Yes, Jews were influential in all of these movements at the start. But they’ve all gone mainstream now and there are not a lot of Jews to be seen. I get the feeling that once a movement loses its subversive “shock the Gentiles” character, the Jews get bored and take off for greener pastures.
Jews aren’t the source of all of White people’s problems. Every Jew in the US could go to Israel tomorrow and anti-White politics and the rest of the Cultural Left would keep chugging right along because racism against Whites has simply gone mainstream. A lot of non-Whites are drinking this Kool-Aid and there are plenty of self-hating Whites out there flagellating themselves.
For instance, let’s look at modern antiracism, especially Critical Race Theory, which is what almost all modern antiracism is anymore. CRT didn’t get cooked up by a bunch of Jews. Actually it came from intellectual Blacks, particularly Derrick Bell in the 1970’s, a Black legal scholar. Almost all of the big names in CRT nowadays are Blacks or other non-Whites. The few Whites seem to be Gentiles.White-hating doesn’t need Jews anymore. It’s on automatic.
Same with feminism, gay rights, trans rights, hatred of the West, worship of non-Whites and the rest of the loony Cultural Left. None of these things need Jews to keep going anymore. America’s Jews could all go to the moon and this sort of thing would keep chugging right along.
Feminist man-hatred has gone mainstream. There aren’t even many Jewish feminists at the top anymore.
Gays don’t need Jews to push a radical gay agenda. There aren’t even that many Jews at the top ranks of Gay Identity Politics (IP). There are just a bunch of homosexuals pushing a homosexual project, exactly as you might expect.
Trans IP gets called a Jewish project because a few rich Jews such as the Pritzkers fund it to some extent. On the other hand, this has also gone mainstream and even more disgustingly, a huge corporate capitalist Trans Industry consisting of sleazy pharmaceutical companies, surgeons, hospitals, and clinics doling out hormonal toxins and mutilating the bodies of anyone dumb enough to avail themselves of one of their hospital beds. Trans IP is now the Trans Industry, as capitalist as the tobacco industry and about as sleazy.
This is a mistake of crazy antisemites. Where the problem is capitalist corporate sleazeballs of any ethnicity, the crazy antisemite just sees a bunch of Jews. The antisemite says we don’t have capitalism in the US. Instead we have “some Jewed up bullshit.” Get rid of the Jews and Gentile capitalism will be all warm and fuzzy and nice. It will even cuddle up with when you go to sleep and lick your face lovingly.
This is folly! Ok, let’s try an experiment. Let’s let all of the US Jews take off for the moon. You think US capitalists will suddenly turn into nice people?
I’ve got some news for you. Jewish capitalists are capitalists. Gentile capitalists are capitalists. Capitalists of both groups act like…get this…capitalists! Isn’t that shocking?
Nevertheless, this has gone on automatic and it doesn’t need Jews anymore either. Jews aren’t any more tranny or gay than non-Jews.
Porn doesn’t need Jews either. Ever checked out Japanese porn? Not a Jew in sight. Swedish, Danish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Turkish, Greek, Dutch, Spanish, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, German, Colombian, Mexican, and Argentine porn is being pushed by…people of those ethnicities! Isn’t that surprising? Not a bunch of Jews. Probably not a Jew in sight in any of those national porn industries. British porn seems to be run by British Gentiles last time I checked.
Gentile men are just as perverted, sick, and twisted sexually as Jewish men. We’re not choirboys and Jewish men don’t have a patent on depravity. Gentile men are men. Jewish men are men. They act like…get this…men! Amazing, huh?
And in case you are wondering, yes, I have seen national commercial porn from all of those countries.
Think about it. Suppose all the Jews in the US moved to the moon tomorrow. Do you have the slightest doubt that Gentile perverted men wouldn’t continue to run the porn industry? And the porn industry is full of Gentiles too.
The Jewish era of porn was in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Yes, there were many Jewish directors, actors, and actresses back then. Yes, there are still some Jewish directors. There are a few Jewish actors and actresses, but frankly their numbers are quite small. I can only think of one male and one female Jewish porn star. Jews were in porn when it was dissident and subversive. Once it went mainstream, I assume they got bored of it as it doesn’t give that “shock the Gentiles” kick anymore.
The 1970’s was also the Italian or Sicilian era of porn. If you watch one of those old porn movies, you see a bunch of Italian names on the credits at the end. Obviously the mafia was running the porn industry back then.
This was previously posted as a page, whereas it is just a post, so I am reposting it.
Polar Bear: I’ve been called creepy by a women that really liked me or want to sleep with me. Creepy or creeper is thrown around freely by young women nowadays. In day to day casual encounters I believe it’s better to look good than be rich.
Homely rich men seem to swear by prostitutes, college girls that would see them as creepy in the streets. Blue collar, older, and homely you’ll be labeled a creep more for sure. I’ve heard women say, “He looks like a pedophile” about the same type. I’m getting by on faded but still above average looks. Western women need to be less superficial.
LOL what about poor, older, and good-looking? Women say I look better than 90% of men my age. I’m basically a creeper I guess, though I haven’t been called it in a long time. Young women absolutely do not want to talk to me at all, no fuckin’ way, man. Whether they think I’m a creeper or not, I have no idea. Some of them absolutely do not like me though. I would venture to say that they hate me, and I consider them to be my enemies. I’ve wised up and I don’t talk to young women anymore unless they give me some sort of a reason, which happens about never.
I’d say any man viewed as “unattractive” for whatever reason – money, age, job title, looks, or weird, awkward or geeky/nerdy behavior is automatically labeled creepy.
All creepy means in bullshit woman-speak (and most things women say that we men don’t say are definitely bullshit) is “an unattractive man who shows sexual interest in me.” I’d venture I’m not creepy at all, but the minute they think I’m paying attention to them, looking at them, etc., I’d imagine that could well be what they think of me.
After age 30, women somehow miraculously grow a brain where none existed before. Don’t ask me how they do it! Perhaps it’s divine intervention. Who knows? But they get a lot more sensible about this stuff. Women over 30 are unlikely to call you creepy.
Men shouldn’t call other men creepy at all unless the guy is seriously out of line. Men! Do not call other men creepy unless they seriously deserve it! When you do that, you sound like a pathetic Normie faggot! Don’t do it!
When you do that, you go over to the other side. This is basically a War. The War of the Sexes*. In the War of the Sexes, as a man, you choose the side of the men. Men who don’t are faggots, sissies, girls, wimps, girlymen, cucks, and feminists. They’ve basically defected to the enemy, and they need to be treated as the traitors they are.
I’ve noticed that gay men or faggoty or wimpy guys of unknown sexual orientation are truly horrendous as far as this goes. I have had them literally try to stop me from talking to young women. One time a young woman smiled and wanted to serve me and this faggy idiot (sexual orientation unknown except he’s a huge pussy) got in front of her and totally cockblocked me. Sometimes I have a word or two with a young woman and he acts completely outraged. If he doesn’t stop, I swear this cuck is going to get hit.
I don’t mind gay men, but when they start cockblocking us in front of women, they can just fuck off or get hit. Generally the more wimpy and pussy the man is, the more feminist he is, the more he talks about sexual harassment, rape culture, toxic masculinity, and other bullshit, and the more he cockblocks you in front of women and white-knights (to save them from the predators!) and acts as Captain Save-a-Ho for women.
Any ideas on why gay men white knight for women, cockblock us men, and are totally feminist cucks? Gay men should be for the men. One thing I really appreciate about gay men is that they really really love us men. They’re worth keeping around for that reason alone.
Men, do not do this! If you’re a pussy or not a very masculine guy and you feel comfortable that way, please don’t go over to the enemy! Fuck that. The only brothers you have in this world are the men. We’re the only people who will ever have your back. Masculine or feminine, pussy or macho, gay or straight, none of it matters as long as you with the boys, and there’s one rule and one rule alone for all:
Bros before hos!
*Men and women want different things in life and hence they are always at odds in a sense. So in a sense they are our enemies and we are their enemies. This is true even if you completely love the opposite sex. Some women go over the side of us men, and generally, those are the best women of all. I don’t blame women for being on the side in opposition to us men. They’re probably just wired up that way naturally and it might be hard to get out of that programming.
I don’t think they’re going out of their way to be evil bitches and scream harassment, assault and rape anytime a man so much as looks at them. That behavior is probably biological, but Clown World and in particular, America or Cuckistan has gone way overboard with female thinking in this regard.
Generally a world where women get everything they want is bad for us men. Probably a world where we men get everything we want is bad for women. Maybe that’s what a patriarchy is. Both sexes have opposing needs and wants and giving either sex carte blanche to impose their “Imperative” won’t work because each sex will end up fucking over the opposite sex when their agenda is maximally fulfilled.
The needs of men and women need to be balanced in any decent society. How to do just that is frankly a never-ending battle, The Battle of the Sexes as it were. The Battle of the Sexes is probably a normal feature of most societies like Class War is normal under capitalism.
Old post but still getting comments, so it may as well get a repost. Plus I just reread it and it’s really cool!
Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier
I’ve known Blacks who chucked Black Identity Politics and said, “I love White people!” There’s a whole sex kink out there like that for Black women who love White men. I’ve met many Black women with this sex kink. There are Black men who think Whites are the bomb. I’ve met a lot of these folks. They admire Whites. They try to act like Whites. They see them as models of behavior.
And if you’re Black and you love White people, most Whites will let down their guard. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I compared them to Blacks locked into Black Identity Politics, and the Black Identity Politics people seemed much less happy. They were locked into a war. Racism was everywhere, fogging up their glasses, giving them scratchy throats, and causing rashes on their arms. They were living in enemy territory every day.
Gays who dropped gay politics were a lot more relaxed. Gays locked into gay Identity Politics always had their dukes up, surrounded by homophobes, getting in fistfights every day. Gay Identity Politics is a scary place. There’s a gay-basher hiding in every bush. It’s enough to drive you nuts.
IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become
All IP people are angry. They’re getting a raw deal! And paranoid. All IP people are locked into war with some binary “enemy identity.” Whites are the bad guys. Men are the enemy. The enemy is keeping us down!
With all IP, curiously, the more the groups realize their goals, first, they keep moving the goalposts, insisting its not enough and inventing new demands, and oddly enough, they get even more pissed off!
Remember the Second Liberation of Blacks in 1964? How did Blacks react to the greatest freedom from shackles since the First Liberation in 1863? For the next half decade, they rampaged though America’s cities with deadly riots, killing people, fighting cops and firemen, getting themselves killed, and most stupidly, burning their own hood, and then complaining their living in the embers of the ash heap. I’ve got a theory about why this curiosity exists. It actually makes complete sense.
