very young.
Perhaps there was a preference to select pubertal girls and sequester them away from other men for a bit until they became fully fertile at age 16, at which time she would be locked into that man and all of her children would be his.
Historically, early life was indeed short, nasty, and brutish, and perhaps primitive life still is. By age 40, every Yanonamo man has committed at least one homicide of another man. If you’re a pacifist you simply don’t make it to age 40. You die young, killed by other men. Kill or be killed. The law of the jungle.
It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!
I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.
I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.
In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.
You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.
Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.
Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.
The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?
Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.
Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t.Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?
Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.
Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!
But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!
From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.
The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.
It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!
Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.
In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal.Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.
So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.
But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.
The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.
So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.
Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”
The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.
Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.
That’s unconstitutional on its face.
The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.
Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.
So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.
So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.
Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.
How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!
One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”
But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!
There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.
But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.
They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.
Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.
But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label allthe rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.
DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.
Ah, you’re gay. Trust me that whatever you read on here, I love you, my brother, just as much as I love any of my straight friends. Don’t take the “homophobic” stuff on here seriously. We mostly aren’t’ talking about you anyway.
If you occasionally see homophobic stuff on here, it’s mostly directed at straight men. I don’t know if you gays know this, but for a lot of men, we use homophobic slurs mostly at our straight brothers and not so much at you guys, as with us liberals, we are not supposed to talk like that about you guys anymore. It’s bigotry. Not that I care about being accused of a bigot but the accusation of me hating gay men is not one I like because I do not wish to feel that way about them or be accused as such.
Fag is used to an insult for other straight men in the same family as pussy, girl, faggot, little bitch, girlyman, puss, wuss, wimp, sissy, soyboy, mangina, etc. It means exactly the same thing – that you are too feminine or effeminate to be a real man. That’s a supreme insult, but with fag there is the extreme added insult that this straight man really has gay sex on the side, which is about the worst thing on Earth you can say about a straight man. We know that all these guys are really straight, so we are lying when we call them gay. We are just doing it to set them off and hit them in their worst Achilles Heels.
We or mostly I also use it for straight men who are siding with the feminists and the women in the war against heterosexual male sexuality – that is, metoo and all of the rest of the garbage. We see this as a conspiracy by women to try to stop us from getting laid. They’re always conspiring to do that anyway or at least they have since I was a teenager, so it’s really no big, but now it has been weaponized with the added punishments of loss of job, income, career. and even arrest for the crime of getting laid or even pathetically trying to.
This is a war on straight men. These bitches are trying to destroy us for the crime of trying to get laid or getting laid, and they will pay for this shit. Well, they probably won’t, but we always say that anyway because they deserve to get threatened by us.
We are not talking about you guys because you are fellow male degenerates who are way sicker sexually than even we are, so the last thing you guys try to do is try to stop us from getting laid. So we are not talking about you!
Some gay men are with the feminists and those men are faggots, sorry. Faggots faggots faggots faggots. They’ve joined the enemies of the men. We request that gay men line up with their straight brothers in the war on feminism and the enemies of the men. Trust us that these man-haters hate you as much as they hate us. You’re evil because you’re men. They don’t care if you are straight or gay. Anyway, we welcome all gay men into the Brotherhood of the Men at least as partners in the War on Men.
But for a very long time, fag was simply a descriptive word for a male homosexual. It was often neutral or said with an eye-roll or a shrug of accepting dismissal, like, “What are you going to do?” Thing is we hate gay sex and male homosexuality in general, as that is part of the masculinization process all straight men go through as boys.
But then we have to like or love you guys because we have now learned that you can’t help it. So we can’t hate you for being gay. We have to love you just as much as anybody else. So this is the dilemma liberal straight men go through.
Any straight man who tells you he is not homophobic is a liar. If he says that, ask him to stick a dick in his mouth and see what he says. See? He will say that guys don’t turn him on, but that never stopped any man from Ancient Greece and Sparta to current Afghanistan, with some similar dynamics in both cases where male homosexual behavior for those playing the male role is associated with some of the most extreme masculinity on Earth. The reason, I guarantee, is that he thinks that is the worst thing on Earth. Worse than cancer or even death. It’s a living death, and that’s worse than being actually dead. They way we were brought up was, “That’s the one thing you never do.”
On the other hand, friendships between straight and gay men don’t work very well for all sorts of reasons, mostly that they either won’t stop trying to fuck us or won’t shut up about how hot we are and how much they want to fuck us, both of which are most unwelcome. Also a lot do not respect us for being straight and insist we are really gay or try to brainwash us into thinking we are a gay. I’m thinking gay men could do a lot more on their end if they really want to have friendships with us.
But why do they want to anyway? We straight men are assholes. We barely like each other, and women’s feelings towards us are notorious. I think gay men should stick with straight women for friends and gay/bi men for everything else. You have more than 50% of society liking you, which is way more than we straight men have. Don’t bother trying to befriend lesbians. We know they hate you too and everyone knows they hate us.
A lot of straight men have some extremely serious hangups about male homosexuality, so understand that that probably drives a lot of homophobia. A lot of us have been called or suspected of being gay ourselves by other straight men or women and we have a lot of issues about that, especially as that is about the worst insult you could say about us, those insults coming from the latter being almost homicide-inducing on their end. Want to get hit or even killed? Call us gay. Try it. I dare you. We straight hit and even kill over this stuff.
Try to have some sympathy. Those homophobic remarks are coming from places of fear, deep insecurity, and pain. It’s not about you. It’s about screwed up stuff inside of us. You’re just a punching bag.
It’s not that we are gay ourselves in most cases, but it is more than we have a lot of weird unresolved fears about this stuff, which we find mostly nauseating and terrifying. For instance, a recent lab study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay porn than they were by live maggots! Yes. Live maggots! So that gives you some idea of the revulsion.
Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.
Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”
For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men has had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.
Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it.It’s what the weak do.The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools.In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place.And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.
So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen? Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating, and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.
So, as request:
“Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”
Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.
Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.
So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they sometimes start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos.
Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.
So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong andare at least capable of fixing their fuckups.
It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.
Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.
So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!
Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.
Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.
Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.
We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.
The difference is in what you do afterwards.
We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.
So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.
Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.
This is a really nice poem, plus you can understand everything in it for a change. This guy is a modern poet, but he’s also quite a good one.He’s a bit of an enfant terrible, hates all the other poets. Spends his time in San Francisco and New Jersey where he grew up.
He was a good friend of Thom Gunn’s in San Francisco. He also knew Allen Ginsberg pretty well. And yep, Peter Orlovksy is just as nuts as everyone says he is. I saw Ginsberg read once and Orlovsky was with him. He looked pretty crazy even back then in 1982. Met Ginsburg too. Didn’t like him. He refused to talk to me. Just glared at me with contempt while some self-hating gay in my English Department kept trying to worm his way into Ginsburg’s lap. Ginsburg refused to talk to anyone in the bar except his one fat guy who everyone hated and was called “The Bore of Long Beach.” They talked about astronomy. That’s all the bore liked to talk about.
Ginsberg, Orlovsky, and Gunn were all gay. Ginsberg is gay and I think Gunn died of AIDS. Gunn was a very good poet. He wrote a nice book about having AIDS, brutal stuff. Ginsberg was great of courser, but he was also a huge asshole in my opinion, but a lot of artists are pretty insufferable.
I assume Orlovsky is dead too or locked in an asylum somewhere. It’s hard to put into words how gay the beatniks were. At least the hippies and punks who came afterwards weren’t a bunch of homosexuals, for God’s sake!
The Italian lines below are from Dante, in case you were wondering.
“Sleeping It off in Rapid City”
On a 700-foot-thick shelf of Cretaceous pink sandstone
Nel mezzo …
Sixth floor, turn right at the elevator
‘The hotel of the century’
Elegant dining, dancing, solarium
Around the block from the Black Hills School of Beauty
And campaign headquarters of one Jack Billion
(‘Together we can move forward’)
The exact centre of the Oglala known universe
Or only 30 miles or so away, south-west, off Highway 87
I waken to the sound of the DM&E
Rattling through this sleeping town
Sounding its horn as it snakes its way through
Hauling coal from nowhere, through nowhere, and then some
Old rocks and distance, a few hawks overhead
4 a.m. – per una selva oscura
– Kwok, kwok, kwok, shrieks the Velociraptor
In the closed dinosaur shop
Roars the Triceratops, like Texas thunder
They keep the tape-loop going through the night
Always have done, no one knows why
The Bible Store respires in its sanctum
As if in an outsize black glass humidor
This is a sacred ground, a holy place
4 a.m. in a sacred place
I can tell this is a sacred place, I needn’t be told
It’s in the air
I feel it
This old heritage hotel, this is a sacred place
The tour buses are lined up outside it
Awaiting the countless pilgrims
On the floor, my shoe, under the bed
Even my shoe is blessed
The Lord’s blessing is everywhere to be found
The Lambs of Christ are among us
You can tell by the billboards
The billboards with foetuses out there on the highway
Through the buzzing, sodium-lit night
Semis grind it out on the Interstate
Hauling toothpaste, wheels of Muenster, rapeseed oil
Blessed is the abundance, blessed the commerce
Across the Cretaceous hogback
Hundred-million-year-old Lakota sandstone, clays, shale, gypsum
And down through the basins of ancient seabeds
Past the souvenir shops and empty missile silos
The ghosts of 98-foot-long Titans and Minutemen
150,000 pounds of thrust
Stainless steel, nickel-alloy coated warheads
Quartz ceramic warheads, webbed in metal honeycomb
Range 6300 miles
Noli me tangere
God bless America
We’re right on top of it, baby
This is why you’re here
Close enough, anyhow, just 11 miles west of Castle Rock
In a pasture, right off 79
The middle of the middle of the heart of this great land
There’s a sign
This is a sacred place
Up there in the hills, the vast, ponderosa-feathered batholith
You can see it from space
Two-billion-year-old exposed rock, rising from the prairie
A faint blue shape on the horizon
When approaching from a distance
But seen close at hand ‘grim and black’
‘Savage cliffs and precipices … fantastic forms
Sometimes resembling towns, some castellated fortresses …’
A sacred place
Custer once came through, in the summer of ’74
With that moustache and golden hair
And espied here the multitude of flowers
17 varieties in a space of 20 feet
One could pick seven different kinds at dinner
Without ever leaving one’s seat
– It was a strange sight, he wrote
To glance back at the advancing columns of cavalry
And behold the men with beautiful bouquets in their hands
A sacred place
The Great White Fathers dwell in these hills
Noses and foreheads blasted out of granite
Crazy Horse, too, 30 stories high
An enormous pod of migmatite glowering east
Big chiefs everywhere
On every street corner in town
Life-size bronze likenesses
See the chicana brushing President Van Buren, bless her
Bless the chicana in pink rayon, the dutiful city worker
Brushing the statue with a toothbrush in the night
There’s Nixon at St Joseph and 5th
Seated, hands folded on his lap, the way he did
In the midst of ‘delicate negotiations with Mao’
This is what it says at the base
Bless them, Nixon and Mao both
Men of peace, soldiers of God
The bronze is cold in the High Plains night
The eyes they gaze out of are holes
Here, at the exact dead centre of America
Or close enough, just north of here, off Highway 79
The buffalo roam in these hills
The bison graze in the shadow of these hills
One angry bull tosses a Harley 30 feet in the air
A big fat biker, attached to it, 30 feet as well
The sacred bison
He would have ridden among the sacred bison, the biker
Ridden as if he were one of their own
– Tatanka, Tatanka, cries Kevin Costner
– Tatanka, concurs Kicking Bird
– Tatanka, agrees Wind In His Hair
Bless Kevin Costner
I saw that one on the wide screen, in Dolby Surround Sound
Kevin Costner stayed in this hotel
Babe Ruth and Calvin Coolidge, too
This is a sacred place
I have come here from far away
After many years of wandering
And found surcease here from all my cares
Surcease here from doubt
Here, at the centre of it all
On a great slab of Mesozoic rock
This sanctified ground
Here, yes, here
The dead solid centre of the universe
At the heart of the heart of America
As you can see, in Matt Gaetz’ case, the whole case is completely fake. The guy literally did nothing wrong. Furthermore, he lacked mens rea, or a guilty mind, so he’s innocent on that basis alone.
He committed the crime of buying a teen whore, except she lied about her age, and told everyone she was 19 when she was really 17. Actually it looks more like 17 1/2 now that I’m looking into it. By the way, she’s still whoring away. Once a whore always a whore. As soon as Gaetz and friends found out, they got furious at her and ended all contact.
Buying a Whore Means You are a “Sex Trafficker”
At 17, in most states she would be legal, but even there, if you pay her, you just committed “sex trafficking.” Yeah, if you buy a whore, you’re a “sex trafficker.” What a bunch of crap. Because the state, in the midst of an idiot moral panic, decided that all teenage prostitution is “sex trafficking.”
Not just the pimps. Indeed, one can make an argument that most pimps are sex traffickers.
Sex trafficking was supposed to mean women who were sex slaves and forced to prostitute themselves and were not able to escape. This is literally the case with most pimps, though most whores are quite willing to whore themselves out. But most pimps won’t let them leave.
So anytime you see an hysterical headline about “sex trafficking,” it just means whores and pimps, which is like, most whores. Whores have had pimps forever. So there’s nothing new going on here, just the same old same old.