I’ll give you a clue? Though they were in shackles, the source of all of their misery was not to be found in the shackles. A lot of it was but a lot of it wasn’t. So the shackles came off and they looked around, and they still weren’t equals. They felt ripped off by a shapeshifting enemy and exploded with frustrated rage. And it continues to today.
As racism declines with each year, Blacks continue to have their usual Black problems. Their ideology tells them that their problems are all caused by racism, so if their problems persist even after all these years of work, racism must truly be insidious, evil, and even possibly mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the anti-racism and Black IP to defeat this racist monster once and for all!
We liberated women, and they still had most of the same old woman problems. Liberation didn’t fix their troubles, so obviously they didn’t do it hard enough. So they double down.
We liberated gays, but of course they’re still all screwed up. They’re far nuttier than straights. Both sexes of homosexuals live 18-20 years less than straights. All of the problems of gay men (Remember Boys in the Band?) remain. All of the problems of lesbians (Remember The Well of Sadness?) remain. All the wars of homophobia didn’t work. What to do? Double down on the anti-homophobia campaigns.
Great music. I had heard of her way back in 1976 when she was with the Runaways, an all-teenage girl band. I met their ex-manager once and he told me that all four of the girls were bisexual. I’m not surprised. Quite a few women are like that. She was one of the first punk rockers. And I mean she was a real punk rocker. She’s also a lesbian, apparently a true blue biological one. I first heard of this in 1981 when I was dating a woman named Janet and she told me, “She likes girls.” That had always been the rumor anyway.
She refuses to comment on it, but she’s never been married or linked to a man. I read an interview with a guy from the Avengers who was living with her in Sweden for a while. He said they would both go out to bars and pick up women and bring them home to have sex with them! At a recent concert, the front rows were filled with lesbian or bisexual women wearing “Wett for Jett” t-shirts. I’ve heard that she has a lot of female groupies who act about like groupies do with male bands. And I’ve heard that she has sex with the hottest groupies all the time. She gets hot women! I don’t care if she’s lez, and it’s obvious she got wired up that way. I think she grew up in LA. Lakewood if I am not mistaken.
This is pretty much my theme song too. I’ve had a bad reputation forever, and apparently I still do. What do I have to say about this bad reputation? See this middle finger here? Ok, you got the message. I’d like to say I’m understood, but who knows? Maybe I’m a scum after all, right? Anyway, I might as well just embrace it and call myself a Scumfuc like GG Allin called himself. Fuck it, man. They’re never going to quit saying terrible things about me. It’s hopeless to fight it. I’m going to have a terrible reputation for the rest of my life. If you can’t beat em, join em!
Polar Bear: Bowie and Jagger rumored to have slept together. Strange to a seasoned rockstar or porn star would take a lot. Kinkiness can snowball. The gay-acting PUA guy I saw seemed more into his PUA bros. How into pussy can a truly gay man be? They’d have to be bi or possibly emotionally gay.
This whole idea of “gay womanizers” is pretty nutty, but there have been a few. A few very handsome gay men screwed a bunch of women as teenagers and young adults until they figured out that they were truly gay. I really don’t understand how that works. If you see some guy who has a reputation as a player or a womanizer and he’s screwing half the chicks in town, generally speaking the last thing on Earth he is is gay. In fact, guys like that are the extreme, ultimate contradiction of homosexuality. They are the Antigay to gays as the Anti-Christ is the absolute contradiction of Christ and God.
Gay men are not into pussy at all. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. There’s literally nothing there. If they are truly gay, just forget it. They have no sexual interest in women. They never look at women. They never talk about women. They never fantasize about women.
And they certainly never fantasize and masturbate about women. In the lab, they typically score “Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual.” I guess there’s a bit of a reaction, but it’s barely enough to reach statistical significance. Straight men typically score Maximum Heterosexual, minimal heterosexual. I think they do react to men but only at a very low level, maybe 10% of max.
I just read an article about this by Raymond Blanchard, Seto and Freund, along with comments by Michael Bailey. All are considered some of the top sexologists in the world.
The article asked why non-pedophilic men molested little girls. The hypothesis was that they had a significant though lesser attraction to them such that they used them as a substitute for mature women.
Also for age, straight men
Females 15+: Maximum arousal
Pubescent girls 12-14: 73% of maximum
Prepubescent girls 2-11 48% of maximum
Men both boys and men: 10% of maximum (barely reaches significance).
50% of men who molest little girls are not pedophiles at all. They’re just like the rest of us. The question is why do they do it? You can see from the studies above that men do react to pubescent and even little girls at a fairly significant level ranging from 1/2-3/4 of max. The best theory out there and the one posited in the paper is that these men molest little girls as a substitute for women.
Sort of like, “What would you rather eat? A steak or a hamburger?” A steak’s probably twice as good, but if there’s a hamburger around and you’re hungry, you’re probably going to eat it anyway, even if it’s not your preference. Normal men are far more attracted to little girls than they are to boys or men, so it’s logical that they might substitute a little girl for a woman. That’s probably what’s going on in a lot of molestation.
Very old post still getting some comments. Interesting post though.
A commenter, apparently a crazy woman, suggests:
Most womanizers are gay or bisexual…don’t believe this B.S.
This commenter must be a woman. This is one of the ways that females get their revenge on the enigma of the womanizer: the only reason he is doing this is because there is some secret homosexual bugbear lurking somewhere in his psyche. The Don Juan is in desperate flight from his latent homosexuality.
I think this crap originally came from psychoanalysis, and the whole concept of latent homosexuality doesn’t make sense. As Otto Weininger would say, homosexuality is one of those A or not-A things. Something one either is or is not. It’s a pair of concepts. All humans, except the asexual, are either homosexual, heterosexual, or some combination of these these things (what we call bisexual). There is no third category. There is no such thing as latent homosexuality. One is either gay, straight, or some combination called bisexual.
Anyway, what a nutty idea! I’ve never met a gay womanizer in my life! How ridiculous can you get? They idea of a gay man sleeping with half the women in town is preposterous. Why? Why would he waste his time?
Are womanizers bisexual? Hard to say.
Most of the ones I’ve known were not, but two of them were, one a very dear friend of mine. He originally was a wild womanizer, one of the most insane I’ve ever known. But he did have a gay side. I know because he used to whistle at me when we were changing to go swim in the pool. Not really whistling as a joke either. Yikes.
Later on, he moved in with this queer in West Hollywood. Then he lost his job. The queer said either put out or get out. Disgusting, huh? I told everyone the fag was a scumbag, and my whole friend circle screamed at me. It’s perfectly acceptable to force a straight guy to screw a fag or else live on the streets!
He came and stayed with me for a while, but then he mysteriously went back. I was up in LA hanging out at nightclubs with him trying to pick up model/actress types, and I went back to his place. I woke up in the middle of the night, and he and the fag were going at it in the next room. Don’t ask me how I knew. I said, “Oh well,” and went back to sleep.
I woke up the next morning, and he was a bit defiant. I temporarily lost a contact lens, and the fag made a fake show of tying to “find it” by putting his hands all over me. Even my friend got in on it. I guess he had come to discover the pleasures of men. I ignored their crap and let them carry on and get their vicarious thrills. Later we found the damned lens.
We had breakfast, and the fag laid some bizarre and ugly psychological trip on me to try to seduce me. Didn’t work.
Later that morning I left, and I said a very warm goodbye to my friend. I decided, in my progressive and multicultural humanism, to love him whether he was fagging off or not. We had a long history together. But I never went back.
I saw him a few times later. A friend of mine saw him too. He was living with the fag and hanging around with this crowd of queers. They would go on trips together, like down to Laguna Beach. No idea what they did down there. Yikes.
Once he passingly remarked that he has a fistula in his anus. He got it from “driving a truck.” Yeah right, dude. He was drinking more, now in the mornings, but he’d always been a bit of a drunk. He had a cute girlfriend with him, a drunk herself. Later I heard he moved up to Santa Barbara to live in a house with her. He might have even married her.
Another guy was basically straight, but I’m sure he was known to do it with guys if times got desperate. I know this because he asked me once.
This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.
However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.
I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.
I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.
I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.
For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.
78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?
Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.
I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.
In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.
Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.
If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.
Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychologicalobjection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.
About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.
Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.
I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.
Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.
As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.
On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.
Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.
In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.
By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.
I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.
The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?
Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.
In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.
It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.
Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.
12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.
Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.
When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.
She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.
Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.
The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.
At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.
He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.
A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.
Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.
It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.
The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.
I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.
For example, Belle Delphine.
He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.
If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.
The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.
During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.
The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.
This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.
The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.
Fairy tale men below.
So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.
The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.
A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.
According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.
Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.
The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.
In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.
Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.
This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.
Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.
But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.
According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.
The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.
If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.
Menarche and Mammories
In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.
There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.
Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?
I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.
I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.
I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.
So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.
When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.
Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.
Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.
Mostly just lots of short stories these days. They’re all considered classic literature. One book is a set of French short stories by writers who are considered to write classic literature.
The French book was published in 1960, so we are dealing with dated material here, all over 60 years old:
Charles Baudelaire: Paris Spleen (1869). “Prose poems or proems,” an odd literary form. Very nice. I have read The Flowers of Evil (both are books of poetry), and I cannot recommend them highly enough, especially Le Fleurs du Mal. French Symbolist literature, or more properly, Decadent literature, from the late 1800’s. He hung out with Paul Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud and Stéphane Mallarmé, all of them haunting Parisian bars in drunken ecstasy.
He as actually straight, unlike some of those other guys who were homosexuals. He was sickly, nuts, erratic, a drug-addict, flake, dilettante, gambler, spendthrift, and heavy drinker who lived his whole life in poverty. He attempted suicide once. Dead at 46. Marcel Proust said Baudelaire was the greatest poet of the 19th Century. He was also praised by Edmund Wilson and T. S. Eliot, who actually referred to himself as a “Baudelarian.” He was claimed by both conservatives and liberals. On the left, Walter Benjamin praised him.
Francois Mauriac: The Grand-Lebrun (1933). First thing I ever read by this guy. Has a James Joyce feel about it, especially Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.
In the other book, published in 1968, so these stories are all over 50 years old:
Anton Chekhov: Misery (1885) and Rothschild’s Fiddle (1894). These are better than either of the French stories. This is the first Chekhov I have read. He’s 19th Century Russia, so I warn you, these stories, like most Russian lit from that time, are depressing and gloomy as Hell. Someone either dies, has just died, or will soon die, or all three at once. Nevertheless, his style is truly amazing and heartrendingly beautiful and sad. He is said to be one of the masters of the short story.
Ernest Hemingway: Big Two-Hearted River (1925). This one also is almost perfect. Classic Hemingway understated yet perfect prose. He doesn’t waste a sentence or probably a word. His writing is based on the Iceberg Theory. I’ve also read a number of his novels A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls,The Old Man and the Sea, and The Sun Also Rises. I also read Death in the Afternoon (nonfiction) along with In Our Time and Men without Women, short story collections.
William Faulkner: Dry September (1930). Nice little story, terrible subject matter. He catches the South in all of its casual brutality. I also read Light in August, and it is excellent. Can’t recommend it enough. It’s written a lot in stream of consciousness, so you have to pay attention to whose mind he is in and who’s talking at the time. Also a lot of it is in dialect.
Vladimir Nabokov: First Love (1943). This story is just gorgeous, but it’s not an easy read at all. He’s one of my favorite writers ever, truly one of the greats. However, he is not an easy read at all. Like Hemingway, his work is full of hidden details, references, clues, puns, on and on. I’m not sure if it’s possible for the non-intellectual to read his stuff on an entertainment level.
I’ve also read Lolita and Bend Sinister. Both are good, but Lolita, the story of a pedophile (or hebephile) child molester and relationship with the extremely precocious, gum-smacking 12 year old sexpot Lolita, is out of this world, one of the greatest books of the 20th Century. I do know that it can be read on different levels though, and even at a basic level, it is incredible. If you wish to go hunting for the endless Easter eggs peppered all through this symbolism-shot book, you can do that too. If you haven’t read it, do so. Don’t worry about the disturbing subject matter. It’s something we talk about all the time anyway. We just don’t talk about it like this.
Richard Wright: The Man Who Lived Underground (1944). This is the first I have read of this author, the famous Black writer of the classic Native Son, which I probably need to read sometime. He’s very angry and all of his writing is about racism and Whites’ unjust treatment of Blacks. His writing is cold, vicious, cruel, and often horribly violent. But if you can handle him, he’s quite good. And to be fair, Blacks were treated terribly back when he was writing.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: EPICAC (1950) and Next Door (1955). Both of these were great! Both of them are as good as a Chekhov or Borges short story, and that’s the gold standard. There’s often a wild twist at the end.
I’ve read quite a few books of his. I’ve read Breakfast of Champions or Goodbye Blue Monday!; Cat’s Cradle; God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater or Pearls Before Swine; Happy Birthday, Wanda June; Mother Night; Player Piano; Sirens of Titan; Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death, all novels. I’ve also read Welcome to the Monkey House, a book of short stories (now rereading it). In addition, I read Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons (Opinions), nonfiction.
Vonnegut is very nice. He’s quite simple and anyone can read him. But his work is nevertheless absolutely brilliant. Because it’s so simplistic, there’s a tendency to see him as overrated, until you read him again and you realize just how brilliant he really is. If you like easy reading, I’d recommend any of the books above. They’re entertaining and funny, too, often in a self-deprecatory way. As a person, he was a huge asshole to just about everyone, but again, that’s not unusual with these genius types. They’re out to lunch in a lot of ways, and socially can be one of them.
Carson McCullers: The Sojourner and The Jockey (both 1955). First I have read of her too. Interesting writer. Sort of Hemingway-like, understated stuff. Overtones of melancholy.
James Allen McPherson: On Trains (1961). I had never even heard of this author before and at first I thought it was just the author trying to be antiracist by throwing in some Black (or other designated oppressed minority) author to get woke points. I was shocked. He’s excellent. If you like Black writers, check this guy out.
He writes about race a lot, but in a subtle, understated, matter of fact way, sort of like Faulkner. But he also deals with the reality of Black-White sexual relationships, which was probably controversial in his day. When he went to Yale, he had already experienced quite a bit of racism, but he seemed more philosophical and “I’m going to show those White boys how good I am” about it. He’s not nearly as militant and angry as Wright.
John Updike: A & P (1962) and The Doctor’s Wife (1962). A & P is one of the all-time greats. Then again, not much happens. But that’s true of the best short stories of all.
Consider For Esme, with Love and Squalor by J. D. Salinger. What happens? Not a whole lot. But it’s one of the best short stories of its time. And Updike is rather like Salinger in that way. His writing is very subtle and to figure it out properly, you need to get down below the basic writing to figure out what he’s really getting at. He shows. He doesn’t tell.
And dialogue is very important. He deals well with shades of emotion, feeling, and mental states that are often pretty hard for us to put our fingers on, and we would probably deny them even if we could. There can be a sense of lost opportunity or hypocrisy. His male characters are often gross sexists.
Misogyny is often apparent. I’m reading a recent novel of his, Towards the End of Time, and the same thing is going on. In many cases, this has to do with the author’s relationships with his ex-wives. But the lyrical Melvillean prose dancing off the pages of of this much later novel is joyous to read just for style alone..
I also read Hugging The Shore, a book of his book reviews and literary criticism. It was very good.
Donald Barthelme: Margins (1961) and See the Moon? (1966). This is literally some of the strangest and weirdest fiction I’ve ever read. It’s like this new fiction style called Weird. That’s about the only way to describe it. However, as an author, he is absolutely brilliant in a lot of different ways. You wonder how one man carried all this knowledge and insight in his 10 pound brain. I liked these stories, but they sure were weird all right. Plus which not much happens, but apparently that’s the idea.
I’ve read Amateurs; Come Back, Dr. Caligari; Forty Stories; Great Days; Sadness; Sixty Stories; Snow White; and Unspeakable Practices, Unnatural Acts, all short story collections. There was a time in the 80’s when I was binging on that stuff.
Jorge Luis Borges: The Secret Miracle (1962) and Funes the Memorious (1967). Borges is the great Argentine writer, one of the best writers of the last century. Nevertheless, he’s not for everyone and he’s a bit hard to get into. This writing is similar to Barthelme’s, but it is on a whole different level. It has been called magical realism. It has been called a lot of things. But there is no writing quite like it anywhere else.
It’s a bit like Gabriel Garcia Marquez of 100 Years of Solitude fame. After all, they are both South Americans and magical realism was birthed on the continent. He’s also rather like Ray Bradbury in terms of showing us fantastic and otherworldly visions of our world which are at once our own world and then again, something else entirely. I’ve always felt there was a bit of Franz Kafka in there too. There’s often a sense of tragedy in his writing, and usually someone dies. Death is always waiting around the corner. I’ve Ficciones and Labyrinths, both short story collections, during my time at university from 1978-1981.
John Barth: Life-Story (1968). John Barth wrote in The Literature of Exhaustion in 1967 that the novel form was used up and there was not much to do anymore as it had all already been done. It caused quite a stir on the lit scene. It appeared around the time that Roland Barthes, a literary critic, wrote The Death of the Author. Both are considered to be seminal texts in the emerging movement of postmodernism. Much literary criticism now continues to echo Barthes in positioning “author” and “reader” as completely different battling entities. It spends a lot of time mining the interplay between the two.
In 1980, he wrote The Literature of Replenishment in which he singled out Borges and Nabokov (see above) as two writers who were indeed doing new things with the novel instead of the same old same old.
Barth’s writing is self-consciously postmodern. After The Floating Opera and The End of the Road, things started getting weird. He became known for metafiction, that is fiction about the writing of fiction. The “writer” of whatever piece you are reading will often make an appearance, say a few things, and disappear.
Perhaps he will remind you that you’re only reading a book. Perhaps he will say that the story you are reading is really a story about an author writing a story. Which is about an author writing a story. And on and on. Get the picture? He was the first professor of Creative Writing in the US in 1953, although that is hard to believe. Now these departments are everywhere and all of their graduates are churning out at least a novel or two. To say we are swamped is an understatement.
His writing is full of a lot of self-conscious talk about novel-writing, how to write a novel, the components of a novel, the various ways one can choose in which to write a novel, the levels on which you can write them, characterization, plot, background, conflict, on and on. He often starts talking about this right in the middle of your reading, so you are reading along and then this “author” guy pops up and tells you there’s going to be a big plot change coming up ahead, so get ready for it. It’s weird and jarring but it’s very interesting.
This stuff is very hard to read and can be quite confusing at times. It’s also frustrating. But if you like to bend your mind a bit, this is a good place to do it.
I have read The Sot Weed Factor. That’s considered to be his best book.
You either like this writer or you don’t. I assure you that he is absolutely brilliant. But he’s not for everyone and some may find him a bore or end up throwing the book at the wall. Caveat emptor.
Saul Bellow: “A Father to Be” (1953): Interesting little story. In his early novels and short stories, the wild goings-on in the heads of his characters, who all have very rich and complex fantasy and emotional lives, is matched by the world, which is about as strange and active as the material in their heads. This can be seen in Dangling Man, The Victim, and even in The Adventures of Augie March and Seize the Day. After that, things start getting really weird and the outside world or the plots start veering way off course from the character’s inner lives. The mismatch between the two offers a lot of the conflict.
I have read Humbolt’s Gift at university, but I found it a bit of a chore honestly, and it was also rather boring. But then, I was 22, so hey. Maybe if I read it again at my age, I might get a lot more out of it.
It’s about the poet Delmore Schwartz, whose live was as wild as his poems. He wrote Under Milkwood, a Play for Voices. I’d never read it but maybe it’s not supposed to be read with your eyes. Maybe as the title implies, it’s supposed to be heard with your ears. I heard it on the radio one and the genius and brilliance of it was almost impossible to fathom. It was as good as Ulysses. Really. I don’t even know how he did it? How can one man do such a thing.
He drank himself to death at an early age like so many of these guys do. The story is he went to a bar and asked how many drinks he would have to drink to die and people at the bar estimated 17. So he proceeded to then drink precisely 18 drinks of alcohol. You know how this story ends, right? He died. Call it a suicide. Or a parasuicide. Anyway, it’s a typical way for this types, men as well as women, to take their final sleep.
I think the most common cause of death in poets must be suicide. And so many of them are depressives or manic-depressives. But it’s a fine line between creativity and mental illness and that’s why so many of us artistic types are so nutty. Yeah, I consider myself an artsy type. If I’m not, sue me. Anyway, it’s a great excuse for being crazy!
Also, an unbelievable number of poets are more or less gay. A lot of the women are lesbian or bi and often dykey or mannish. Gay male poets are almost a stereotype. But then the link between the Arts and Homosexuality was noted as far back as Antiquity. Some have even suggested that should a cure for homosexuality or genetic testing show up, we might want to keep gays around just for their creativity. As with so many questions of some but not great importance, I’m inclined to leave that up in the air or for the Gods to work out, which is basically the same thing.