But now all teen prostitutes are supposedly being “sex trafficked” too because that’s how they wrote the stupid law in 2012. Even if they’re doing it on their own, which I assume many are. In that case, apparently they are trafficking themselves! See how none of this shit makes sense?
And now if you’re unlucky enough to buy the services some teen whore is freely offering you, instead of just buying a teen whore, you’re a “sex trafficker”! Yep buying whores is “sex trafficking”! Isn’t that stupid? I would say if you want to make a crime out of it, calling it “Purchasing an Underage Prostitute.” It shouldn’t be much of a crime really, but at least the law would make sense.
In many US states, you can freely fuck all the 16 and 17 year old girls you want, but as soon as you hand her a dollar bill (or I guess a penny) for her services, you broke the law! You’re now a “sex trafficker.” Isn’t that stupid? And you go on the idiot Sex Offender List as a “sex trafficker.”
Also, don’t take a picture of her. You can have sex with all the girls you want as above, just don’t take pictures of any of them. Because if you do, you “manufactured and possessed child pornography.” You know, when we made the kiddie porn laws, I don’t think this is what we were thinking of. And you go on the Sex Offender List as a child pornographer.
Kids are getting busted all over the country for manufacturing, distributing and possessing child pornography when they do their sexting. I don’t have the solution to teen sexting but this insanity doesn’t seem to be it.
By the way, those lists are getting really stupid. There are now 3 million people, almost all men, on these stupid lists. Anyone feel any safer? Somehow I think when we came up with the idea for these lists we didn’t imagine putting 3 million Goddamned men on the list!
By the way, if you commit statutory rape, you go on the idiot list too.
And most states have Sex Offender laws that make it almost impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere except maybe under a bridge. Which is exactly where most of them end up living. I’m sure that’s going to rehabilitate them real good and I’m sure they won’t be more likely to commit new offenses! The worse you treat these guys, the more the offend. Well, that’s the case with child molesters anyway and even with non-offending pedophiles.
These Sex Offender Lists and laws have gone completely out of control. I don’t know what to do about this either, but this ain’t it.
I really wish the Left would being so gay and faggoty about this stuff and quit calling men pedophiles for doing what comes perfectly naturally to them – fucking teenage girls.
Matt Gaetz is the Left’s latest obsession. Yes, we’re screaming that he’s a pedophile. And the government is going after him on bullshit sex charges.
Here’s what it’s all about. The allegation is that Gaetz paid for the services of an underage prostitute. He supposedly paid her for sex and her paid her to travel across state lines. Hold on a second. Suppose I have a perfectly legal 16 year old girlfriend. I buy her an airline ticket and now I’m “sex trafficking” her. The law says that if you reimburse her for sex in any way, it’s “sex trafficking.” So I buy my 16 year old girlfriend a hamburger and now I’m “sex trafficking” her. This shit’s getting stupid.
Anyway, once you dig into it, there’s nothing there. Yes, Gaetz and Greenberg, his proucurer, did pay for the services of this more than willing teen whore. But they didn’t know she was 17! She lied and told them she was 19, and I think she even had a fake ID saying so! Anyway she got uncovered by one of Greenberg’s friends, and Greenberg called her in and read her the riot act about how her lying could get a lot of men in trouble. At that point, both Greenberg and Gaetz cut off all contact with the girl. As any reasonable man would do, right?
So this is the charge. This little teen whore lied about her age, told men she was 19 when she was really 17, and guys paid her for sex. As soon as they found out she was underage, they get very angry with her and ended all contact with her.
This is what the fucking Feds (they’re just pigs too – in fact, they’re the worst pigs of them all) are going after Gaetz for. Fake bullshit or what? Even the case against Greenberg looks pretty flimsy.
I was on Twitter and had a conversation with SJW’s. The men were all cucks and fags, and the women were all dumbass feminists. On the other hand, they were human after all, so there were occasional flashes of sanity.
Unfortunately I was in a debate with a bunch of SJW’s, mostly “men,” which means fags, queers, girlymen, wusses, girls, cucks, queens, and sissies. Literally all leftwing men nowadays are faggots. No man on the Left could possibly be straight or a real man anymore. All you can be is a dick-sucking faggot. All leftwing men subscribe to radical SJWism. SJWism is nothing but feminism and faggotry. All male feminists are fags. You can’t possibly be a real man and a feminist at the same time. You have to be a homo taking cock up the ass or a cuck who locks up his dick and lets his wife get fucked by bulls.
They were feminist fools trying to figure out what’s more important, the bullshit feminist nonsense theory swirling around their prefrontal cortexes or that throbbing clit between their legs. It’s the dilemma of all heterosexual feminist women.
Feminism teaches women to hate men, and a lot of women eat it up because face it, we men don’t treat women very well. At the same time, if they are straight, you know how it is, especially nowadays. As a woman I knew recently told me, “A girl’s got to get laid.” Right, ladies?
Which is why feminist women who are still having regular sex with men are limited in how much they can hate men. In order to truly hate men, you have to get away from them and become celibate or a political lesbian, who are mostly celibate anyway because these are just straight women who hate men so much they refuse to have sex with them. But, being straight, most aren’t much into women. So they become the caricature of the raging, aging, celibate feminist cat lady with a vibrator for a live-in lover. A rather pathetic creature.
Some liberal cuck posted about how he can’t figure out when it’s ok to flirt with women and when it’s not. I should be nice to this poor guy. He’s trying to suck up to silly women, which is the worst thing any man can do. Much of the time, women are simply best ignored. Smile, nod your head, say, “Yes…mm hmmm, ahhh, ohhh, uh huh,” while they are going on, but otherwise don’t listen to a word they say. I’ve been doing this my whole life, and all I ever hear from women is gushing compliments about what a great listener I am. Ha ha. If they only knew!
Obviously #metoo idiocy has muddied the waters, as #metoo says all flirting is potentially harassment, all dating is potentially sexual assault, and all sex is potentially rape.
This has had the logical result of many young men avoiding women altogether and sitting at home with beer, videogames, bros, porn, and their dicks in their hands. And now (especially young) women are yelling that men won’t talk to them anymore and avoid them like they’re lepers. They’re furious.
Take the lead and get aggressive with men? Women refuse to do that. They’re genetically programmed to be chased, not chasers.
Hence, many young men, quite logically enough, are going MGTOW. Who could blame them? Modern feminism almost demands that men go MGTOW. In fact, going MGTOW is probably the only rational way to respond to modern feminism. On the down side, you pretty much never get laid.
But you’ve got your bros! So what?
A lot of us are pussy addicts, and we can’t go long without our fix, no matter how frustrated we get with women.
Thing is though is a lot of women feel like they are in the same boat in the opposite direction. We drive them crazy and often treat them terribly. Who could blame them for hating us? On the other hand, there’s that growing puddle between her legs. Which is screaming, “Fulfill me, dammit!” And trust me, after a while, wands, vibes, and rabbits just don’t cut it for most women. They want the real thing. So they hate us but they need us and love to fuck us.
The problem with SJWism is it says Reality isn’t reality. What’s real for SJW’s is this fake Utopian SJW world they believe in.
Except the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, we are cavemen and cavewomen, and he world runs on hate, jealousy, envy, lust, greed, lying, manipulation, sociopathy, Machiavellianism, and other awful things, and as far as sex goes, being mammals, we like to rut in the mud like pigs in a pen. And when it comes to sex, SJWism is off on some other planet.
So SJW’s are constantly running up against a world that doesn’t work the way their utopia says it’s supposed to work. Instead of saying their utopia is crap because humans are predatory mammals barely a step above grizzly bears when the real world doesn’t match up with SJW Utopia, to SJW’s that means the real world (reality) is wrong because the SJW Utopia (the fake world) is always right.
Except it’s never been tried except on paper. And what little evidence of it we do have in practice shows that it causes nothing but chaos and dysfunction, just like Female Rule. Which makes sense because feminism is at the core of SJWism, and as feminism (Female Rule) doesn’t work, neither does SJWism.
It would be all very nice if humans were as groovy and kind and nice and utopian and pretty and empathic and free of evilheartedness as the SJW Utopia demands, but alas, people are people, and humans are massively flawed in the Goodness Quotient because our mammal brains keep ordering us to act bad, wherein “acting bad” just means “acting how a typical amoral, surivival-oriented mammal always acts.”
Because the Real World runs screaming headfirst into the fake SJW Utopian World, smashing it all to bits, this logically infuriates SJW’s, who say the Real World is wrong. Not just wrong but Evil. Hence all the wild efforts of Cancel Culture to “cancel” people for acting like people instead of programmed utopian robots.
The Real World is fake! The true real world is our fake Utopian SJW World!
You can’t fool all the people all the time, thank God, and obviously illogical-on-their-face arguments like the bolded above are eventually going to run up against the Logic crowd who are going to figure out, brainwashed though they may be, that’s it’s the Real World, flawed and shitty as it is, that is the real thing, and the Utopian World, full of goodness and light and everything nice, that doesn’t even exist except in people’s heads. Sooner or later people open their eyes and figure out the SJW Emperor hasn’t any clothes after all. Let the rest of the Woke scream about his great outfit. We, the rational, can see that he’s naked as a jaybird.
I was on Twitter debating SJW’s – obviosuly a waste of time, or worse, actually dangerous to your health – and this dumbass yet earnest and naive feminist chick actually tweeted that if you want to flirt, you should just ask permission. The usual “Mother may I?” ask first gayness feminism has been demanding of us men. That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Remember how feminist idiots have been demanding that we ask permission to do anything with a woman like faggy little boys? It doesn’t work.
The Net is full of feminists saying that when some man asked permission to do something sexual, it turned her off and she left. She wanted him to just jump her bones, dammit.
“Can I flirt with you? Mother may I?” God that’s stupid! How dumb do women think we are? See above. Even women themselves hate it when we act like this, the very way that they demand that we act. So women don’t make sense. But they’re not really supposed to. They’re supposed to bear and raise children and keep the peace and keep us male motherfuckers in line by setting some damned limits on us. What happens when women don’t place any limits on us depraved men. Take a look at gay male society, if you can stomach it. That’s how men act when women stop being basic goalkeepers of male behavior. Women need to be protected from us men. And we men need to be protected from our own Goddamned selves.
Basically, my attitude towards this “Consent” Psychosis that’s hit the US in the wake of the #metoo sewer overflow is:
I’m a man, dammit. If I want something I take it!
You don’t ask permission to do anything sexual with a woman, at least not the real vanilla stuff.
Want to hold her hand? Take her hand in yours.
Want to put your arm around her? Put your Goddamned arm around her.
Want to kiss her? Think about it very well at first. Then just fucking do it.
If you are unsure, put your chin in your hand and go in real slow. You can say in a barely audible tone, “Okay?” But saying with the most extreme confidence. Put this idea in your head when you do it.
“I’m irresistible to women. No woman on Earth can possibly resist me when I kiss them. I’m sexier to women than any guy on Earth.”
They’re all lies of course, in escalating absurdity, but it doesn’t matter. You put those lies in your head and you believe in them and trust them like your car’s brakes. Don’t doubt them for one bit or they may not work as well. Life is about convincing yourself that the most ridiculous lies in the world are 100% true and infallible, and then convincing yourself of that with as little doubt as possible. It doesn’t particularly matter if what you believe is true or not. If it’s true but believing in it screws you up, what good is it? If it’s a lie but it brings you success to believe this lie, go ahead and believe it.
She’s in your car? Put your hand on her leg. Do it in a very casual way as if you are rolling down the window. If you’re not sure if she will like it or not, you can always look at her with this, “Ok?” look on your face. At the same time think, “Woman, if don’t think this is ok, you are the stupidest fool on Earth. So I know you’re going to say it’s ok.” I’m not sure if people can mindread, but when I think “brainwash” things like this, for some reason, they usually seem to work. Or at least they did when I was young and beautiful. Now I’m old and headed towards ugly fast, and all that stuff that worked great when young and fair is falling on its face now that I’m old and splotched.
On the other hand, the feminists are right in a sense when it comes to this consent thing. You do need consent from a woman to do sexual things with her.
But you don’t ask first, you just do it. Then she either likes it or not.
If she likes it, cool.
If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.
If she’s not into it but she likes you, she will say something along the lines of, “Not now, let’s wait a bit, ok?…Not so fast, ok. I just walked in the door,” etc.
If she doesn’t like you, she will bat you away, push you away, etc. And she won’t be very nice about it. That means not only are you not getting laid tonight. You’re also not getting laid by this chick ever. When this stuff starts out bad, it never turns around. Good turns bad in life but bad almost never turns good. Women are not like Coke machines that you can punch and hit until a can comes out. More like you’ll “punch and hit” all night and she’ll just get more and more angry. And you? Well, you’re being rapey. Which is, in my humble opinion, a dick move.
As with so many female societal proposals, they’ve got the music written perfectly, but they never know the words.
I used to go to the local store that was owned by Arab Yemenis. They come from an extremely patriarchal culture where the men rule and the women stay out of the public eye or else. There was one father my age (a very dirty old man – as dirty as I am or worse), his sons, and their friends ranging from 16-40. All of them talked to me all the time.
Unlike in the US, in that culture, a 16 year old boy can talk to a 55 year old man because no one is gay or even suspected to be so. Both are part of a Super ManWorld they’ve got over there, a world of men where all males are part of the exalted Brotherhood of Males, and age means nothing.
You see pictures of the Arab world and even Arab little boys and teenage boys are often seem with adult men of all ages, even elderly men. No one cares. They’re all part of tribe – the tribe of men. And they don’t have weird Western anxieties about homosexuality. Sometimes I try to talk to high school boys about this or that – I saw some walking to school the other day, and I asked them if school was back in session, considering the COVID problem, and they acted like I was some weird gay man who was going to try to fuck them. It’s so weird. I’m not even gay! I guess Pedo Hysteria has hit high school boys too. So pathetic.
You see in the Yemeni Arab world there is no such thing as male homosexuality. Doesn’t exist. All men are considered straight until proven otherwise (which is the only attitude about men that makes any sense and used to be the case before ~1980), and you damn well better have some good evidence. In that culture, you can’t even ask a man if he’s oriented that way. What a ridiculous question! You want a punch in the face?
If you are not seen with a woman, not dating, not getting lucky, or just single, they don’t really care, especially if there’s evidence got women in the past. It really helps if you act like a man and walk the walk and talk the talk. There’s a notion that this guy’s straight but he’s just not getting lucky. Because any masculine man without a woman is straight and he’s just not getting lucky. Or maybe he hates women. Which, in that culture, is considered a reasonable and even comical reason for a man never marrying.
This Western idea that a man who’s not seen dating women for a while is obviously gay is nonexistent because as I said, there’s no such thing as male homosexuality. One time I was going through a long unlucky streak and I joked to the old man that maybe I should consider guys just to get my rocks off. At first he looked stunned and then he started laughing his ass off at me like I was the most idiotic object of ridicule around. He couldn’t stop laughing. “Do it,” he said. “Go ahead and do it.” And then he laughed at me some more.
You see, homosexuality is so beyond the pale and considered nonexistent that if any man seems like he might be that way even a bit, he’s pretty much the laughingstock of the town. You’re the biggest fool around. You’re ridiculous. You’re fall on the floor laughing moronic. I figure that treatment of ridicule is probably what keeps those men from doing that in first place, plus probably most men over there just aren’t very faggy in the first place due to the extreme patriarchal and homophobic culture.
I have no idea if there are gay men in Yemen. But I imagine you could wander around the ManWorld there without seeing a single one or having one single man flirt with or hit on you. Which would be a welcome respite from the fagged-out West in my opinion. Not that biological gay men should be hated for being gay. They should not; it’s an immoral act. Nevertheless, most if not all straight men are homophobic, often very homophobic because homophobia is part of normative masculinity (now referred to as toxic masculinity) in our country, a norm that most straight men try to live up to because failure to do so is so frowned upon.
In other words, while we go out of our way not to hate gay men, we straight men still very much dislike the very idea of male homosexuality and especially gay male sex, which is sickening to us. I imagine most straight men, me included, would be perfectly happy if we could wave a magic wand and make it so no more biological gay men were created.
Men will always do this sort of nonsense for all sorts of other reasons, but those men are not actually gay in a biological sense. They’re just straight men doing some weird, stupid shit if you ask me. Weird, stupid shit that they need to stop doing as soon as possible if they want me to give them the goddamned time of day. I’ve seen enough situational homosexuality for 20 lifetimes. I’ve had quite enough of that bullshit. For God’s sake, if you can’t get a woman, jack off, dammit! Don’t go fuck a guy! What the Hell’s the matter with you? What is your major malfunction?
Some Yemeni men are openly homophobic, but to most, it’s simply a subject that is too absurd and ridiculous to discuss. I did talk to one man in his 30’s about it, and he acted like it was the weirdest thing he ever heard. He was grinning and laughing the whole time but he had this mystified look on his face. It was both comical and unfathomable.
He was genuinely baffled about how they could possibly like men and mostly how they could possibly not like women. To him it was just all too weird. He acted like they were aliens. Most straight men feel this way. We get it. Guys want to fuck guys, ok. Men will fuck anything, probably a hole in a wall if you greased it up. But how on Earth could a man possibly not be attracted to women? I thought that again today at the supermarket where I ran into a couple of women with really nice, big tits. Of course I looked at them by instinct but then I thought, “How on Earth could gay men not be turned on by this? Are they aliens?” It’s not so much hate as sheer, utter befuddlement. We truly don’t get it.
I don’t appreciate the standard SJW and Gay Politics trope that homophobes are all homosexuals. I’ve met many homophobes in my life, and it was correlated with extreme expressions of masculinity as in hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity, if you will. It’s also associated with straight men who are successful with women. In other words, it’s associated with hypermasculinity, including being a player, etc. It’s just reinforcing the fact that they are hypermasculine by attacking gay men to show how masculine they are.
I’ve never met a homophobe in my life who was actually gay. I’ve been unfortunate enough to know many closeted gay men in my life, and while most of them are unbelievably fucked in the head, I’ve never met one who was a homophobe.
The most viciously homophobic societies on Earth such as Jamaica where up 90% of the population think gay men should be killed actually have very low rates of male homosexuality, whereas according to this theory, 90% of men in Jamaica should be a gay. It’s not true. My father was a homophobe. According to this theory, he was a screaming queen. Going back even to the 19th Century and long before, the vast majority of men were extremely homophobic. Sodomy was often punished by prison or execution. Oscar Wilde went to prison. Alan Turing got castrated. According this theory, men from 19th Century to far back in time were a homosexuals. It’s ridiculous.
All men who are biologically gay or bisexual should be respected in that because they were probably born or at least got wired up that way, so it’s not their fault. You going to beat up people with cystic fibrosis? How about dwarves? No one is responsible for any biological condition they are born with and can’t be changed. On that basis, gay men must be accepted and even loved and supported in the sense that we want the best lives for them just as we want for everyone else.
On this site, we don’t like men who are voluntarily engaging in gay sex just to be groovy or perverted or whatever. And yeah, I might call them anti-gay slurs. Why are they doing this? They don’t have to. Nothing is forcing them to be this way. They’re just choosing to engage in this behavior that we think is disgusting. They could stop anytime they want. On the other hand, I don’t want to attack these guys too much because society is full of stupid straight men having gay sex for all sorts of weird and ridiculous reasons. They’re everywhere. I’ve even had some friends who took that idiotic route.
On here, we use faggots to mean straight men “who are not men.” They’re with the feminists. I’m not really talking about gay men. I don’t think a gay man would have reported my tweet unless he was an SJW. Most of the use of that word and similar words is to describe SJW straight men, to attack their masculinity and say they’re not men.
Straight men use anti-gay slurs towards other straight men all the time. Those men are often male feminists and SJW’s are the enemies of the men, especially the real men, and so we are attempting to humiliate them, attack their masculinity and say they’re not men in an effort to shame them and get them to quit being our enemies. This site is anti-SJW, not particularly anti-gay.
Straight men also use anti-gay slurs to describe straight men who are pathologically unmasculine. We also call them pussies, wusses, little bitches, women, girls, girlymen, etc. We don’t use those words towards gay men. We use them towards straight men in order to police masculinity, which I believe is correct. Straight men should be shamed over grotesquely anti-masculine behavior by other straight men. They should be called names to attack their masculinity. Maybe they will come to their senses and man up.
For instance there is a #metoo movement right now that is attacking straight men by saying that flirting with women is harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape. This is all coming out of feminism, and it is part of war on straight men. A bunch of pussy straight men are lining up with the women in that war. They are our enemies. In general, gay men don’t care what we do sexually with women, being libertines themselves. I really doubt if most gay men are trying to get us fired for talking to, flirting with, dating, and having sex with women. They’re mostly on our side in this issue. As sexual degenerates, they’re mostly of the opinion that it’s ok for straight men to be sexual degenerates too.
For instance, we call Starbucks Fagbucks not so much because it is all that gay, though there are some gays working there, including some most idiotic and obnoxious ones who are basically SJW’s. Mostly it is because Starbucks has gone insane on feminist SJWism and #metoo crap. They are banning men from stores for looking at women! They are banning men for trying to talk to men in a completely nonsexual manner, as in just saying hi or talking about the weather. They’re basically banning straight men’s expressions of sexual behavior towards men. We would call them “homos” for doing that.
So we call it Fagbucks to shame them. Any man trying to prevent straight men from having sex is a “fag” because it’s “gay” to try to stop us from getting with women.
Keep in mind that most times you see anti-gay epithets on here that they are directed mostly at straight men and at gay men only to the extent that they are SJW’s. Mostly we are not referring to gay men at all – just our SJW straight male enemies.
I try not to use fag and faggot and anti-gay slurs on here towards gay men because I think it is a bit shameful, and I don’t want to hurt gay men’s feelings by attacking them just for being gay. They can’t help being gay so we should not attack them on that basis. Granted, all straight men hate male homosexuality, the idea that they themselves or their friends being that way, and gay sex itself, but we should not be attacking gay men just for being gay because it’s not something they could control, and it’s not their fault.
If I ever use anti-gay slurs, it will just be towards some particularly unpleasant gay men or to over the top public expressions of male homosexuality, as in I might say, “faggoty gay pride parades” because I think those parades are gross and disgusting outrages. Gay men are not gross and disgusting outrages, but those parades sure are.
I apologize to the feelings of any gay men reading on here, but when you see an anti-gay slur on there, keep in mind that I’m attacking feminist and SJW straight men who are waging war on their brothers. It’s part of a tactic to attack their masculinity for attacking brothers and basically going over to our enemies.
Twitter: Violating our rules against abuse and harassment. You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.
Me: If you want to do weird shit like rimming, anal sex, slapping, spitting, choking, or any of that, for sure you have to ask. I don’t do most of those acts anyway. Even for namecalling, you ask if she likes it. Hairpulling? You have to ask for all that stuff.
Update: Twitter said I explained the issue well and reinstated my account! Hey Twitter! I take back all those terrible things I said about you all. You’re not completely ok and you are SJW’s but at least you are not completely deranged. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this tweet. Hell, it’s a damned pro-SJW tweet for God’s sake!
I also took out all the anti-gay slurs I made towards feminist men because they’re no longer relevant.
I do condemn the SJW rats who falsely reported this tweet as harassing and wishing harm to others. That was really low. But SJW’s always go low and always fight dirty, kind of like (((certain people))). Just one more crappy thing about SJW’s. I have nothing good to say about these SJW Church Ladies right now. They’re a bunch of party-pooper, no-fun, turd-in- the-punchbowl prigs and prudes. We may as well call them the SJW Taliban! And it’s all because of the feminist element amongst them that is all of those things in spades.
Read that tweet. I was talking to a guy. I wasn’t saying anything sexual to him because I don’t fuck guys. I was saying, “Look, if you want to engage in perverted sex acts – and I listed some – those are so hardcore and nasty that you really need to ask the woman’s permission to do that sort of thing with her. You don’t just do that stuff unrequested. That’s a dick move.” I even listed hair-pulling and even namecalling.
On a perverted side note because I know most of you are sick, perverted fucks, Good God, we are getting so perverted that calling women degrading names in bed is almost vanilla! I can’t believe how pornified this society is getting.
And trust me, women love being called those names, usually as aggressively as possible. It’s part of dominating the Hell out of her. When you do that, they get those little girl voices and those scared eyes and goe completely submissive. They pretty much just completely collapse and say, “Have your way with me, you raping maniac.” Which is sort of female sexuality in a nutshell.
And at that point, I hate to say it, but she’s so far cumdrunk or in subspace that she’ll do just about anything sexual, especially if you’re good-looking. But you still need to ask, as there are women who hate being called names or only allow certain names and not others. Which is their right!
Who the Hell did I threaten or harass? The guy I was talking to? How in God’s name kid I wish for harm to come to the people I was talking to or anyone for that matter?
Long, runs to 60 pages. I am very sorry, but I am a graphomaniac. I may divide it into two posts next week. You may wish to print it out for easier perusal.
April 8-9 Update: This post has received a massive update with new information on Mr. X’s past and the stunning revelation that LE suspects BG of the Evansdale Murders too!
Warning:What follows is horrifying information about the sexually-motivated double murders of two young teenage girls. There’s no way to pretty this stuff up, and if I did, I’d just be lying anyway.
Here we go with another update. Once again, I would like to thank R.v.S. and C.A., two of my very best friends who I have known for what seems like my whole life, or maybe it was just since college. I know these guys so well that sometimes I wonder if we are all the same person!
People are making statements that the statements in this article are due to me having “inside information.” This is accompanied by a lot of snarkery and hostility.
The information below comes from three sources.
The first source is from a female member of the search party who saw the crime scene and discussed it with me.
The second source is photocopy(s) of official document(s) from the investigation that I managed to obtain.
The third source is a retired LE officer who who dug into the case of Mr. X for us. He still has a lot of current LE contacts, and this is where his information comes from. So this source is really current LE.
You chose to lend credence to Robert Lindsay, who has literally confessed to being a pedophile.
What in God’s’ name is he talking about?! Of course I’ve never “confessed to being a pedophile.” Why would I confess to being something that I’m not? A pedophile is a man who is maximally attracted to girls under 13 and has little to no interest in mature females. Anyone who knows me knows that’s not the case with me. I love grown women. I can’t get enough of them. Little girl children? Ew.
Teenage girls are another matter, but that’s not pedophilia. I haven’t had anything to do with a teenage girl under 18 since I was 21, 42 years ago. I did have sex with underage teenage girls 14-17 for four years during the ages of 18-21. More than I can count. I stopped at age 21 because I didn’t want to go to jail. You want to hold that against me? Be my guest. You want to call me “pedophile” based on that? Knock yourselves out.