A while back I was going through a bunch of poets because I had nothing better to do with my time and I kept running into this Gay-Suicide-Poet thing. A lot of the women’s dykeyness was turning me off, and I was terribly sad to find out that some of my favorite male authors were batting for the other team.
Then I achieved an epiphany. I don’t really if so many of these poets are faggots, dykes, and suicides or some combination of first two and the third, their lives were worth it and glorious and beautiful and perfect just for leaving us that sublime silver prose that sings off the pages as we read it. They did not die in vain. And perhaps there’s a place in the world for folks like that. It takes all types to fill the freeways.
A lot of people really hate this writer. He’s gay as Hell and his books are just drenched with the grossest scenes of gay male sex. It’s a bit hard to take. With regard to the latter stuff, I used to just sort of skim over them though. They didn’t really bother me. It wasn’t so much gross as I simply felt nothing at all. It was like I was reading something boring about water.
I’ve always felt this way about gay stuff. I saw naked boys in the shower room every day in high school for years. Of course I used to look at them sometimes, more out of curiosity than anything else. I was wondering if guys turned me on. I already knew that females turned me on like crazy. They were on my mind 24-7 back then, and it’s barely let up since. But sometimes you wonder if you want to double your chances of getting a date on Saturday night, you know?
Mostly I was sort of phobic around those male bodies, and I think the other guys might have been too. You would be showering and changing around all these guys, and you pretended you didn’t see them. It was like they weren’t there. I don’t think a gay boy could do that. I looked at boy’s bodies in the showers. I felt nothing at all. Looked at them changing next to me. Felt nothing at all. It’s always been like that.
I wonder how other straight guys feel about being around naked men. Most of us don’t really like it, and it tends to make us uncomfortable, though it probably shouldn’t. Do other men feel disgusted looking at guys’ bodies, or do they feel uncomfortable, yucky, and phobic? Or do they just feel zero, nothing, zip, nada, nope, nothing there at all.
Nevertheless, I always loved Burroughs’ prose. He was one of great writers of the later half of the 20th Century, and he was conceivably a genius. There is something about the style and themes of his writing. He was a master. I remember in The Western Lands where there’s this part when they are on some centipede expedition in the jungle of South America. This goes on for 20-30 pages. All of Burroughs’ genius and style vanishes, and now he is writing the way any ordinary guy with ordinary writing skills writes: good enough but not particularly well. And he keeps this up for 20-30 pages, never missing a beat, all in this lower, less competent register. It was simply amazing.
Burroughs is widely read by straight guys. He’s one of the few gay writers who has an audience outside the gay ghetto other than Gide, Proust, Wilde, Mann, Forster and the other old guys. But they didn’t write about homosexuality much, so they were easier to take.
He was also a king of the beats, so everyone who was into the beat movement read him.
I’m not sure about the hippie movement, but it wasn’t unusual to find a stoned-out long-haired young man in his 20’s backpacking across Europe with a copy of Nova Express in his pack in the 1970’s. It was almost a cliche, you know?
Burroughs was always hip.
And when punk rock came around, all of the punks loved him, and he quickly became king of the punks for whatever reason. His novels were rechristened as punk novels.
I don’t think he’s much read anymore, and the gay sex along with the horrible violence and depictions of death and other disgusting things makes his books a very hard read. The books are also drenched with drugs and crime. A lot of his characters are drug users, often junkies, and criminals of various types from thieves all the way up to the big guys. The books are full of street slang and criminal cant.
I’d say Burroughs is still read, by those who can bear him, let’s put it that way. There’s been an attempt by the gays to “gay ghetto” him like they do to all of their kind, but it didn’t work. Homosexuality is not a very important part of those books anyway. It’s certainly not why I read them.
He received much praise. Norman Mailer said he was
The only American author who could be conceived of having genius.
Samuel Beckett didn’t talk about other writers once, but he was once asked about Burroughs. The day was long and the light was going out of the room. As it got darker, Beckett didn’t turn on any lights or do anything to let more light in. The room just got dimmer and gloomier while he seemed to relish in this change. Of course that’s just like his books.
William Burroughs? William Burroughs is…a writer.
Like a real writer. The real deal. The real McCoy. To be good enough to be called a real writer by Beckett was an accomplishment.
He had great taste in literature, and he read all the time. I recall one interview when they asked him what he was reading:
“Well, Conrad (Joseph Conrad) of course. And Proust (Marcel Proust). I always read Proust. And Chesterton (G.K. Chesterton).
I would say you can see the influence of Conrad for sure in his prose. I can’t say much about the other two because I’ve never read Proust, and I’ve only dipped into a bit of Chesterton, a short nonfiction book he wrote very early in his career in 1903 about 19th Century poet Robert Browning, noted for his difficulty. The book is called Robert Browning.
What’s interesting is that all of those men wrote from 1890-1930, probably 50-80 years before the interviewer asked Burroughs that question. Of course those are three of the greats of the 20th Century, but when you ask someone what they’ve been reading, how often do they list any of those three? How often would they have listed those three when that question was asked of Burroughs, probably in the 1980’s? Same answer. No one reads any of those writers, not anymore, anyway.
On the down side, Burroughs also hated women. He was not afraid to say so, either. This is not unusual in gay men, especially in the more masculine ones like Burroughs. They simply don’t like women. This type of gay man is a lot more common than you think.
Here’s a bit of his prose:
They lounged around Singapore and Rangoon smoking opium in yellow pongee suits. They sniffed cocaine in Mayfair and they penetrated forbidden swamps with a faithful native boy and lived in the native quarter of Tangier smoking hashish and languidly caressing a pet gazelle.
– William S. Burroughs, from an essay written in 1985.
Isn’t that just perfect, glorious, and beautiful? I love the way those sentences slide across the page. I like the way the scenes jolt around from one faraway place to another within a single sentence. It’s like we took a world tour in two sentences.
The Very Idea of Taboo Subjects Outside of People’s Personal Matters Is Pretty Much Bullshit
I really don’t believe in taboo subjects. “Whoa! We don’t talk about that!?” Well, why the Hell not for God’s sake? Maybe someone’s personal life is rather taboo. I’m not particularly interested in people’s sex lives, for instance. Of course I can gossip with the rest but in general, people’s sex lives are a rather personal matter, especially if revealing things about it would be embarrassing to the person. People have a right to privacy in a sense. I’ve always outed everyone I’ve ever known who was gay or bi though if I knew about it. Not out of malice but simply because I felt that that was an interesting fact about them.
There are some things that have happened in our family that are so shameful and embarrassing that no one talks about them. I in particular don’t want to hear about them considering I was the victim.
If you are doling out people’s personal lives in order to insult or humiliate them, I don’t see the point.
I had a cousin who was gay. He died recently. Of course I asked about his love life. My family completely flipped out and kept saying over and over, “It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter!” It didn’t seem very woke to me. It seemed more like they were ashamed of it. Finally my Mom told me that he’d had a long series of relationships with older men. Actually his homosexuality was a huge taboo in my stupid family, and it was not to be discussed. His own father simply refused to believe that he was gay and kept saying he would find a nice girl one day. I don’t understand what’s so cool and woke about an attitude like that. It sounds like his father was ashamed of him.
The basic stupid attitude is that if you never talk about something, it’s hopefully going to go away. This is magical thinking, but humans excel at this. People literally believe that if we just never talk about this thing, it will either vanish or more properly, it will cease to exist.
All of this nonsense seems to be all wrapped up in shame, and shame is bullshit if you ask me. What’s there to be ashamed of? Nothing!
Further most subjects are taboo because the standard view of them is completely insane. Dope was taboo forever because the whole society was insane about dope. Sex was taboo in my family while growing up because my family was nuts about sex. The sex lives of sexually mature minors is now taboo because society is stark raving batshit insane about this subject.
A lot of taboos were just shitty. My friend CL had a mother who was a horrendous bitch. She was also very cruel and demeaning to him and in particular, humiliated him in an emasculating way. His father was just some cold asshole who cheated on the bitch mother. His sister was a mental case who fucked anything that moved and took every drug known to exist. She eventually died of AIDS. She hung out with an extremely gay punker crowd.
The fact that my friend’s Mom was an unholy bitch was taboo. He defended that evil cunt to the hilt. And look how she treated him!
The fact that his father was cold bastard who cheated on his Mom was taboo. His father was a wonderful man.
Anything involving the lunatic sister was taboo. She was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Every now and then, once every few years, my friend would go on an absolutely batshit insane bender of wild drinking for weeks on end which typically ended in some sort of a catastrophe. Of course discussion of this was taboo even though it was probably one of the most important themes of his life.
He could not express anger at all and he was freaked out and appalled if you ever displayed anger around him. Anger was taboo.
The guy across the street was a closeted faggot. Not a gay man, a faggot. And a real bad one too. He’d been in prison for a couple of years. Somehow I got tangled up in a very bad friendship with him that ended when one day I walked over to his house with a baseball and bat and smashed his front door down!
I had hired him to work on my car but halfway through I found someone to do it for less so he got mad. He went to my car in the middle of the night, switched every switch that could have been switched and then turned it on. Killed the engine. So he got his front door smashed down by me. This is what happens if you piss me off or fuck me over. I will go over to your damned house with a baseball bat and smash your front door down!
Anyway, he had been stealing people’s car stereos in the neighborhood for a long time. His father was a weird man with an evil look in his eye. Rumor was he was in on the son’s thievery and was selling the stolen goods. The guy’s mother was hideously ugly, grossly fat, and a deranged alcoholic. Periodically she would wake the neighborhood at ungodly hours screaming unintelligibly like a banshee or a howler monkey. This nonsense might go on for an hour or two. I once tried to bring it up with this guy. Taboo subject! His Mom was the greatest person on Earth.
I’m not sure if I ever brought up the fact that he used to be a thief and did prison time for burglary or the fact that his Dad looked like he had made a pact with the Devil, but I’m sure that would have been taboo too. After I smashed his door down I spread the rumor that he was a faggot closet case, which he was. This was also taboo and he threatened to beat me up for this insult.
Closets Are for Clothes
As an aside, the most utterly deranged, disturbed, creepy, tormented, and even dangerous homosexual men I have ever met were closet cases in their late 20’s and early 30’s with fake girlfriends. A few years back, I had a terrible interaction with a closet case, who was also profoundly disturbed and angry, at a local Starbucks. Closet case gay men are unbelievably fucked up. If you are biologically gay, please come out of the closet. We don’t like homosexuality but we will support you because we know you can’t help it. If anyone wants to chime in about why closet cases are so sick and fucked up, be my guest. I guess living a lie and hiding from yourself your whole life isn’t real great for mental health.