I don’t approve of adult men having sex with teenage girls under the age of consent (AOC) because it’s illegal. In most US states, the AOC is 16 or 17. It’s 18 in a few states. My position is that in this environment, I advise all adult men of any age to not mess with girls under the AOC. It’s not worth it, guys. If these female minors are over the AOC, help yourself. Grab all you want. Problem is that while 16 year old looks fantastic, when she opens up her mouth, she sounds like a 10 year old. That might put me off right there.As I get older, I appreciate the wonders of older women more and more. In a lot of ways, they are better than young women.
Apparently he is referencing this:
I was reported to the police probably 60 times for being the murderer or for being a “pedophile” (I wasn’t aware that was against the law).
According to Matt Sullivan, people in his wanted to hang me on the spot for this comment. I said that being a pedophile isn’t against the law. That’s a fact. Apparently that comment means “I confessed to being a pedophile.” One reason I quit doing these Delphi articles is because I got tired of dealing with idiots like this all the time.
Yes, I’m a Real Freelance Journalist
Among the many insane arguments against me, one is that I “pretend to be a journalist.” I’m actually trained as a journalist. I have a BA in Journalism from a state university in California. I worked as a proofreader of an academic journal, an assistant editor of a major magazine, and a freelance writer. Furthermore, I am a now a published author, having written a chapter in an academic Linguistics book on Turkic Linguistics published out of Turkey.
I don’t know what it takes to be a “real” journalist . But I would think a BA in Journalism would suffice.
If you are wondering how I come up with all these “inside sources,” keep in mind that I was trained how to obtain confidential documents, protect and cultivate sources, and do interviews, and I am very good at all of those things. There’s an art to this. We were also taught to source and label our sources things properly, and we had to take a semester in the libel law which was modeled on a law school course.
No, My Blog Was Not Shut Down by WordPress Due to My Delphi Reporting
A man named Eric Alter claimed to have gotten an injunction against my blog with WordPress. Supposedly this led to it being shut down. Mr. Alter filed no injunction against this blog with WordPress. WordPress took no action against my website in response to Mr. Alter’s complaints, assuming he made any to them.
Next, there are stories that this site got shut down by WordPress because I was making up lies about this case. That’s not so. WordPress never uttered one peep to me about my Delphi coverage. The site was shut down by WordPress, but it was because I violated their Terms of Service in a post I made about feminists. I didn’t even know what WordPress‘ TOS were, as I had never read them.
Dead Rumors and Screams in the Night
More BS. There is a report on Reddit that I am still pushing a theory that the girls were garroted. It is said that I “made up” this story. True, that was a rumor floating around for a while, but we junked that years ago. The theory that the girls were garroted is a dead rumor, dead for over four years now.
There is a report on Reddit that I reported a scream was heard in the night. They say I “made up” this story. For the hundredth time, I’m a professional journalist, and I don’t make up facts about this crime case. That’s a career-ender and I take my journalistic ethics very seriously. I do not recall ever reporting such a thing.
However, I have now seen references to reports of screams heard by the bridge at 2 AM. It is also said that Libby’s phone, previously dead, started pinging again right around this time. That means someone had Libby’s phone and turned it on or recharged it after the charge went out. If the latter is true, it is quite remarkable, but both the screams and the phone pinging at 2 AM are unverified rumors at this point.
On the other hand, Leigh Kerr did report that there is a scream on Libby’s audio recording followed by a thud. The theory is that this is Abby screaming right before BG hits on her on the head with a blunt object, no doubt the butt of that gun he has on him. Poor girl! So it turns out that if Leaker is correct, and I regard him as credible, there was indeed a scream soon after the girls were abducted, probably at the crime scene.
I can think of how this scene might have unfolded:
He got them to the kill zone, and he had them both on the ground with their hands behind their backs handcuffed. We know this because of the dirt under Libby’s fingernails. He was controlling them with the gun in his right pocket. He said you scream or yell one time, and I shoot both of you. They’re scared so they keep quiet. Poor Libby was thrashing around, this is what caused the dirt and bruising under her nails. Suddenly he was on top of her and slit her throat so deeply he almost cut it off. Poor thing lived for maybe five seconds and then died.
Abby was on the ground too, handcuffed. Poor Abby saw this horror in front of her face. Face it, this is as bad as it gets – watching your bestie murdered while you watch. It doesn’t get any worse than that. Abby screamed. BG was on top of her very quickly and hit her over the head with the butt end of the gun. She went out cold. The blow did not kill her though. He figured out that she wasn’t dead. So he took a knife and stabbed her in the artery in her neck, killing her.
He put them both out of commission in seconds, and he killed both of them within a minute or two. He had to dispatch them quickly so they wouldn’t scream. He couldn’t keep them alive and tortured them, though he may have wanted to. The sexual thrill here was the homicide itself. He’s a lust murderer. Sadistic killers get a sexual arousal just from hurting people. It doesn’t have to be anything sexual. Later on he did sexual things with both bodies involving sticks and twigs.
We Don’t Fake Photos Here
There is a photo on Reddit of a Photoshopped up photo of BG. People on there are saying it came from my website. I don’t recall seeing it on my site but I put a lot of stuff up there. This is followed by an accusation that I “made up” this photo or deliberately altered it with a graphics program. Problem? I’m a terrible artist. I do not know how to use any graphics program. I’ve used a few of them, but I can barely do anything, maybe crop or rotate a photo and that’s it. Please stop saying that I manipulate photos about this case with graphics software. I don’t do any of the graphics work on my page. I have graphic artists who do that for me.
There is another accusation on Reddit that I manipulated a photo of BG to add in some cigarette smoke. We did run that photo. I just spoke to our graphics expert, and she told me she didn’t manipulate anything. She just applied some lighting filters.
I believe that does look like cigarette smoke over his left shoulder. We also thought we saw a smoldering cigarette in his mouth in another of her enhancements. BG was either smoking and leaving a smoke cloud or those are just some artifacts of the graphics software creating illusions. There’s no confirmation that BG was smoking a cigarette when he abducted those girls. There’s just an odd photo that could be anything.
Below is a capture from the same area as the photos below came from. The helicopter video where there is a circle of flashes going off. That’s clearly the CSI people photographing the scene. It can’t be anything else. The grabs below are from a Youtuber who is actually a theoretical physicist.
Note that the girl’s arms are raised on in a surrender position exactly as they are in the more cleaned up photos below. Also note that the girl’s legs have been spread by the killer, same as they are in the photos below.
One of my graphic artist is a woman. I know, I’m such a misogynist, huh? Actually many of my best sleuths down through the years have been women. Women excel at intuition and I think intuition is important for detectives. Women are lousy at logic as any man who’s had a girlfriend or wife knows, but men blow at intuition, so it all evens out in the end.
There is a charge from Reddit that we faked this image. We don’t fake images.
In the above photo, Libby’s right and left legs are marked. Also one of my graphics people labeled what he thinks is a large branch between this poor girl’s legs. This would follow from the report of the search party member below where she says that Libby had a log jammed up perpendicular to her crotch to make it seem as it was penetrating her sexually.
By the way, the man who did the labeling was a sheriff in a nearby county who joined our group incognito. So you can see we had active duty LE in our group working with us. This image is very poor, but it’s a match for the images below from the theoretical physicist.
Validation of My Reporting over the Years
One of the things people on Reddit are saying is that they were shocked at how closely Leaker’s revelations resembled things that I’ve been saying for years. Well, of course. We’re wrong a lot, sure. But here’s the thing. We’re also right a lot. I’m sure that if more information about this case comes out, more of the things we’ve been saying here for years are going to be shown to be true.
Clearing up Some Rumors
The Horrible Sticks and Twigs Rumor
I’ve been run through the grinder for years over this rumor, and I was trying to avoid it in this post, but I have no choice but talk about it. One rumor is either that one or more of the girls was impaled with a branch. That rumor started when a young man from Delphi published crime scene photos in the week after the murders. This is what he described, among other things. He also thought the murders had occult or Satanic overtones. That’s probably not true, but if you read about how the killer staged the crime scene, you might think that was the case.
This rumor was repeated later when a good source told me that poor Libby was impaled with a branch right below her solar plexus. Keep in mind that I have not been able to verify this rumor. But keeping in mind the insanity of the crime scene below, almost anything is possible with this depraved killer.
A better sourced rumor – but just as horrible – is that BG shoved twigs, sticks, and small branches into both girls’ vaginas and anuses. Terrible, huh? I presume he did this after they were dead, so at least they didn’t have to suffer this indignity. At this point, he’s also a necrophile, but a lot of these guys have necrophilic tendencies.
Thing is we were able to source this to two LE sources. The first was a local detective who was working on the case. He told someone close to him and they reported it on the Net. The second is another detective in a different area of LE. He verified the rumor, saying he had seen crime scene photos. And just recently, I got a report that several “insiders” had verified that this rumor is true. Also, Leaker said that the girls were not sexually assaulted with the killer’s body, implying that they may have been with inanimate objects. So now we have variations of this rumor verified at least eight times. That’s not conclusive, but it’s looking better all the time.
It’s been said that I made up this rumor as some sick fantasy of mine. First, I don’t happen to fantasize about this stuff. I don’t care what anyone thinks about, but homicidal sexual sadism isn’t my bag, sorry. Second, as I repeated above, I am bound by journalistic ethics not to make up lies out of whole cloth. That’s a death sentence in this business, and I take my ethics seriously, unlike increasing numbers of my degenerate colleagues.
Resetting Libby’s Phone
At first it was thought that Libby did this herself, possibly after being told to do so by the killer who was catfishing her on Snapchat. It has now been revealed that Mike Patty, her grandfather, did this for unknown reasons.
Yes, Abby Had a Cellphone on Her at the Time of the Crime
I reported the other day that BG videotaped his crime. I know from case document(s) I obtained that LE is looking for photos, videos, videocameras, cameras, film, etc. that BG used in this crime. The only way LE could know that BG videotaped his crime is if the rumor about BG sending video of the crime to Abby’s phone after her death is true.
People on Reddit are attacking this report, saying that according to Abby’s mother, Abby didn’t have a phone. Problem is Abby’s mother didn’t know all sorts of things. She didn’t know that Abby had a boyfriend, and she sure did. We even know his name. Also several LE officials have made public statements that both girls had phones on them, most recently the fire chief on the HTN show.
Mr. X Did Not Touch the Bodies When He Discovered Them
There is an old rumor going around that Mr. X touched one or more of the bodies in the neck, looking for a pulse. Sadly, I may have reported that earlier. I now feel that’s a dead rumor. Neither Mr. X nor anyone else touched the bodies.
Rejoinders Aside, Now on to the Real Meat of the Post
LE May Have a Prime Suspect in the Delphi Murders, and His Name is Mr. X
If you followed Leigh Kerr’s leak on Reddit, Leaker said that LE has a prime suspect in this case. We will refer to him from now on as Mr. X. I don’t want to use his name or his initials. When discussing this man in the comments, always refer to him as Mr. X. Please refer to his wife as Mrs. X. Don’t use either his name or his initials. We have to be fair here. Leave this man alone if you know who he is. We aren’t vigilantes here in America. We’re better than that. Besides, who knows if he did it or not? You think he did it? Fine, prove it. See, you can’t. Welcome to America. This is the price you pay to live in a free country.
Leaker said that LE thinks Mr. X did it, but they don’t have enough evidence on him to take it to court.
In case you are wondering, there are cases like this all over the country. I can even think of some serials who are running around free where LE believes that they committed several homicides. One is named the Lewiston Killer. There is a child serial killer who has killed several little girls over the past 10-20 years. LE is pretty sure they know who did it, but they don’t have enough on him to make a case. So he walks free. And these aren’t the only two.
A former girlfriend got shot in the head by her husband. He said she committed suicide but that was not possible, and further his behavior after he shot her was very weird. LE detained him for a while. Once he visited her at the hospital with LE, and he was chained to a room heater in the hospital room. I believe they detained him for a couple of weeks and released him. They didn’t have enough evidence against him to bring a case to trial.
The OJ Simpson case is also instructive.
Bottom line is murderers get away with it all the time in this country, and in a number of cases, LE is pretty sure they know who did it, but they simply don’t have enough evidence to take it to court. DA’s won’t dare touch a homicide case, much less a serial or multiple homicide case, unless they think they have enough evidence for a conviction. Otherwise the case never goes to trial. We have trial by jury in this country, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We can’t go around killing people because someone thinks they might have maybe killed someone.
Why Are People Going out of Their Way to Protect Mr. X?
There is a man named Jordan McCoy on Facebook pretending to be Leigh Kerr. In fact, McCoy doesn’t even exist. He’s just a sock for a guy named Scott Alexander, and Alexander isn’t Leaker either. Scott’s only purpose is to be to pretend he was Leaker in order to draw suspicion away from the prime suspect, Mr. X, for unknown reasons.
There are some locals who are going out of their way to protect Mr. X. They are insisting that he could not possibly have done it. Some of their behavior is downright weird. Perhaps they are doing this out of loyalty to their friend. That said, these protectors probably ought to be named because their behavior is pretty off.
Anthony Greenospends most of his time trying to deflect attention away from Mr. X. Greeno happens to be a hunting partner of Mr. X. I do not know why Greeno so vociferously defends Mr. X. Perhaps it is due to their friendship.