Taboo Subjects are Crap, Continued
Anyway, as you can see, most of the taboo subjects I’ve dealt with in my life were about fucked up people who no one would admit were fucked up, about unpleasant emotions that people tried to deny that they had, about people who lived lies, had shameful secrets, lived wicked and idiotic lives, and in general, subjects about which society didn’t know its ass from a Goddamned hole in the ground.
I’ve always told all of you guys that I’ll never lie you to about anything important in terms of current affairs, history, or politics, or much of anything, really. I might mystify my own life a bit, but so what? So shoot me.
As I noted at that start, I’m sitting here trying to think of a subject that is justifiably taboo,l and I just can’t think of one! Can any of my readers come up with some subject anywhere on God’s green Earth that is justifiably taboo? The whole idea of taboo subjects is stupid and lame. I’m against it.
My motto on this site is I’m going take every one of the taboo subjects whose secrecy you most cherish and shove them right up your asses. I’m going to force you to confront your bullshit, lies, and games. I’m going to make you question every single damn thing you believe and then some. I’m here to piss you off. If I’m not pissing you off, I’m not doing my job. If any of my commenters wish to follow suit and become professional trolls or provocateurs, be my guest. You will right in spirit with the site.
As you know, I was banned from Twitter a while back for saying,
There’s no such thing as transgender people. They’re all just mentally ill.
I don’t quite believe that this is true because I think there are ~6% of them who have an actual biological disorder, and in those cases, I am ok with transition for them. However, the other 94% really have nothing wrong with them other than that they are crazy, often via a sort of social contagion similar to anorexia nervosa. This is the case with almost all FtM transsexuals.
89% of the men simply have a sexual kink, fetish, or paraphilia called autogynephilia where they get aroused by wearing women’s clothes and thinking of themselves as women. The disorder starts out early in life via arousal by wearing girl’s and women’s clothes. It becomes a paraphilia known as transvestism. Transvestism in many cases becomes chronic and worsens with age such that later in life just dressing up doesn’t cut it anymore and they need to see themselves as actual women.
It is curable and some people have simply cured themselves. Others have thought their way out of it. Whatever is wrong with them, none of them are men in women’s bodies or vice versa. The closest to that are the “homosexual MtF transsexuals or pure transsexuals who have brains that are “female-shifted” but not female. That is, their brains are halfway between a male brain and a female brain. So their brains are feminized relative to the average male, but they do not have female brain structures.
Anyway, I got banned.
Somehow I sneaked back on and set up another profile. It was rather successful for some odd reason until I got linked up with Robert Stark who was getting into it with TERF (trans-exclusive radical feminists).
I have no idea how it came up, but I ended up posting how I was still dating 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. It’s very hard to date them and I’ve only been with a few because almost all of them want to charge me, that is, they want me to be their sugar daddy. That costs about $400/month so that is too much for me.
But now and again when the stars align or I succeed in violating the laws of physics, I find one who will date me, not for free, but in a normal dating relationship. Anytime you have an age gap that extreme, you’re always paying for everything since she usually doesn’t have a nickel. She’s often living at her parents’ house, hasn’t even learned to drive a car yet, has very limited work history, and some are still in high school!
Yes, I have dated high schools at age 60! But they were over 18. And sexually they have no idea what they are doing. Quite a few are virgins or practically so. One 18 year old girl not only had never had sex, but she had never even been kissed. I was her first.
As with the underage jailbaits (formerly accessible as a teenage boy and from 18-21), they have no idea what they are doing in bed, but they are very curious and enthusiastic and have a child-like eagerness to learn. Everything’s new to them and they’re having fun. They also often on a mission to achieve their sexual self-actualization in the face of parents or society that are preventing them from having sex.
They are out to create a sexual life for themselves as a way of being an adult and being independent, so there is often a rebellious attitude to it. One 19 year old girl was living at home and her father was enforcing permanent virginity til marriage on her. That wasn’t working out but he was still angry and slut-shaming. At 5 PM on the afternoon of the first date, she shocked me by asking me if she could move in. Of course I said yes.
If you take these young ladies in, you become her (substitute) father – let’s face it – in many cases that is what is behind all of this – a poor relationship with her father. Absent father, father left her, never knew her father, hostile father, hates her father, on and on. She veers towards older men as father figures to give her the love that Daddy never gave her. So you, the older man, are basically Daddy.
You are also her lover of course and in most cases you are her sex therapist too, since as I noted, they have no idea what they are doing in bed.
You are also her therapist, since they are typically pretty screwed up in the head. In fact, most of the ones I have dated were suicidal, either slightly or overtly. However, suicidality is almost the natural state of Womankind, and though they talk a good game, they don’t walk the walk. They make 4-5 more attempts than men, but men commit suicide twice as often. Suicidal attempts in women, which I have witnessed in a couple of girlfriends already, are typically designed to fail and are often cries for help or attention. They often use pills, which don’t work very well.
Men on the other hand – we don’t mess around. If we are going to try to commit suicide, we will finish the job, goddamn it, as cries for help and attention and considered sissified and feminine in men, so we don’t like to do that. On that note, gay teenage boys have an attempted suicide rate that is very high, as high as women’s, but once again, the completed rate is low. So these gay boys are engaging in a feminine style of suicidality, not surprising considering that much male homosexual behavior is feminine.
Anyway, most of these girls know very little about life, so you end up doling out wisdom to her all the time, and she is learning about life every single day. You show her better ways of dealing with things and how to be more mentally healthy as opposed to the opposite – what used to be called mental hygiene.
You also end up teaching her the 300,000+ rules about social speech and behavior. Actually there are a lot more than that, but I can only remember 300,000 of them at the moment. I apologize. I know, I’m a social retard. There are actually 3 million rules, and any competent social actor knows them all by heart. Forget one rule and you’re a social failure. But of course.
Young people don’t know much about this weird and often crazy rules, and they end up mystified and angry a good part of the time. So you’re always teaching her the rules of the world, which, at the tender age of 64, I am still learning. I’m not sure if that is normal, but perhaps it is. Learning is a lifelong process. Anyone who thinks they know it all is a fool best avoided.
I have a genius IQ which is otherwise useless, but it’s good teaching young folks. And I’ve spent my whole life filling up my brain. I easily am smarter and know more than 99% of the people you will ever meet. Not that that makes me special, but perhaps you might wish to stop and talk sometime? I like to think I’m a pretty interesting person because I’m so smart, and I know so many things.
Anyway, all of this comes in handy with a young woman, especially an intelligent one who knows a thing or two herself and is the “eager for knowledge” type. In vocabulary alone, I end up teaching them easily 10-20 new words every single day. And I know so much about so many things that these women can learn a Hell of a lot from me. I’m a walking encyclopedia, or maybe a walking university course. They recognize that and seem to enjoy learning all of these new things.
One told me six months after we had separated, “Ever since I met you, everyone I meet seems like an idiot.” It had been nine months since we had met. Another one was always telling me how wise I was. Most of us get to middle age and hopefully we have accumulated some wisdom along the way. That’s the general idea, you know. Hence a middle aged person will usually be wiser than someone in their 20’s, though some young people are already remarkably wise for whatever reason.
You might end up teaching her to drive.
If she moves in with you, it will be the first time she’s ever been on her own.
You are her mentor in so many ways. I’m a former teacher and it’s such a great joy to see someone learn, and there are few places you can watch this growth process unfold so quickly as when you are mentoring one of these young women.
So anyway, I laid all of this out in some posts, Robert reposted them gleefully, and the next thing I knew I was in a thunderstorm of radical feminists, lesbians, man-haters, social conservatives (they are allies – I call them femiservatives), and various forms of cucks, fags, and girlymen (male feminists).
The abuse was nonstop. I was called these things many times – pedophile (the girls were adults), predator, groomer, creep, rapist, dangerous to women, on and on. After they decided I was a professor at some Fresno State University, they said I was “grooming” my female students, which isn’t possible because you can only groom children. I was also “preying” on my female students. About 20 of them emailed the university demanding that they fire me. Unfortunately for them, I’m not a professor at that university. I’m only an alumnus.
Then they decided that I was a therapist, said that any male therapist who acts like I was had no business being in that profession, and ~20 more of them bombarded the State Board of Counseling Licensing to try to get my license pulled. Fortunately, I’m a peer counselor and we don’t have to be licensed, degreed, credentialed, or anything. We are limited in what we can call ourselves and say that we do, but there’s no license to pull, and no one has any jurisdiction over us. So that didn’t work either.
Then they started bombarding Twitter with complaints. When this wasn’t working, they posted, “Why is this pedophile still posting? Why haven’t we shut him down yet?” I think Twitter has a policy that once someone starts getting mass-reported, they are considered a nuisance customer and terminated for generating too many complaints. A perfect way to justify mass fake reporting of people you don’t like.
I mostly know the rules, but they caught me on a couple of things. Using the word “whore.” That’s a ban on that cucked website. A few other things.
Twitter dinged me three times and gave me a 7-day ban. That made me so mad that I reported a bunch of my enemies who had turned me in, something I never do because I hate this whole cucked process of banning free speech based on woke BS and hurt feelings. It’s completely gay. I don’t see why any man goes along with this pussy nonsense. It’s tattling and tattling is pussy and weak. Women tattle. Women call the cops every time the wind changes direction.
Men aren’t supposed to be calling the cops all the time, tattling on everyone, and trying to get everyone in trouble. That’s what sissies do. It’s like a little boy running to his Mommy every time he gets into it with other boys. It’s totally weak and wussy behavior.
After a couple of days, for no reason, Twitter changed it into a permanent ban. So the soyboys at Twitterpermanently banned me for saying I dated 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. How pussy and gay is that? Well folks, this is our soyciety in the Current Year, I am afraid. We live in a Matriarchy. The women are in charge and run the show. The “men” in power are all soyboys and cucks who are working for the Matriarchy. Real men have nowhere to go and are increasingly threatened. I don’t see this getting better anytime soon. In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
So there ya go. My latest ban. But have no fear. Is it possible I may sneak back on again? Who knows! Stay tuned to this channel to find out!
Polar Bear: Being called gay, faggot, etc. often means nothing. It’s how Mexican guys say hola.
Sure. “Hey fag, what’s up?” We used to greet each other like that. I’d see a couple of my friends together and walk up to them say loudly great them with hearty cheer like long lost relatives, “Hey! What are you fags up to?” This always served to produce a lot of good laughter.