There is another very odd character named Caleb Bowlin, a Delphi resident. A lot of people are suspicious of him. He was 21 at the time of the crime, and he’s a dead perfect match for the second sketch. I don’t know what that means. He’s gone completely overboard defending Mr. X and saying he could not possibly have done it. At one time a couple of people were trying to go look at the crime scene, and he was literally blocking them with his body to keep them away. I don’t know why he is doing this. There is no evidence that this man is involved in this crime.
Bowlin presented himself to Leazenby’s office and told the sheriff that there were rumors going around that he was BG. Bowlin offered to give DNA and take a lie detector test. Leazenby said, “Caleb, if we ever need you for any of that, we’ll contact you.” Based on this, LE does not suspect Bowlin of being part of this crime.
Who Is Leigh Kerr?
The pastor of a small Pentecostal church from Lafayette, Joe Wampler, is Leigh Kerr. Leaker is the man who held a session on Reddit where he told people he had accessed case documents and he was going to leak details about the case. He was angry that the case had gone on this long with no resolution. He proceeded to tell quite a tale about what he had learned from these documents. His revelations are here. Leaker stirred up a huge storm and a large consensus is that he’s a liar and a fraud. I think that is incorrect. I regard him as credible for various reasons.
He posted accidentally under his real name and profile as if he were still answering questions as Leigh Kerr. His wife has indeed been traced back to a local courthouse worker. Rumor is she saw a lot of these documents and ran them off. I just spoke to a woman who knows this couple very well, and she insisted to me that this man is straight up man of God type. His word is good and his morals are strong. He’s the last person to make up stupid lies. He’s pure integrity, a class act.
Theory That BG Videotaped His Crime with a GoPro Camera and Sent the Photos to One of the Girls’ Phones after the Crime
Leaker also said that BG sent photos or videos to one of the girls’ phones after the crime. This has also been (somewhat) vindicated. These same document(s) in my possession say that LE is looking for photos, videos, videocameras, cameras, and film in relation to this case. Obviously, LE thinks BG filmed his crime. Profiler John Kelly, who believes that Leaker should be at least given the benefit of the doubt until proven false, thanked Harvey Carroll, another good (albeit narcissistic) Delphi Murders podcaster, for his work on the BG photo in which Carroll found that BG is apparently wearing a Go-Pro camera. Kelly agreed that the photo does show BG wearing such a camera. I agree with Kelly and Carroll.
Attacking Leigh Kerr (Leaker)
Trashing Leigh Kerr, Part 1. On Reddit, people are saying that Leigh Kerr has been proven to be a fake and a liar. Leigh Kerr has not proven to be completely correct (though some of his testimony checks out), but hasn’t yet been debunked either.
No one knows anything about Leigh Kerr’s stories, but one of them, new information that BG had binoculars that he used in his ploy the capture the girls, has been validated. I have official document(s) which state that LE is looking for binoculars in relation to this case.
Trashing Leaker, Part 2. From Reddit, Leaker is accused of lying because in the part of the audio not released, BG can be heard telling the girls he’s railroad police, he spotted the girls trespassing with binoculars, the girls were were now under arrest for trespassing, and he’s now handcuffing them. Reddit said this could not be true because if it was, LE would have released it to the public.
First of all, this guy never read Leaker’s account in the first place. Because if he had, he would note that Leaker said that this account was only deciphered after long painstaking work with audio experts who managed to clean up the completed garbled audio on Libby’s phone. Even cleaned up, you can barely hear a thing. However, these experts transcribed what they thought was being said in this encounter. It is from this deciphering that LE concluded that the conversation above took place. Leaker said LE did not release it because one, even cleaned up, it’s a complete mess and undecipherable without a lot of expensive equipment, and two, they didn’t think it would be of any additional help to release it to the public.
No Such Crime as “Interfering with an Investigation”
No such crime as Interfering with an Investigation. This poster also repeated the favorite that Leaker should be arrested for some fake crime called “interfering with an investigation.” There have been calls for years to have me arrested on this fake crime too. We’ve succeeded in making half of life illegal so far in the land of the free (sic), but this isn’t really a crime. I think it is only a crime on the federal level, and it’s never used the way these people think think it is.
It’s a BS law, often used by the FBI and other feds when they want to take someone down but they can’t get anything on you. I don’t like the FBI. If the FBI wants to take you down, you go down. They will search through your life with a fine toothcomb, and if you do that with most people, you will find some idiot law someone broke somewhere somehow. So this is one of those fake crimes (like “Lying to the FBI” – another fake crime) that they use for political purposes. The only time I’ve ever seen it used was to charge someone in the recent Russiagate (a fake scandal about a fake event – something that never happened in the first place) prosecutions.
They charged someone with “interfering with an investigation” for destroying documents relevant to the case in order to avoid prosecution. In other words, destruction of evidence. As far as whether I am “interfering with an investigation,” let’s see what LE told me about my reporting on this case:
ISP: “We don’t care what you write. Go ahead and write whatever you want. And if you ever write anything sensitive that we want taken down, we will contact you, ok?” Phone conversation between me and and ISP detective, Spring 2017.
FBI: “We don’t care about Lindsay.” Conversation between FBI agent and a suspect when detaining him to get a DNA sample at an FBI office in Michigan, 2018.
Supporting Leigh Kerr
Backing up Leaker, Part 3. On Reddit, at least one poster defended Leaker, saying that they had been talking to people close to the Delphi investigation, and they backed up much of what Leaker said.
Specifically, his sources concurred that there was at least some luring of the girls to the site. Leaker said that Libby was catfished on Snapchat with the second sketch of the young man.
His sources agreed that Mr. X was someone that LE looked at very hard at least at one point if possibly not at the moment.
They also agreed with agreed that the girls were posed in a sexual tableau.
Abandoning Mr. X as a Suspect (Bad Idea)
Sleuths abandoning Mr. X as a Suspect. Mr. X’s daughter has made an appearance in Facebook groups, saying that he’s the greatest guy in the world, and he couldn’t possibly have done this. However, family members of a number of convicted killers, even serial killers, have said similar things. She also said her father never lost his keys. Becky Patty, who is a friend of Mr. X’s wife, said that Mrs. X told her that Mr. X did not lose his keys.
These comments from wife, daughter, and friends defending Mr. X and questioning the official narrative have caused a large group of sleuths abandon Mr. X as a suspect. As if a suspect’s wife and daughter would not be expected to vouch for him. And as it turns out, the fact that he didn’t lose his keys after all does not clear Mr. X from suspicion. In fact, it makes him even more suspicious.
More on Mr. X, the Possible Prime Suspect in the Case
First of all, as noted above, Leaker seems vindicated in part about Mr. X being the prime suspect in the case. A Reddit poster said he asked around to a number of Delphi “insider” types, and they told him that indeed LE had looked at Mr. X very hard as a suspect, if possibly not at the moment.
Beyond that, we have a retired LE officer working with us and we sent him to work with his LE colleagues on Mr. X. This man came back and told us that not only is Mr. X the prime suspect in these murders, but they also suspect him in other murders.
In my previous post, I talked about how Mr. X said he lost his keys during the search for the girls. That story has gotten completely garbled with Becky Patty, Mr. X’s daughter, and Mrs. X, Mr. X’s wife, all saying that Mr. X never lost his keys. The thing is that new information I got says that they are all correct! Mr. X indeed never lost his keys. But it’s worse than that.
First of all, Mr. X asked Ron Logan permission to search his land at 6:30 PM on February 13, three hours after the girls were murdered. Ron thought it was an odd request but he granted it because Mr. X was a neighbor who lived only 2 miles away. But there is a problem with Mr. X asking this permission. The Fire Department only announced the formation of a search party at 7 PM. Before that, nobody much even knew the girls were missing, although LE had been notified at 5:30 PM. The only people out searching were family and friends of the girls. No one else knew that the girls were even missing.
Which begs the question, How did Mr. X know that the girls were missing in the first place before anyone else did? Was he in the area when they went missing? That looks bad because his alibi said he was in another town altogether. If he was in another town at the time of the murders, when did he come home? And why, when he came back into town, did he decide to go to the bridge to look for the girls when he had no idea they were missing?
The only way this makes sense is if Mr. X was not in another town but was in the bridge area. But there goes his alibi. Now he’s in even more trouble. Furthermore, why on Earth did he specifically ask to search Ron Logan’s property, which is exactly where the girls were killed? Why did he park his truck hidden at the cemetery directly above the crime scene? Why didn’t he park at Ron’s front door if he wanted to knock and ask permission to search his land?
By 6:30 it was dark and it would have been hard to see the girls who were in a hidden ravine that was very hard to see. Also, two other men searched Ron’s land that night. They didn’t find the girls either, adding credulity to the notion that they were hard to see where they were in the dark.
Nevertheless, Mr. X’s alibi that he was out of town, came back into town and went to the bridge for no reason, and then decided to search for the girls without knowing they were missing obviously makes no sense.
Some Mr. X Background
Mr. X owned some property there where he raised goats and hunted deer, but I’m not sure what else he did. Mr. X has two children, a younger daughter who is a very out lesbian and an older daughter, about 30 and unmarried. He has been married to Mrs. X for some time, possibly 10+ years. She is 10 years younger than he is, an attractive woman.
Mr. X is a big fan of Harley Davidson motorcycles and an extremely avid deer hunter. We have not been able to find information about his employment at any time. His wife most recently worked at a bank, but she was caught stealing money from the bank two years ago and was fired.
He was born in 1965 in Illinois and is 55 years old and looks his age. He grew up in Illinois but moved to Indiana around 2000 at age 35. We know little about his life before 2000.
From 2000-2010, he moved around Indiana, moving about once a year to a new town. He settled in Delphi in 2011 and lived there for 10 years, mostly with his wife. In 2011-2012, he was separated from his wife and lived with a male roommate. He and his wife just moved early this year. I believe they now reside in Monticello. The latest I have heard is that they moved back to Illinois, but that may just be a rumor. He obviously thinks the heat is on him.
I have obtained a videotape of him playing with his granddaughters. His voice sounds a lot like BG’s, and he refers to his two young granddaughters as “guys.” In the videotape, his walk looks a lot like BG’s walk.
I have a photograph of him with his daughters from 2009 when they were girls. The older daughter looks remarkably like Libby German, and the younger daughter looks remarkably like Abby Williams in that photo. I’m not sure if that means anything. They are posing with their father next to the carcass of a deer he has shot.
He seems to have many friends in the Delphi area with the whole town on his friends page. I have a photo of him and Sheriff Tobe Lozenby posing with a hunting rifle, clearly a gag photo. Apparently he was close to Sheriff Lozenby at one point. Mr. and Mrs. X are close to the Pattys. Libby had met Mr. X a couple of times, but Becky Patty did not think Libby would recognize him. Becky is currently defending him, probably because he is a friend of the family.
Considering that the killer catfished Libby only via Snapchat for four months and specifically targeted her for the murder, it is interesting because he knew her grandparents well so presumably he was quite familiar with Libby. Perhaps he had seen her regularly and begun to have sexual and homicidal fantasies of her.
Around the time of the crime, Mr. X was about the same height and weight as BG. Since the murders, he has gained ~50 pounds. After the crime, he talked so much about the murders to anyone who would listen that people started to get suspicious of him. It is not known if any locals turned him in to the tipline. Mr. X owns a hunting cap that is a replica of the one worn by BG, but perhaps that is a common hat in the area. I have seen photos of him with jeans and a jacket almost exactly like BG’s jeans and jacket, but perhaps those are common garments among men in that area. He very closely resembles BG when his face is put side by side by BG’s. None of these things are incriminating enough to take a case to court.
Mr. X’s Wife Says Mr. X Fooled Her for Many Years until She Discovered He was a “Monster” and an “Evil Force”
The wife is a curious case. There is a rumor that she posted to Facebook that she thought she knew Mr. X, but she had discovered that he was a “monster.” I have not been able to find that post.
However, backing that up somewhat, I have screenshots of a woman, Ms. Y, who knew Mr. and Mrs. X for a long time. Ms. Y said she had suspected Mr. X from the very first day after the news about the lost keys and his truck being parked right above the crime scene came out.
Ms. Y described the couple as “very, very strange.” This tells me absolutely nothing about any human being. Instead I want to know precisely what it is about this couple that Ms. Y finds so strange. Anyway, it does add suspicion to Mr. X.
Ms. Y said that their marriage was a bit rocky, with a few wild fights and temporary breakups. Ms. Y said Mrs. X had made a series of very strange posts to Facebook about how she thought she had known someone all her life but it turned out she didn’t know them and that this person turned out be some sort of an evil force.
I believe that is a reference to Mr. X, as the”evil force” lines up with the earlier report that she said Mr. X was a “monster.” That Mrs. X had “known him her whole life” simply means that she was married to him for some time, probably over a decade. Marriages often seem to “last a lifetime,” even when they don’t.
So we can see that Mrs. X referred to Mr. X as an enigmatic person who fooled her into thinking he was ok for many years, but she had recently discovered that he was “a monster” and “a force of evil.”
If Mr. X is a psychopath (a possibility), then this report lines up perfectly. Bottom line is he would be fooling everyone. Everyone in town would think he was a standup guy, including the grandparents of girl he may have murdered himself. He was married for up to a decade to a wife before she was able to tear down his “mask of sanity.” See Harvey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity, 1947, the ultimate document ever written on psychopathy. They fool everyone for a long time, but after they have known them for some time, some people can uncover their true personas, which are nothing like their public images. “A force of evil” and “monster” are two terms people often use when they are able to take the mask off of a psychopath.