I was reading a story about two White guys in prison for selling LSD. They were basically good people as most such criminals are. They’re low in sociopathy. They just got caught doing something society doesn’t like is all.
One inmate came into another inmate’s cell. The first thing he said was, “Hey fag, what’s up?”
I thought about that and noted that that was the perfect greeting. Both of those guys are trying to stay straight in an environment where opportunistic homosexuality is everywhere. They’re also trying to stay masculine, to stay men. When straight men call each other fags in jest, it’s like rocket fuel to their masculinity. It makes you want to sit up straight. It hardens your body and sculpts your face like stone.
There’s no doubt a lot of what you might call “homosexual tension” in a place like prison or even perhaps a Navy ship. Men have sexual energy churning inside of them all the time, demanding a release. It wants to go somewhere.
I’ve recently thought that sexual energy always wants to go outside of the body and do what I call “attach itself to objects.”It’s always seeking some object to attach to. If there are women around, that’s nice for straight men’s sexual energy because the sexual energy attaches to them quite nicely. But if straight men are deprived of female objects to attach their sex energy to, their energy is going to wander around like a radio signal looking for a tower and not finding one. What does the signal do? It keeps wandering forever.
Lately I’m thinking that if there are no preferred female objects to attach to, straight male sexual energy will attach itself to the next best thing, male objects, perhaps in particular a pretty or effeminate man who looks and acts like a woman. Perhaps it may attach itself to a female child. Obviously it easily attaches itself to pornography; in fact, the attachment is almost too strong, like an addiction. Perhaps it might attach itself to an animal. I believe that 15% of boys raised on farms end up having sex with some animal by age 18.
So if you are in a prison, your straight sex energy will be floating around all the time, looking for a signal (a female) to attach itself to. Not finding one, it will have a tendency to try to attach to whichever other human objects are around, in this case a bunch of men. It matters not that this straight man is not attracted to men. It’s more a matter of his sex energy trying to attach to any suitable object around.
So there will be in the minds of many incarcerated men a tendency on the part of his sex energy to try to attach to the men around him. “Go ahead and do it,” the energy is telling him. “We have to do it with someone! Come on!” Many straight man, like the two men doing time for dealing acid above, try to resist this but this causes a lot of dissonance and tension. A good way to relieve this homosexual tension is by calling each other faggots. It takes the pressure away, like lifting a boiling kettle off a stove.
Also it keeps straight men straight. I had one group of friends who all considered homosexuality to be absolutely ridiculous and were always teasing each other on these grounds. It was all good fun and games until one day I realized that I could never have gay sex even one time because these guys had made it the stupidest, lamest, most asinine and unthinkably ridiculous behavior on Earth. Do it one time and you will be a laughingstock for the rest of your life.
I never really wanted to do it anyway as men turn me on 0%, but I used to think about it, and I think all straight men think about this at some point. “Could I ever have sex with a guy? Could I ever do it with a guy? Could I ever have gay sex?” Then they try to imagine it and see what comes up in their minds.
Frankly, if you offered me a gun and said, “Have sex with that man over there or I pull the trigger,” I’d say, “Shoot me.” I’ve now met 5-10 straight men who told me the same thing. They’d prefer to die rather than have gay sex. People fail to release the extreme revulsion straight men feel towards this type of sex. A recent study found that straight men showed more indications of revulsion to gay sex movies than to videos of live maggots.Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad.
You say, “Well, only gay men have gay sex,” But that’s not true. Throughout my life, I’ve met and known a number of basically straight men who hinted that they had had gay sex or simply came right out and admitted it. They were often handsome men, horndogs with high sex drives. One friend was a merchant marine. “Yeah, we had a fag on our ship. He liked to suck men’s cocks. I guess you could say he sucked a lot of cocks on that ship.” This shows straight men’s extreme capacity for gay sex, especially if they get to play the male role because apparently many to most of the straight sailors on that ship, including apparently my friend, let this gay men suck their cocks to relieve them of their sexual tension.
Straight men have a tremendous capacity for this behavior, even if they are turned on by men not at all or at most only a little bit. From the time he is an adolescent, a straight boy hears about other straight guys he knows, perhaps even his friends, engaging in this nonsense. A recent study found that 25% of males had engaged in homosexual behavior before 18. 93% of men are maximally attracted to women, so the vast majority of these men were basically straight.
Homosexual behavior among straight men is as common as grains of sand on a beach. In early adulthood, I saw idiotic straight men, including some pretty good friends of mine, doing this garbage quite a few times, typically when there weren’t any women around. They even tried to rope me in on it and threatened to beat me up if I wouldn’t join in the faggy fun and games! I was propositioned for gay sex by a few of my very best friends, too. I simply pretended that I didn’t hear them say that. I’m still not sure why they did that.
I figure most women have probably considered lesbianism too. Thinking “Could I do it with a woman?” and then trying it out in their imagination and see where it goes is probably a ubiquitous experience for women. The woman who have never done it have simply tried it out in their heads
I get to see all the search terms people use to navigate the treacherous and polluted waters to make it to this sick, fucked up abattoir of a website in the lowest depths of Net. Even if you have a fairly normal site, you often get some pretty weird search engine terms in your stats.
Here’s a couple just from the last two weeks.
“Gay men wear diapers.”
LOL no way did I write about that? Or did I? I hope I didn’t.
It’s an interesing question. Gay politics and the straight anal sex crowd will tell you that this is a myth and it’s something that never happens. For some sick, evil reason I’ve been researching this. I have no idea why I do this as I am not a fan of this type of sex on either end, especially playing catcher. Not that a few women’s fingers haven’t made their way up there. Right before orgasm, it’s inside you massaging your prostate. Unbelievable orgasm. Try it sometime, unless you’re too homophobic, which I get.
Well the truth is that sadly, some gay men do indeed have to wear diapers. It’s called anal incontinence in case you were wondering. There is a gay Catholic man named Joseph Scambria who has written quite a bit about that. He was asswrecked at age 29, apparently through extensive scar tissue, and now he has to wear diapers. The scar tissue was probably from repeated untreated STD infections. These can then cause an abscess if untreated, which can transform into a fistula if you don’t deal with.
On his comment threads, I have seen three other gay men in their 40’s and 50’s all say that they were asswrecked too, and they were also all in diapers. One said he has to time it just right when he leaves the house so he’s not gone too long or an accident might happen. All of them were bitter. I haven’t the faintest idea what sort of Ass Acrobatics they were doing do land themselves in Anal Purgatory like this, but apparently it’s possible. Perhaps if it goes on long enough, you can work off enough gay sin to make it in the gates. No idea.
I also saw a young White woman in her early 30’s say she used to have lots of anal sex, and now she has to wear a diaper. And a 70 year old woman who was bitter for similar reasons.
Ok, that’s six so far. Four gay men and two straight women, all chronic cases. I guess it happens, but it seems to be rather rare. Are there other cases that are more occasional or negligible? Probably.
I haven’t the faintest idea what sort of Sexual Assholery you have to do engage in for what length of period to end up in this particularly unpleasant state of affairs, but it looks like it’s not a myth after all. Butt (Get it?) permanent anal incontinence does not seem to be a common side effect of even decades of receptive anal sex, despite the extreme homophobic boneheads blathering on about it.
Second search term:
“What does a naked 12 year old girl look like?”
Jesus Christ! Did I write about that? I hope not. What do they look like?
I guess it looks like a naked little girl, and I’ve seen a few of those. Back when I was a kid, naked young kids used to run around all the time in backyards and especially at campgrounds in the woods. My Mom insists this was never true, but I have many memories of naked kids, boys and girls, running around naked in my boyhood and adolescence back when people were sane before the whole West went crazy about stupid shit. I never thought anything of it, and it had no effect on me because as a boy I had no sex drive, and as an adolescent, I couldn’t think of anything more boring and antisexual than a ridiculous naked little girl.
But even back then, once they got to 11 or 12, it seemed like they didn’t run around naked anymore. And adolescents never ran around naked. Just little kids, because everyone assumed, unlike in these sex-panicked times, that there was nothing on Earth less sexual and more boring and banal than naked little boys or girls running through the damned sprinklers on a summer day. Who the Hell would get turned on by that? Sure, a pedo would, but we never thought about weird stuff like that back then, unlike now, when it’s on the tip of everyone’s idiot tongue.
When I was 13, my 12 year old cousins got this 11 year old girl to strip for us. It was one of the most idiotic spectacles I have ever seen, and the look of utter stupidity on her face the whole time played a good role in that. She did go into the robot mind-controlled zombie role, which is what mature females do when they’re horny, so maybe there’s something universal there. She sure followed orders all right, like we were drill sergeants. More women need to be like this!
She stood there in front of us naked, looking like a complete retard. My cousins and I were all clothed, and we all had huge erections which were all discussing. Neither of us touched the girl or vice versa. I have no idea if we should have.
Sexual stuff between 11 and 12-13 year olds pretty much falls into “childhood sex play” because this extends barely into adolescence. But no one cares about that nowadays, and the sex offender lists are overflowing with people put on there as minors presumably for childhood sex play bullshit. Another reason that Nazi list needs to be burned. I’m pretty sure if I was 13 today and we had just done this yesterday and gotten caught, my cousins and I would be headed for the list as pedophiles and child molesters. That’s how stupid this shit has gotten.
But the searcher wants 12 year old girls, not 11 year olds! Sorry! Perhaps they look different? I’ve never seen a naked 12 year old girl in the wild, even in my wasted youth, nor do I care to see one.
We had a hebephilic commenter with an obsession with 12-14 year old girls who was on here for a bit. He hadn’t had much luck with women, but he got some money at age 30 and started taking vacations all over the world, apparently paying to have sex with 12-14 year old Lolitas in various shitholes around the globe. He said he had met many men on his journeys who had traveled to those locations to do exactly what he was doing. It wasn’t rare at all. Which doesn’t surprise me, but I figure the market for girls under 12 must be dramatically lower.
Like an asshole, he left a link to child porn in my comments. He had uploaded it to Youtube like a jerk. 12 year old girl stripping naked in the back of a bar in Colombia. Probably one of the most boring videos I’ve ever seen. The whole time I’m thinking:
Why the Hell would anyone get turned on by this shit?
Huge turnoff. I watched it and reported his hebephilic ass to Youtube for uploading illegal stuff. So, as far as the search query goes, yes, I have seen one. And I must say, a naked 12 year old girl is one of the most boring and unsexy things I could possibly think of. Why everyone thinks this is the most evil thing on Earth is beyond me. It’s a naked human. You know, when we take our clothes off, we are actually naked skin creature mammals? A naked human is a naked human, no matter the age. It’s a perfectly natural state of affairs. Why is this the image of ultimate evil?
This is a story about how one of my best friends started fucking fags like a dipshit and within no time, had the misfortune of getting an anal fistula. Let this be a warning to my depraved straight male readers.
My idiot best friend, D., got blackmailed into gay sex by a depraved West Hollywood faggot, R., he had the stupidity of moving in with. By the way, never take a room from a gay man if you are a straight man, especially if you are very goodlooking. You’re asking for it. I’ve had a couple straight friends who ended up in this blackmailed mess.
I spent the night over there in October 1981 after we’d been chasing model and actress types in at the Lingerie Club in Hollywood.
We struck out as usual because that’s usually what happens when you chase actress and model types in Hollywood. They’re cream of the crop, and competition is savage. I might have gotten laid or at least gotten a number from the hottie across the table if I tried, but I chickened out like a big pussy idiot.
I gave my friend my car keys to go sit in the car because he hated the show. Of course, being an asshole and a drunken asshole at that, he stole my car and drove it home. I came out with no wheels. I tried to get rides home or couches to sleep on from the women we sat with and from random males. My female table partner, who had been practically propositioning me from the other side of the table not long before, turned me down for a couch apologetically. All of a sudden my car showed up, driven by the fag, R., an older man in his 40’s. My stupid friend was in the car. By the way, he was drop dead handsome, and they say I was too back then. They tell me to get in.
“You shouldn’t have done that, D.,” the fag said scoldingly. My friend looked smug, like he didn’t give a shit, but he always looked like that. After all, he was an asshole.
We go home and have coffee at 3 AM and the fag acts really weird, like he’s trying to convince me I’m gay. I’m not convinced. I’m just confused. Turns out he did the exact same thing to another friend of mine. I’m not sure if they really believe this crap, or it’s just some scam they use to get into a straight dude’s pants.
The couch pulled out and I was asleep on it. I wake up in the middle of the night to some truly disturbing sounds. Then I smell cum. I can’t see either of them, but my friend seems pissed somehow. Apparently my best friend just got fucked in the ass by a disgusting fag right under my nose. For some reason, I processed this trauma and went back to sleep.
I was up early and the fag was back with his:
“You’re not really straight. Don’t give me this shit, Bob. Face it, closet case! You’re a fag! Just like me!”
That’s not very pleasant to listen to, and I must admit it was traumatic. The whole morning my friend had this attitude like:
“So what! So I just got fucked in the ass by a fag! What are you going to do about it!”
Totally unrepentant. Which was gross.
Later that morning, I lost a contact lens. My friend and the fag used this as an excuse to “find the contact lens” by putting their hands all over to “find the contact lens.” My friend had turned gay, I guess, because he was giggling the whole time. Obviously, they weren’t “looking for the contact lens,” but I let these two idiots have their perverse fun. It was rather flattering that a couple of goodlooking humans, albeit males instead of females, thought I was hot enough to be worshiped like a Greek statue. Their hands never got too weird, so I just let them have their perverse kicks and didn’t give a shit.
Later, I said goodbye to my friend, and my mind said, “Hey, I still love you, brother. I don’t care if you’re doing this gay shit.” Mistake.
Later I told my other friend, DJ, about it, and we were are both amazed that our mutual friend is fagging out like a dipshit. DJ, DN, and I had all grown up together, and we were tight as thieves. I told DJ about the weird, “You’re really gay, Bob. Admit it, dammit!” vibe I got off the fag, and DJ is flabbergasted.
“Bob! You won’t believe this! I got the exact same vibe off that guy!”
The weird thing was he hadn’t come right out and said it. It was just this weird vibe floating over the interaction and conversation that I picked up on, nonverbal and extraverbal (voice tone) communication. I’ve always been pretty good at reading minds.
I told my friend that DN seemed unrepentant and he agreed that he had seemed that way to DJ too. He shook his head incredulously. Weird thing is we all grew up together, and we were all completely straight. DN and I had talked about gay stuff because gay guys were trying to screw him 24-7, but we both always said, “I’m not into that stuff.” We almost had a blood pact together that no matter how bad things got in our lives, we were not going to stoop to faggotry. That was one bridge too far.
DN loved women almost more than any man who’d ever lived. At age 23, he’d already screwed a battalion of him. Even after he started fagging off, he was still with women, and the last I heard he was living with a woman in Santa Barbara. I honestly think he prefers women. Most of these bisexual guys lean pretty heavily one way or the other. Pure bi men are rare.
Eight months later, summer 1982, I was a mess, heading into a 3-4 year long nervous breakdown during which I was working, going to school, and getting advanced degrees the whole time. You can accomplish a lot when you’re nuts as long as long you’re not too crazy. As long as you keep it all in your head, no one cares too much.
DN was back at home at his old parental home. He was being an asshole of course, but he was always an asshole. That’s one of the things I liked about him, being a bit of one myself.
He’s living there with his very handsome brother, BN, who was also an asshole, probably even a bigger one than D. Their parents were gone on vacation for the whole summer. Their father was an executive for an oil company and from what I could tell, he was an asshole too. But how can you be an executive for an oil company without being an asshole? Is that even possible?
They had called this really hot female saleswoman over to the house and were ordering fine wines from her, splurging like trust fund kids. They were putting on a big show of being rich for this hot chick, but the whole thing is ridiculously fake, a big act on a stage.
We were all fawning all over her like a bunch of slavering beasts. DN was acting like a puppy dog because that’s how he acted around women a lot. That’s totally lame, but somehow he got laid quite a bit anyway. Most have been the good looks.
She knew but she didn’t care because all us guys were Chad. Chad gets to slaver all he wants, you know. She was acting like she might just fuck the whole room, except she never did. That was another act on that stage that day.
DN never had a nickel because, being an asshole, he was also a deadbeat and a derelict who couldn’t hold a job of course, which is probably why he turned into a rentboy for rich fags. By the way, quite a few very handsome straight (or bisexual?) men become male prostitutes or rent boys for rich gay men. I guess they are just acting like women, whoring themselves out sexually to the highest bidder and offering to do pretty much anything for the green. Very goodlooking straight men have the advantage of getting to do what women only can usually do, except I’m not sure that’s an advantage. Straight gigolos are rare.
I was wondering how these idiots got all this money to be ordering all this fine wine, seeing as they were both deadbeat assholes who couldn’t hold a job due to being assholes. Then I see DN flashing around credit cards. He was using his parents’ credit cards while they were gone on a months-long vacation! No surprise. Hey, I told you he was an asshole, right? Someone pointed out he was using his parents’ cards. He laughed and acted like he didn’t give a shit, but that’s how he acted about everything. Assholes don’t give a shit, remember?
Anyway, the woman left at some point, and then we were all talking. Somewhere in the conversation, DN noted that he had a fistula in his ass. Once again, he acted completely unrepentant.
“I got it from driving a truck. Truck driving gives those to you,” he lied.
Like Hell it does, I was thinking. Maybe from letting guys drive mack trucks up your ass, you idiot! Which was obviously how he got it because that’s about the only way a man gets one. You get fucked in the ass by fags, get an STD. You don’t treat it and it goes into an abscess. You don’t treat the abscess and it goes into a fistula. Wa-la! Now you have a fistula, genius!
So, as you can see, a mere eight months after my idiot friend turns bisexual and starts getting fucked up the ass by fags, he already had a fistula in his ass. Let this be a warning to my straight male readers. Stick with women, ok? Do yourself a favor.
Shortly thereafter, I broke off all contact with DN. A number of our other mutual friends made a big gay pride show of remaining friends with him, and I was condemned as an evil homophobe for voicing my disgust at his voluntary decision to become a particularly low degenerate, a degenerate fag of all things, so low that even I wouldn’t go there.
But thinking back on it, I had to quit hanging around with that guy. When your best friend turns into a fag, you need to cut him completely out of your life, no exceptions. There’s no way you are going to be able to continue to hang out with him. Things will get real weird real fast and if you don’t watch what you are doing, you might get roped into their faggy games real quick. Maybe more on that in a future sick post if I ever feel low enough to write it.
I’ve actually found this a bit hard to live down. It was a black mark on my history. I’m over it now because people aren’t so insanely homophobic thank God. Back then, this is how people thought:
“You see, if you’re a real man, you have real man friends, and they don’t turn into fags. If you’re best friend turns into a fag, that means you must be a fag. Because who else would be best friends with a fag except another fag.”
I’m not ecstatic about gay men, but extreme homophobes that go around accusing straight men of being gay are 10X worse.
White nationalists are constantly fearmongering that the future of the US is South Africa.
Let’s look at some statistics:
Percentage Whites Blacks Other
US 62 13 25
South Africa 9 88 3
Tell you what. When the Black population of the US nears 88%, come talk to me about how we are turning into South Africa. Until then, it’s just more White nationalist lunacy and idiocy and even, I might add, mental disorder (paranoia).
Instead, look south. Yes, yes, yes look to Latin America. A 100X yes! However, I cannot find a Latin American country which will resemble the US in the future. Look at California. Our state is probably the future of the country. Liberal Democrats, basically, and trending left. We’re almost going social democrat here; we’re hardly even liberals anymore!
Other than that, a number of our cities have degraded somewhat because as a city goes from White to Hispanic, there is a decline, though not a great one. It becomes a fairly upgraded version of Mexico. But crime is pretty low and behavior is pretty civilized. Be careful who you make friends with because a lot of Hispanics are not ok. They don’t bother strangers. The gang feuds are often not major problems, and they leave Whites out of it, as we are not in their wars.
Most Hispanics IMHO consider themselves honorary Whites or almost Whites. They don’t look at us as aliens. They all came from countries were Whites are just another meaningless ethnic group. Most don’t hate Whites at all.
Where a city goes full Mexican, it essentially collapses and turns into Mexico. As long as there is a base of at least 10% Whites to keep the lights on, collapse is averted. Hispanics need Whites. They can’t really cut it without us.
Other than that, there is a sense of alienation in Hispanic cities as if one is living in a foreign country in your own land, along with foreign mariachi music and a fairly foreign and quite socially conservative culture. The men are very macho so if you act masculine, you’re one of them. It’s a patriarchal society, so if you’re a man, you’re now part of the ruling group.
Spanish is spoken everywhere, so you might want to learn a phrase or two. You speak two sentences of their language, and they treat you like family and almost try to hug you. I speak Spanish fairly well so they love me.