Mr. X’s Behavior on February 13-14, 2017
Mr. X has an alibi for the murders, that he was elsewhere in another town, when the murders occurred. Someone, possibly a friend, Mr. Z, was certain that they saw him elsewhere when the murders were committed. We don’t know who Mr. Z was. I say was because shockingly, Mr. Z is now dead. So Mr. X’s alibi is dead. That means that the alibi cannot be flipped anymore.
Curiously, Mr. X’s phone pinged the Child Protective Services building for several hours around the time of the murders. LE feels that the killer parked his car at the CPS building. No vehicle has yet been reported parked near the building. It would seem that Mr. X’s phone pinging the CPS building means he or his phone was there at the time, but Mr. X can always say that he was elsewhere, and his phone was at his home pinging there looking for a signal. There are only two cell towers in town so that’s actually a possibility, albeit a remote one.
However, there is a report that an abandoned vehicle, possibly a white truck, was towed from the CPS building. There is currently a gag order imposed by the courts about the circumstances around this truck being towed.
Mr. X’s orange truck was parked hidden in the cemetery directly above where the girls were found. It stayed in this spot for at least the next 18 hours, from 6:30 PM until 12:30 PM the next day when the girls’ bodies were discovered. I say at least because no one knows exactly when Mr. X’s truck was first parked in the cemetery. Yes, it shows up there at 6:30 PM, but perhaps it had been parked there earlier without being seen.
Mr. X is also one of three people who discovered the bodies. Hence, Mr. X’s DNA is all around the crime scene as a discoverer of the crime. None of this DNA is usable in court. After he found the girls, Mr. X said called his wife and ran from the scene. Later he needed months of psychotherapy due to the trauma he experienced by discovering the bodies. To me those two reactions seem pretty excessive, but that doesn’t prove anything. At 12:30 PM, the cemetery was filling up with police cars. Mr. X’s truck was in the way and was blocking in police cars.
Asked why he was parked there and if he would please move his truck, Mr. X stated that he had lost his car keys and he was going to call his wife to get her to bring a new set.
Three problems with that story.
Mr. X never lost his keys. They were in his pocket the whole time. He never called his wife to bring a spare set. Even worse, there was no spare set. Mr. X was later caught by LE in this lie about losing his car keys, and this is one of the things that provoked their interest in him. A tow truck came and Mr. X allowed his truck to be towed. He had to do this because he had to keep pretending that he had lost his keys, and obviously his wife had never shown up to bring a new one. No one knows what was in Mr. X’s truck at the time it was towed, and there’s no evidence that it was searched that day by LE.
I noted above that Mr. X’s truck was parked right above where the bodies were found for 18 hours starting at 6:30 PM February 13 until 12:30 PM February 14. For some time after 6:30 PM, Mr. X was presumably searching Ron Logan’s land.
Where was Mr. X between 6:30 PM Monday and 12:30 PM Tuesday? Did he stay out there next to his truck all night? Did he ever go home to his wife that night? We don’t knows the answers to those questions. His whereabouts during those 18 hours are a mystery. However, it is quite odd that his truck stayed right above the kill zone for 18 hours straight. What was point of leaving it there? He had his car keys. Why didn’t he drive it home after he finished searching Ron’s land Monday evening? None of this makes sense.
LE’s Investigation of Mr. X So Far
There’s no evidence that LE has ever served a search warrant on Mr. X, though they may have. They have his DNA. He took a lie detector test but the results were inconclusive. Mr. X has so far been cooperative with LE.
Mr. X Was Present at the 2019 Delphi Murders Town Hall Meeting
Mr. X was present at the 2019 press conference, sitting in the exact center of the room. He was wearing a hunting hat identical to BG’s hunting cap. LE was angry that BG was in the room. This is why Detective Carter was so livid. It’s also why Carter said, “The killer may be in this room right now.” However, he then looked away from Mr. X far to the right.
About That Fake Press Conference or Fakeference
Leaker said that the entire press conference was a gigantic ruse meant to trip up Mr. X, who, as noted, was in the room. The second sketch, which LE said was actually the real killer, was the catfish used to lure Libby off Snapchat.
The first sketch looks like Mr. X. They did this to make Mr. X think they had abandoned him and were looking at a false suspect.
The statement that they were looking for a young man aged 18-40 was also a lie, intended to make Mr. X think that they had lost his tail and were going off on a false tangent. Likewise with the report of the white truck at the CPS building. They highlighted this to make Mr. X think they were after the wrong vehicle and had abandoned the theory that his orange truck was involved. I have no idea what the cryptic references to The Shack movie were all about. You tell me.
These LE guys are extremely smart and crafty. I have nothing but intense admiration for all of the detectives working on this case. I tire of all the silly repetitious condemnations of LE that they had blown it on this case. I see no evidence that this is true. Instead these guys are master craftsmen straight out of a Sherlock Holmes or John Buchan novel. They continue to amaze me.
Tobe Lozenby and Kelsi German Cleared in Delphi Murders
Via Leaker, several people came back with inconclusive lie detector results, including Sheriff Tobe Lozenby, who was actually a suspect for a while. Tobe has been cleared. The only DNA found at the crime scene on the girls’ bodies was Libby’s sister Kelsi’s. But Kelsi had lent Libby her sweater that day. Kelsi was looked at very closely by the FBI, but she was eventually cleared. Kelsi’s is the only DNA on the girls and presumably on the other objects at the scene. The killer appears to have thrown bleach over both girls and over all of the objects at the scene. There is an old rumor that he threw bleach over the girls’ genital regions that fits in with the new info about a bleach bottle left at the scene.
Brand New Information on Mr. X, the Prime Suspect!
This information comes from a retired LE officer in Illinois. We know him and we set him to work on Mr. X to see what he could dig up for us. He still has many LE contacts and he got in touch with them. After talking to his LE colleagues for a while, he got back to us.
He told us that Mr. X had a roommate in 2011-2012. This roommate looked at the BG video. He said that BG’s voice matched Mr. X’s perfectly. He said that BG’s clothes looked familiar, that is, looked like clothes that Mr. X liked to wear. And he said that the way BG walked was a dead on perfect match for BG’s walk. The roommate also said that he felt that Mr. X might have committed the Evansdale murders too. More on that later. The roommate reported his concerns to the Delphi hotline. This lines up with the Indiana Star article that also discussed Mr. X as a prime Delphi suspect and explored the possibility of a link between Delphi and Evansdale. So we have two sources for the roommate story.
We did a lot of sleuthing on Mr. X and learned that he was homeless for a time in the 2000’s when he was living in a shelter. There were some photos of him from that time but we can’t find them now. We can’t find much on him from before 2000 but he was in Illinois.
We also learned, which ought to be no surprise, that Mr. X had a rap sheet for a sex crime committed during the 1980’s when he was between 16 and 26 years old. Problem is we don’t know the nature of the sex crime. If Mr. X is BG, it makes perfect sense that he has a rap sheet for a sex crime. It also makes perfect sense that Delphi was not his first rodeo. What man with a clear rap sheet and no sex crimes in his background wakes up at age 51 and decides to commit a pair of sexual homicides?
Basically never happens. All these guys have a background. It’s true that some of these men commit a crime like this as young adults and then go on to live normal lives and never commit another homicide. A few cases recently have been solved by DNA of sex murders of young women committed by young men who then went on to live perfectly normal lives, marrying and raising kids, until they were caught by DNA in their 60’s and 70’s. For everyone saying Mr. X could not possibly have done it, the people who knew these men when they were arrested recently said the same thing.
The Evansdale Murders – Some Background
The Evansdale Murders are the double murders of two very young girls in Evansdale, Iowa, in 2012. They were younger than the teenage victims in this case, both below age 11. These were literally little girls. I don’t have time to go into the Evansdale Murders now. I recommend you look it up on the Net if you want some background.
A fellow sleuth read an article in a local newspaper a few years ago, but she can no longer find the article among her extensive files. I realize this is not a good source, but I do trust and believe her. She thought the paper was the Indiana Star. The article looked into the possibility that the Delphi Killer was responsible for the Evansdale Murders too. The article focused on Mr. X but did not name him, instead referring to him losing his keys during the search. The article implied that he was a prime suspect. The story noted that the suspect vehicle in the Delphi Murders was a white van. It was parked at the trailhead.
The girls were riding bicycles when they were accosted by the killer near the trailhead. Their bikes were strewn across the bike path. He had somehow removed them from their bikes and gotten them into his van. The van is the suspect vehicle because it was seen at the trailhead just before the girls vanished.
Five months later, the girls’ bodies were found in a wooded area near water six miles away at a wildlife refuge. The bodies were in very bad shape, and the cause of death could not be ascertained.
One of the girls’ parents was heavily involved in meth, manufacturing it and selling large quantities. He was arrested and sent to jail after the girls were killed. A drug connection appears to be ruled out.
The FBI for some odd reason felt that the girls had been left alive for a week after they were abducted. If this is so, they were probably being raped and possibly beaten or tortured during this time. What a chilling thought.
According to the article, Mr. X was driving a white van right around the time of the Evansdale Murders. Furthermore, a white van had been seen cruising the streets of Evansdale for a few weeks before the murders. It was not seen again after the girls were abducted.
Mr. M., A Previous Prime Suspect in the Evansdale Murders
I previously had another prime suspect for the Evansdale Murders who I will not name other than calling him Mr. M. His ex-wife, Mrs. S., is convinced that he killed those girls. She has since remarried and moved to Arkansas. I’ve spoken with her at length, and I like her a lot. I’ve also spoken with the Iowa lead detective on the Evansdale case. Mr. M is a pure pedophile. His Facebook page is full of photos of little girls. They’re crawling all over the page. According to Mrs. S., Mr. M dressed his two sons up in girls’ clothes and molested them for five years. He was never arrested for this abuse.
Another woman from Iowa who worked with Mrs. S., Ms. C., told me she and Mrs. S thought this man was a member of a network of pedophiles or possibly or sadistic pedophiles. Sadistic pedophiles are 5% of all pedophiles. They are called misophiles. Most sexual murders of children are committed by misophiles. As with sadistic rapists, 5% of all rapists, misophiles are quite dangerous. Most rapists who murder are sadistic rapists. Anger rapists sometimes kill in a rage if the victim fights back, but generally they just threaten or possibly hurt the rape victim without killing her.
Ms. C told me that in these misophile networks, the ultimate high is considered to be to be get two little girls at once and rape, torture, and murder them. That is just horrible.
This would be akin to the “double cherry” murders that some US soldiers committed in the Vietnam War. The soldiers would abduct a virgin teenage girl from presumably a hostile village, rape her, and then murder her. That’s terrible. It really hits me hard.
Mr. M has been investigated by the FBI six different times for the Evansdale Murders. Each time they describe him as a suspect. They clear him each time after a while, and then they simply say that he is not a suspect. I was sure that Mr. M. killed those girls, as his behavior around that time was very suspicious, but now I am not so sure. The FBI is said to be very angry at me for my articles on Mr. M, who I simply referred to as Mr. X, because they think it will harm his ability to get a fair trial. I doubt if he did it, but maybe I will take those articles down if they’re making the FBI mad.
LE Now Feels that BG Also Committed the Evansdale Murders
The shocking news that we learned from our retired LE contact was that LE now thinks that the Delphi Murders and the Evansdale Murders are linked. The state in which the bodies were left and the choice of dump sites were the same in both killings, and strange objects were found with the Evansdale girls similar to the weird objects found with the Delphi victims.
In addition to Mr. M above, another man was a suspect in the Evansdale Murders. He had abducted two girls, one 12 and the other 15 years old and taken them to a barn where he had tied to them up. While he was raping and killing the 15 year old girl, the 12 year old girl escaped. The poor 15 year old girl did not, and her body was found dumped nearby shortly afterwards. Unfortunately he killed himself before he could be taken to trial.
For a long time, LE thought his man did the Evansdale murders. After all, two female minors were abducted at once in both crimes and were either killed or there was an attempt made to kill both of them. However, LE said that this man’s MO was completely different from the MO used in the Evansdale murders, so he probably didn’t do it.
Lists have been made of all of the similarities between the Evansdale Murders and the Delphi Murders. The coincidences are shocking. The dates of the Evansdale and Delphi Murders are exactly reversed. Also both sets of girls were killed on the 13th, traditionally an unlucky number and day.
If LE suspects Mr. X of both crimes, this means that he was living in Delphi at the time of the Delphi murders, moving away only recently. He lived in Delphi most of the last decade. Around 2011-2102 was when he first moved to Delphi. Prior to that he had been bouncing around small towns in Indiana. At this time, he had a male roommate who suspects Mr. X in not only the Delphi murders but also the Evansdale Murders. If Mr. X killed the Evansdale girls, he was living in or around Delphi at the time. It would have been a long-distance murder. So Mr. X would have lived in Delphi when he committed both the Evansdale and Delphi Murders.
BG May Well Be a Serial Killer
It is important to note that if BG also committed the Evansdale Murders, he is a serial killer. I have felt from the start that BG might be a serial. The crime was too brazen and skillfully carried out to be a first shot. And who wakes up at age 51 and decides to commit horrible sex murders? Pretty much nobody. He would have been 46 when he did the Evansdale Murders, but he may have committed a sex crime between the ages of 16-26, so there’s your prior earlier in life. Almost all of these guys have red flags like this early ion life.
Mr. X May Have an Aberrant Age Sexual Orientation
I hate to bring up this subject since it sets off so many lies about me, but I’m forced to because Mr. X may have an aberrant age sexual orientation and this has forensic consequences. First a brief tutorial on age orientations in men.
Sexual orientation is not just towards sex as in homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual.
Males have three main age orientations:
Teleiophile: Maximally attracted to mature females 16+. All normal males fall into this category. The react to 13-15 year old girls too, but at a lower level. And 90-100% of them react to even girls from 7-12, albeit at a substantially lower level. The presence of attractions is not what is important here. The importance lies in the degree of the attractions relative to other ages. Depending on the definition, 23% of teleiophilic men also show strong attraction to girls under 16. However, as they have strong attractions to mature females also, we tend not to worry about these men. There are too many of them anyway.
Some teleiophilic killers go as low as 12 as Bundy did, but that is because 12 year old girls are barely starting to look like women, especially with the abnormally long legs. These killers almost never commit sex murders of little girls. Or if they do, they do it when they are boys. For instance, Bundy killed an 8 year old girl when he was 14. But that’s a fairly normal attraction for a 14 year old boy to have.
Hebephile: Although age ranges vary, I prefer the age range of 12-15 for hebephiles. Some move the lower end down a bit. These men are maximally attracted to pubescent girls and have little to no attraction to mature females. Perhaps ~3% of men are primary hebephiles. Hebephilia is not considered to be a mental disorder as attraction to pubescent females is quite normal among teleiophilic men. The Delphi Killer could have been either a hebephile or a teleiophile based on the age of his victims.
However, ~23% of men react maximally to girls age 12-15 at a level equal to or higher than their reaction to mature females. So high attraction to girls in this range is quite normal. The thing is that these men are also strongly attracted to adult women. The hebephilic attraction is an antisocial attraction. The attraction to adult women is a prosocial attraction. Probably most of these men repress or suppress their hebephilic urges which will land them in prison if they act on them and instead focus on their prosocial urges towards adult women, which are completely legal.
Hebephilia is a problem when men have little to no attraction to mature females so the only way to satisfy their sexual urges is to have sex with a 12-15 year old girl. That’s illegal in most places, either child molestation in the case of 12 year olds or statutory rape for 13-15 year olds. In quite a few countries, 15 year old girls are legal, so hebephiles may stay out of trouble there. These men are automatically dangerous because the only way to fulfill their sexual drive is to commit a crime.
Pedophilia: Probably the most grotesquely abused word of the 21st Century. Nowadays an 18 year old boy has sex with a 17 year old girl, gets arrested, goes to jail, gets called a pedophile and a child molester, and sees his name go on a sex offender registry for life. This is a result of a huge Sex Panic around the sexuality of teenage girls because we cannot acknowledge that they are fully sexual creatures without falling into a Puritanical moral panic.
As a result of this mass hysteria around the subject, the perfectly legitimate category of statutory rape (I prefer the term illegal intercourse) has been absurdly conflated with the child molestation of little girls under 13, which admittedly is a problem. Stat rape is psychologically normal behavior for adult men. It is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one. Many adults feel that men who have sex with teenage girls are bad, evil, depraved, immoral, etc.
Because of society’s morals, much of this behavior is illegal. Societies have a right to have any morals they wish to. Stat rape is probably not harmful to teenage girls. But it is dangerous behavior for men to engage in, as you might get caught and go to jail or prison in the midst of an insane moral panic about this subject. Older men who break these laws are idiots and do not get my sympathy.
Anyway, pure pedophilia is an age orientation whereby men are maximally attracted to girls under 13 and have little to no attraction to mature females. Many start losing interest in girls as soon as they hit 13. It is associated by child molestation, but not all pedophiles molest, and many can go 20-30 years without offending. Also, 75% of child molesters are not pedophiles. They are teliophilic men who are just criminals who prey on easy targets. This behavior is associated with other forms of abuse such as psychological, physical, and verbal abuse. It’s just another form of abuse from an abusive man.
On the other hand, strong pedophilic attraction is quite normal in men. It is only abnormal where it is combined with little or no attraction to adult women. 21% of men react to girls under 13 as strongly or stronger than they do to adult women. But only 3% of men are pure pedophiles, so 18% of men have strong attractions to both mature women and little girls. As with the hebephilic attraction above, men who have high attraction to both women and little girls presumably suppress or repress their antisocial pedophilic attraction and focus on their prosocial attraction to adult women. It sounds like a good way to stay out of prison.
Pure pedophiles are automatically dangerous because the only way they can fulfill their sexual urges is by committing the serious crime of child molestation. Pedophilia, a way of thinking or a sexual orientation, is of course completely legal as are all ways of thinking. However, the behavior that can result from this thinking, child molestation, is very much illegal, and rightly so.
Based on the pure forensics, the Evansdale Killer is a pedophilic sex murderer or a misophile. The Delphi Killer is either a hebephilic sex murderer or he has a normal age orientation and is a teliophilic sex killer. The problem is what do we do when a man kills two girls, 8 and 10 and then kills two more girls, 13 and 14. In the first crime, the killer is almost always pedophilic and in the second crime, the man rarely if ever pedophilic.
A solution to this problem lies in the notion of pedohebephilia.
Pedohebephilia: Apparently there is a significant group of men who react maximally to girls under 16 all the way down to little girls, encompassing both pedophilic and hebephilic attractions. They have little to no attraction to mature females or adult women. The available literature suggests that this group is larger than we thought.
Does Mr. X Have an Aberrant Age Attraction?
The answer appears to be yes. If Mr. X killed the Evansdale girls, we have to think again about his sexual age orientation. Many killers with a normal age orientation will kill teenage girls since they look like women. So they kill teenage girls and grown women because they both look like women. Killers of teenage girls do not typically have an abnormal age orientation as it’s perfectly normal for healthy males to be highly aroused by underage teenage girls. The studies are clear on this.
However, killers who commit sexual murders of little girls under 13 are a different breed. This is beyond the pale for even most serial killers. The one murder that Ted Bundy would never confess to was an 8 year old girl he is thought to have killed when he was only 14 years old. Even for Ted Bundy this was considered shameful. Men who kill teenage girls and women almost never commit sexual murders of little girls. Sex murderers of little girls almost always have a strong pedophilic age orientation, although occasionally they attack adults too, as in the killer of Madeline McMurray who murdered a 3 year old girl, probably killed an 8 year old girl in Germany, and raped and brutally beat a 70 year old woman.
Nevertheless, Madeline’s killer is strongly pedophilic, as a large quantity of child porn was found among his possessions. In addition, a number of little girls’ swimsuits were found in his van. Any man possessing such items will always have a strong pedophilic orientation.
I had previously thought that BG had a normal age orientation for the above reasons. However, 13-14 year old girls also fall into the range of hebephiles who are maximally aroused by 12-15 year old girls and feel little to no attraction to mature females.
I spent a bit of time on their forums studying them. They’re disturbing. They don’t post child porn on there, so their forums are clean. In case yiou think it’s weird to go to such forums, half the people in the forum were hebephiles and another half were hebephile haters threatening to kill the hebephiles and have them arrested. So it’s very common for non-hebephiles to be on these forums.
The hebephiles would scream, “No grandmas!” every time someone posted a 16 year old girl. If a man doesn’t think 16 year old girls are disgusting old ladies, he can’t possibly be a hebephile. This is what they are like.
The victims in the Evansdale and Delphi Murders were girls ranging in age from 8-14. The 8 and 10 year old girls fall into the pedophile category, and the 13 and 14 year old victims do fall into the hebephile category. You can see above that there is an age sexual orientation called pedohebephilia. When they were trying to sneak Hebephilia into the DSM-5, regular reference was made to this group.
Pedohebephiles combine both categories. They are maximally attracted to girls under 16 down to little girls and feel little to no attraction to mature females. If Mr. X did the Evansdale Murders, then he may be a pedohebephile in terms of age attraction.
This is more important than you think because age attractions of sex killers are an important part of forensics and especially profiling. Presumably we should look in the background of Mr. X to see evidence of a strong attraction to girls under 16, possibly combined with a low attraction to adult females.
In that case, he may collect child pornography or go to child porn sites. He may have child and teen erotica in his home. He may have shown evidence in his life of an abnormal interest in little girls or young teenage girls. People close to him may have noticed this over time. In fact, Mr. X was the leader of a young people’s Christian group. The ages of the minors in that group are not known. Investigators should be looking for a man with a strong focus on little girls and young teenage girls as preferred sexual objects. This should be an important part of the investigation.
More on the Official Case Document(s) I Obtained
I am keeping the number, nature, and provenance of the document(s) deliberately vague as I am trying to protect the source who mailed them to me as photocopies. As I discussed in my last update, I recently came upon photocopies one or more official document(s) relating to the case. The document(s) are from either LE or the judicial system or both at the same time. They are signed by two different entities. The document(s) are the property of a man in the community who was investigated as a suspect in this case and relate to LE’s investigation of him. He was cleared of involvement in the case.
Proof That BG Fired a Gun During the Crime
One of the revelations in those document(s) was that BG fired a gun during this crime. This has been subsequently appended by two new rumors that there was a bullet cartridge found at the site and that LE is looking for an odd gun, a collector’s edition .40 or 10mm, that was used in the crime.
It’s pretty clear that at least one cartridge was probably found at the scene because in the document(s), it says that LE is looking for a gun in connection with this crime in order to do ballistics tests on it. In order to do ballistics tests, you need a spent cartridge fired from the gun in question. That can only mean that BG fired a gun at some point in this crime.
The rumor that the gun was a collector’s edition .40 is definitely unconfirmed. I don’t even know the provenance of this rumor. See in the comments below though where a commenter casts doubt on the notion of any .40 gun being a collector’s edition.
Crime Scene Photos from the Helicopter Now Proven Legitimate
In my last post, I ran a number of photos taken from the helicopter footage on February 14, 2017 when the girls’ bodies were discovered. We focused on the area where you can see all the camera flashes going off in a circle. That has to be the crime scene with CSI people photographing the scene. There are a couple of reddish objects that can be very vaguely seen in the center of those camera flashes.
The photos were blown up and manipulated with software in a Youtube video by a theoretical physicist who seems credible. Many people say there is nothing there but pixellation and artifacts. However, I now have reason to believe that my analysis of these photos is correct. In order to discuss this, unfortunately I am going to have to print those photos again.
First pic above. Both Abby and Libby.
Second pic above. Libby alone.
Third pic above. Both girls, good quality image. Note the knife on or near Libby’s shoulder in green.
Libby’s legs highlighted above.
One of the things I pointed out in these images is that the killer spread both of the girls’ legs wide open after disrobing them below the waist. This is obviously a sexual position that females adopt when on their backs in order to be penetrated by males via PIV sex. It’s also quite violating considering the ages of these girls and what was done to them.
However, see below how I was able to validate that those are indeed crime scene photos above and that the girls legs were both spread and a knife was either plunged into poor Libby’s shoulder or the log next to her.
A Woman Member of the Search Team Who Came upon the Scene Afterwards Speaks
I recent talked to a woman who was part of the search team. She came upon the site after the girls had been found. What she told me, if validated, is one of the most bizarre and insane double murders of the 21st century.
First of all, we need to look at the credibility of this woman as a source. She was sent to me by a sleuther who I consider to be among the finest and most professional of all. This person told me that he found this woman to be very credible. She wasn’t the sort of person to make things up – more like the opposite.
There are references below to an elaborate crime scene with posing of the girls and all sorts of crazy and unlikely objects scattered about. First of all, I’ve been hearing these rumors forever, and I’ve been laughing as hard as anyone. I thought they were ridiculous. But now here I have a credible witness, a female member of the search team, who told me about this weird crime scene, and it turns out a lot of the crazy stuff I’ve been laughing at all this time may well be true.
A question has been brought up about how would BG transport these various objects to the crime scene, as they could easily been seen on his person in the photo on the bridge. I concur. The searcher is clear that one object was so large that he could have been carrying it when he was photographed on the bridge. I don’t believe he brought any of this stuff (other than the bleach bottle that can be seen in his left pant leg) to the crime scene when he abducted those girls.
Instead I believe he either prepared the crime scene in advance with all this weird stuff scattered about or he came back after the murders and created his little Fantasyland murder scene.
Girls Staged in a Sexual Tableau at the Crime Scene
She told me that both girls’ legs were spread. However, she had not yet seen these crime scene photos. Also, I had not talked to her before I ran those photos and determined that the girls’ legs were spread (see photos above). What is the likelihood that she made up a lie about the girls’ legs being spread at the same time as I found some crime scene photos that I interpreted as the girls’ legs being spread? About 0%. So I consider it proven now that BG disrobed both girls below the waist and then spread their legs wide in a sexual tableau imitating PIV sex.
Staging of a Knife Attack on a Girl Made to Appear Self-Inflicted
She said that Libby’s head was leaning against a log.A knife had been plunged either into her shoulder or on the log next to her shoulder.Libby’s hand was positioned to make her appear to be holding the knife that stabbed her in the shoulder. So Libby was posed inflicting a self-inflicted wound upon herself.
As you can see in the photo above, the object highlighted in green is obviously a knife. Once again, what are the odds that she made up a lie about a knife positioned just this way at the same time as I saw these photos and interpreted them as being of a knife positioned just this way? About zero. At this point, I consider it proven that BG plunged a knife into or near Libby’s shoulder.
Spreading their legs in that sexually receptive pose was bad enough, but BG did worse than that. According to this woman, BG had stripped both girls below the waist and had positioned phallic shaped objects between their legs perpendicular to their crotches. He placed a doll between poor Abby’s legs to make it appear she was being penetrated by a doll. Worse, he positioned a log in between poor Libby’s legs, making it appear that she was being penetrated with a log!
This would not be the first time women have been posed like this. I had the misfortune of seeing crime scene photos from the Hillside Strangler case. A dead woman is positioned in a bathtub, and a broom handle of an intact broom is shoved into her vagina.
But wait. Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, they do just that. Kind of like, you know, life itself?
Dolls Hanging from Trees at the Crime Scene!
Apparently the doll rumor is true!
The woman told me that dolls were scattered about at the scene in addition to the one shoved between Abby’s legs. Other dolls were, incredibly enough, hanging from the trees at the kill zone!
Giant Plush Stuffed Bear Toy at the Crime Scene? Who Knows? Maybe?
You’re heard the rumor of the gigantic stuffed animal left at the scene? That rumor was so pathetic that I discounted it immediately as ridiculous. Well, guess what? The woman told me that a large toy-like object was left at the scene. She didn’t tell me what it was, but she did say it was so large that BG could not possibly have smuggled it to the scene when he abducted the girls because it would have been seen in the video.
Smiley Face Killers Signature at the Crime Scene
There was also a large white sheet left at the scene with a smiley face scrawled on it. According to the theoretical physicist, he seemed to be saying that this smiley face sheet had been hung from trees. This crime scene is getting seriously nuts.
Remember the bizarre Smiley Face Murders, the possible drownings of severely intoxicated young adult college age men in the Eastern US over a period of 10-20 years? No one knows if these are actual murders or just accidental drownings, but there are a couple of retired crack detectives who are certain that these are homicides, albeit very cleverly disguised ones. I believe that these are homicides.
They are called the Smiley Face Murders because in many cases, smiley faces were seen drawn on bridges where the drowned bodies were found. It is thought that these drunken young men may have been tossed off of bridges. The other theory of course is that these are simply college aged men who drunk to severe intoxication before deciding to go for a fatal midnight swims. This has been the default interpretation of these murders. Assuming these really are murders, this person(s) may have invented the perfect crime: homicides designed as accidents.
This brings up another theory. One of my sleuther friends suggested that the killer is a serial killer fan. Possibly he is mixing up signatures of different killers in order to throw people off. That may or may not be the case.
Objects staged to appear to be shoved inside female victims’ vaginas would be an imitation of the Hillside Stranglers’ signatures. I’ve heard other killers used this signature, including a child killer in Indiana who was executed just last year who had rammed an object inside the vagina of a little girl he killed.
The smiley face cloth appears to be a reference to the Smiley Face Murders, a mystery involving many mysterious deaths that may be either accidents or homicides staged as accidents.
I don’t know of any serials who have used dolls in staging their crimes, but I suppose they may exist.
On the other hand, and I think this is a better theory, I think that at least some of these things are signatures particular to this killer. I say this because similar posing and objects were reported with the Evansdale Murders, who LE now suspects BG of committing.
Photo of Possible Bleach Bottle in BG’s Left Pant Leg
Another crazy rumor, that of a bleach bottle left at the scene, was also validated by the woman. In the photos below, you can see what may be the bleach bottle in his left jeans pocket.
It looks like he tossed bleach all over everything – the girls, the dolls, the plush object, the sheet, the crucifix, the log, you name it. Thereby killing all of the DNA.
DNA, SHMEE-ENAY, Give It a Rest Already
I get tired of all this endless talk of DNA. Assuming that Mr. X is the prime suspect, they already have his DNA.It’s all over the crime scene in the surrounding forest but it’s not on the girls or on any of the objects, probably because the threw bleach all over them.
I do have an unverified report that they have nine markers of a DNA profile via skin cells from an unknown male recovered from one of the girls. Problem is that’s not many markers. It’s known as a partial DNA sample. I don’t have the exact figures, but a match with Mr. X on those nine markers might mean that there’s a 1 in 10 chance it’s him. In other words, 10% of men have those markers. They can’t use that in court, but these partial matches are useful to LE because they give LE additional confidence that they have the right suspect.
Reportedly, LE has one smudged fingerprint from the crime scene. No one knows who it might be from. It doesn’t sound like it’s very usable.
The Crime Scene Had to Have Been Set up Before or Afterwards
Obviously, BG picked out this spot in advance and somehow planted the logs, dolls, sheet, plush object, etc. at the scene ahead of time without getting caught. He set up this crime scene before the murders. How did he do it? When? Why was he not seen?
Alternately, BG killed the girls and then went back to the scene between the sometime in the night of February 13 and early morning of February 14 and created this crazy Disneyland crime scene. The same questions posed above apply here too. I’m actually leaning towards the latter, as insane as that sounds. But really, if these crime scene rumors are true, just about anything, including the most insane notions, may be correct about this craziest of crimes.
Keep in mind that none of the wild stories above from the woman searcher are confirmed yet as they comes from a single, albeit seemingly unimpeachable, source. But we need more than that to confirm rumors in this case.* Nevertheless, the continuous nature of these bizarre rumors, now backed up by an excellent eyewitness, does add some credibility to these insane rumors.
If this crime scene is anything like what this woman describes it as, then this is shaping up to be one of the weirdest, most insane double homicides of the 21st Century.
*Notice that I am getting stricter about my criteria for confirmation of rumors in this case. We played fast and loose with words and phrases like confirmed, true, solid proof, etc. in this past. Once bitten, twice shy when it comes to that.
Have you seen all these mental midgets accusing everyone and their uncle of being “pedophiles?” This is getting downright stupid. Everyone and their uncle has been accused of a being a “pedophile.” How many of these morons have ever met even one pedophile? How many have talked to one? Talked to one at length? Talked to one at length about their sexual orientation? Well, I have. I worked with a couple of these guys in my practice. One was a very difficult person but I worked with him for months. And I made him a whole lot better too, by the way.
How many of these people getting called “predators” and “pedophiles” are the real thing? 1%? Is it even that high? I’ve been saying for a long time that we are in the midst of a mass hysteria and moral panic about this ridiculous subject, which has somehow managed to conflate the perfectly normal and healthy sexual desires and lives of teenage girls with child molesters who molest little girl childrenwho have no sex drive or interest in sex.
Really this moral panic is, as so many of these Retard Infections are, about sex. Sex, you know, that all-American eternal hangup. What this really is is a mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls. It’s Teenage Girl Sexuality Mass Hysteria. Notice how little of the time they talk about actual molesters and pedophiles and how it’s always some guy committing stat rape with some horny as Hell jailbait teenybopper who probably seduced him in the first place?
We Americans just can’t bear the notion that these girls have an actual, very strong sex drive, have very real sexual lives, needs, and desires, that they like, pursue, and seduce grown men, and that all normal men are strongly aroused by them. True to our puritanical roots, we just can’t bear any of this. Hence the pearl-clutching epidemics.
I’d also like to point out that idiot moral panics are often about “kids.” Remember the moral panic about “drugs,” especially marijuana? You know what that was really all about? I was around in that era back in the day, an advocate for legalization when it was hazardous to be one, and I lived through that particularly insipid moral panic, an actual moral panic about marijuana. It was all about the kids. Kids were smoking pot. Kids were taking “drugs.”
Remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980’s? All about the kiddies, no? Save the little children from the satanic child molesters who could literally fly, had sex with animals, flushed them down toilets, beheaded babies in front of them and forced them to drink the blood, and abused them in airports and bowling alleys.
At the end of the day, as always, it’s all down to “think of the children!“
This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of prostitution and “sex trafficking.”
In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!
But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”
Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!
Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!
Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.
To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.
Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 50% of minor female prostitutes are Black. Blacks are only 13% of the population. So there’s massive over-representation of Black teenage girls in minor prostitution. Quite a few of those girls probably have psychopathic tendencies too, or will develop into psychopaths when they are adults because we are not supposed to diagnose psychopathy or any other personality disorder in minors. Fully 45% of adult female prostitutes are psychopaths. Newsflash: whores aren’t very nice women. They not even very nice people.
A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.
Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.
Jason: Yeah, the key is self-confidence and leadership ability. Well, there could be some cases where the woman can only find an abusive jerk, the only other option being weak nice guys. I don’t know. However, the dream of a woman would be some nice guy who is strong as you say.
I don’t know. I think 1/3 of women actually like bad men, and they literally want an asshole who is abusive to them. I’ve been dumped by three young women aged 18-20 recently for being too nice and not being mean enough to them. They literally wanted a man who treated them like shit. They were also calling me “sir,” so I think they were way off into that BD/SM shit which is taking the sexual world by storm these days.
As far as the classic advice you get from any man dishing it out about how to get along with women, it’s always “be an asshole,” and “treat them like shit.” This never made any sense to me because women usually took extreme offense to me being a dick to them and that was usually the #1 reason they had for breaking up with me: I had hurt their feelings in some way. Keep in mind that I was a super nice guy back then, so I had always hurt their feelings inadvertently. Which is the easiest thing in the world to do with a woman because every other thing in life hurts their feelings, upsets them, sends to tears or rage, etc.
I think I finally figured it out. They want you to be an asshole to them sometimes. They want you to treat them like shit sometimes. I’ve only done so when they attacked me from a place of evil-mindedness. I think women want to be put in their place. They want you to build a fence around them, sort of like children do. They want to test your limits and see what you will let them get away with.
Kids will try to your limits and see what they can get away with too. They literally want you to build a fence around them and tell them that everything beyond the fence is forbidden. They scream and yell when you do that, but they are secretly happy at you for putting limits on them. Kids think they can’t control themselves, so they want someone else, as in a parent, to put some limits on them.
I think women are much the same. Women always want to see what they can get away with. You let them get away with too much, and they will run rampant on you because they disrespect you for not putting limits on them. Like kids, women think they can’t control themselves; in particular, they think they are at the whim of their emotions which they can’t control very well. Women feel like they are dragged around through life by their emotions like a dog on a leash, the emotions being the leash.
They secretly want to be controlled, just like kids. So you need to put strict limits on women, such as that there are certain things that she just cannot say to you or you will let her have it. She will act furious, but like a kid, she will actually respect you more for putting limits on her and basically putting her in her place. And that respect will come out in the form of intense love for you.
I think the normal 2/3 of women want a decent guy who is a real motherfucker to them when they act bad though. Ever since I started acting that way, I’ve had women fall deeper and crazier in love with me than ever before in my life. They all mentioned that I was “mean,” “psycho,” “dangerous,” “scary,” etc. One even said, “You’re scary, but scary’s hot.”
Keep in mind I did not act that way all the time, only when they were being mean to me to no good goddamn reason. Oh, and I started calling women cunts too. Believe it or not, after I started calling women cunts, I’ve had the wildest, craziest, most over the top love affairs of my life.
The rest of the time, I’m basically a great big pussycat, the nicest guy you’ve ever met. I’ve always been this way. I don’t like to fight.
Also, I took to domming the living Hell out of them in bed for the first time, and that’s also coincided with women falling in love with me deeper than they ever have.
I guess if you want some really evil advice from me, I’d say to cuss her out to the ultimate, and especially to call her a cunt when she’s being evil or mean for no good reason. Diss her out, call her every name in the book. And especially use misogynistic insults. Laugh in their faces when they get mad at you. Keep frame. Don’t get hurt when they insult you. Act like a rock and treat their insults like pathetic, wimpy jokes.
And dom the living Hell out of them in bed.
I wouldn’t threaten her, though I did threaten to kill one woman. Weird thing is that woman loved me more than any woman ever. And she was the only woman I ever threatened to kill!
I especially used gendered insults and specialized in misogynistic insults. I insulted them in the most evil way for being women, told them they were pathetic, that men were superior and women inferior and stupid, that they should behave themselves because ,”You’re talking to a man now, dammit!”
In short I acted pretty bad. Now I am no more of a misogynist than any other man. Which isn’t saying much, granted. I dislike open misogyny and that’s what I have against most PUA’s, MRA’s, and the Manosphere. I love women. I like them a lot more than I like men. So I don’t believe any of that misogynistic crap I rip them to Hell with. I just use it because I know they hate misogynistic insults more than anything else.
If she’s angry at you for a good reason and not out of spite or evil, I would give her a break. I was with one woman for 1.5 years, and I never gave her this treatment. She got mad as Hell at me, but it was all coming from the place of a good heart. If it’s coming from the place of a good heart, I will not give her this treatment. Only if it’s coming from an evil-hearted place.
As far as domming them in bed, I just started doing this. I don’t go full BD/SM at all. Just really aggressive, rough sex, lot of name-calling, etc. But then afterwards I worship her like a princess. Well, not quite but you get the picture. I adore her.
A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.
It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.
The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.
Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.
However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.
But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.
It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.
Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.
The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.
It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.
In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!
Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.
How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.
Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.
Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.
Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.
I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.
I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.
However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.
Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:
Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.
To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.
The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.
She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.
She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.
The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.
The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.
Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.
That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.
Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.