Plus I don’t hate Hispanics. I’ve almost become an honorary Mexican myself. Mexican after all is not a racial group. Most of them are pretty nice people, especially the recent immigrants who hardly speak a word of English. I speak Spanish to them so they treat me like a hero.
There’s little feminism because most Hispanics hate feminism (social conservatives). Gays are very toned town too if they exist at all because the culture doesn’t like it. Young Hispanic gays in cities like mine usually just take off for some gay Mecca. Homosexual behavior in straight men, common among Whites if not hip, is extremely frowned upon. You call a man a fag here, and you will get hit! However, among 2nd and especially 3rd generation young Hispanics, all of this is changing, and there is a lot of SJWism, BLM support, and acceptance of sexual weirdness.
Overall, Hispanics are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can live with them, or at least I can. I will not live with Blacks, that is, cities with large Black populations. Get out of here with that noise.
I figured it was coming to this. I know how these people operate. Wokeism isn’t just about liberation of oppression or whatever, it’s about the easing of any and all cultural restrictions on human life. Everything goes. Count me out.
I hang out on some pretty unsavory places on the Net like porn blogs for instance because that’s my idea of fun. Also, you can meet or at least talk to a lot of women there for at least some spicy chat. I’m sorry! I’m a degenerate!
Anyway, you can also talk to other straight men on there. I was talking to one guy, who does incredibly well with women by the way, and he told me that he was now woke, and to him that meant performing fellatio on other males!
Now I know a lot of straight guys have some faggy fun sometimes, but gosh! I thought, “If this is what woke means, count me out, brother!”
By the way, on the perverted sites I hang out on like Pornhub, I have noticing in the comments to the videos for years now more and more non-gay men having this type of sex with men. You can also see it in the Reddit sex subs. There’s one called Random Acts of Blowjob where people post about wanting to suck a cock or get their cock sucked.
Most of the commenters are straight men, and of course they get almost zero replies.
There are many gay men posting, often saying “Looking to suck straight men,” which is an extremely typical fantasy with gay men. If you look on the Pornhub top video searches for gay men, it’s all about seducing a straight man. It’s part of what the syndrome of being gay is all about.
But one thing I have been disturbed to notice lately is how many posts there are from “Straight Guy Looking to Suck His First Cock.” I can’t tell you how disappointed that makes me. But it makes sense along with everything else I’ve been seeing.
Women do post there and the average woman gets ~150 replies to each post, through which she has to wade and pick out a single man. Being a male is competitive! Quite a few straight men avail themselves of these offers because women don’t exactly put out for free very often, and it’s typically quite hard for a single man to get laid. If it were easy, why would a whore market exist? Of course if men could get sex as easily as women could, the prostitute market would evaporate. The prostitute market exists because there are many more buyers (men looking for sex) than sellers (women putting out).
Hence there is a permanent Vagina Shortage. It’s in women’s interest to drive up the cost of pussy by making it as scarce, and they work hard to just that. If you were assured of meeting a woman for sex anytime you went to a bar, men would be lined up for blocks before the bars open at 11 AM! Obviously that’s not happening.
Nevertheless, I keep meeting women who insist that all a man has to do is go to a bar, and he’s assured for free sex for the evening, no doubt with a hottie. I keep trying to set them straight, but they keep insisting they are right. Women will and can never understand what it’s like to be a man, and this forms part of the War of the Sexes. It’s a war the ingredients of which in part are sheer ignorance. One can argue that most wars are like that, but still. Women don’t get us men. They get us a lot better at 40 or 50 than at 20, but they still don’t really get us. Understanding men is probably like understanding psychopaths. You can’t understand one unless you are one!
It’s an ominous trend – straight guys sucking dick – but I figured it was coming given the general thrust of SJWism.
If you tell straight men that there’s nothing wrong with having some faggy fun now and again, obviously a fair number are going to start doing just that. In fact, even worse, if you tell people there’s nothing wrong with doing just about anything, then quite a few people are going to start doing it. I’d say as a society we should be careful about what we tell people is ok and not ok.
That’s why I don’t like this idea that all sexual behaviors are acceptable if not wonderful choices. It leads to this crap.
I’m of the school that says certain sexual behaviors are not ok. And if you’re a straight guy who likes his faggy fun, you will not be my friend. I’ve met way too many of these characters for one lifetime, and I’m really sick and tired of them. And you wouldn’t believe how many of them are ordinary married men with wives and even kids.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
I wrote this in objection to a paper under review right now on Academia by a Left professor of Somatic Psychology, a PhD and a very smart man, who quotes Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish pro-sex and anti-fascist writer, as saying that fascists are out of touch with their bodies. Presumably antifascists are in touch with their bodies and not repressed. Apparently sexual repression and being out of touch with your body is part of the genesis of fascism. I don’t agree. Here is my response, in part.
I think that quoting Reich on fascism is not the greatest idea. He’s not the best person to ask about fascist theory. The modern intellectual descendants of Reich (the Cultural Left) don’t have a very good view of fascism.
Further, Reich was an extreme sexual libertine who may have molested his sister and raped his maids as a boy. Reich’s sexual libertinism was rejected by all Communists in the last century and is still condemned in existing Communist countries. So Reich’s critique is ill-formed, as the Communists were just as bad as the fascists when it came to Reich’s libertinism.
Fascists are sexually repressed? I don’t know. I’ve run into some MAGA women lately who are ridiculously libertine to the point of being degenerate or depraved. They’re about this far from becoming out and out porn stars. Yet fascists they are. A friend used to be an actor in the porn industry. He told me that the industry is full of conservatives. I’m aware of a few pornstars who were basically White Supremacists.
Donald Trump’s fascism was nearly a “pornographic fascism.” He cavorted with pornstars, cheated on all of his wives, made lewd remarks about his own daughter and the teenage underage daughters of his friends, reportedly attended sex orgies, and may have raped a 13 year old girl and forced a 12 and 13 year old girl to have sex with each other. He’s as libertine as Reich, yet he’s a fascist.
Better definitions are coming out of serious scholars of the Left. There area number of modern scholars who are trying to pin down exactly what fascism is. Almost all are operating from the Left. Among these superb modern theorists of fascism are David Neiwert who blogs at Daily Kos, the authors of a blog called Three Way Fight (not sure if it’s still up), along with excellent political scientists working out of the universities.
Better older analyses of fascism also come from Lenin and especially from Trotsky, who wrote some of the best essays on fascism ever written.
A “popular dictatorship against the Left” seems to be the best definition. “Palingetic nationalism” is another, referring to the bird that rises from the ashes in mythology. Fascism appeals to “the everyman,” “the man on the street” – “the shirtless ones” of Peronist fame. That’s the appeal – to your “basic man” and “basic woman.” It also appeals to strong primitive drives of aggression, violence, projection of failures onto outsiders, expansionism, often imperialism, an opposition to liberalism and democracy. It also opposes equality and in favor of hierarchy.
Fascism involves a reverence for sacred violence bordering on the religious, a worship of “the greatness of the ancestors,” a dialogue to restore “the glory days of yore” from the ruins of the “degenerate present”, ruined by liberals, democracy, anti-nationals, nation-haters, and traitors.
Fascism has historically supported a return to traditional values and a rejection of degenerate modernism, but as we can see in the “pornographic fascism” of Donald Trump, that’s not necessarily the case anymore.
Fascism also always advocated a return to traditional male female role models, but that need to be a hindrance to basic equal de jure rights for women, as seen in the many successful MAGA women and the many often-religious MAGA men who love and cherish their wives.
Fascism has typically targeted minorities and has been racist. People think that fascism is inherently anti-Semitic, yet many early Zionists such as Jabotinsky were open fascists and supported the fascist movement in Europe. Some of the early Israeli guerrillas were Jabotinskist fascists.
I’d argue that Israel has been fascist from Day One, but certainly with the coming of Sharon and Netanyahu, the ideological descendants of Jabotinskyist fascism, Israel became literally a fascist country. Jacobinsky is the hero and spiritual founder of the Likud Party. He was an early Zionist who wrote a book in 1921 called The Iron Wall. He and his followers were strong supporters of the fascist parties in Europe in the 1920’s and 30’s. Some of the early Zionist guerrilla organizations were Jabotinskyist fascists.
In Lebanon, the Gemayalist Phalangists named after a general named Gemayal, are an actual literal fascist party. Even their name is fascist as phalange is a popular name for fascist parties. They are Christian Maronites who see themselves as transplanted Europeans, descendants of “Phoenicians,” who despise Arabs and Islam. They are also the most pro-Israel party in Lebanon. This founder of this party had photos of Hitler in his school locker when he was in high school and the party’s ideology is modeled on the classic European fascism of the 30’s.
Israeli fascism is not anti-Semitic at all, and many White Supremacists actually support Israel as the model for the racist state they wish to set up. Many dislike Jews in the Diaspora who are seen as anti-national, but have no problem with the fascist Jews in Israel and see them as fellow fascists.
A number of the anti-immigrant Right parties in Europe are pro-Israel, including the National Front in France, the AfD in Germany, and the neo-Nazi party in Austria! They often like Israel because of its strong anti-Muslim orientation. Along the same lines, the Muslim-hating Hindu nationalist fascists ruling India in the form of the BJP party, are very pro-Israel.
The pro-fascist Spanish and Italian conservatives, remnants of former large fascist movements in those countries, are pro-Israel. The fascist Saudis, Bahrainis, Egyptians, Moroccans, and Ermiratis are now pro-Israel. They’ve always been Rightists so it’s no surprise. So philosemitic fascism is absolutely possible and even existing.
Arab nationalists have always been quite fascist despite their Leftist trappings. Saddam was a fascist, as was Hafez Assad. Some think Bashar Assad is a fascist. The North African leaders, all Arab Nationalists, were fascists in the sense that they tried to destroy the Berbers’ identity and make everyone into an Arab. The Assads and Saddam also attacked Kurds and Assyrians, in both cases in attempts to turn everyone into an Arab. Saddam also attacked Turkmen. And he discriminated against Iraqis of Iranian background in the South so much that he threw hundreds of thousands of them out of the country.
The Moroccan fascists are even expansionists, having invaded Spanish Sahara. The Indonesian fascists committed genocide in East Timor and Aceh and in the entire country against Communists when they unleashed a genocide in 1965 that murdered 1 million Communist in less than a couple of months. It was as bad as the Rwandan genocide.
All of these are examples of “Muslim fascists,” so fascism and Islam are quite compatible.
There seems to be a view in the West that fascism must be White Supremacist and of course it must be anti-Semitic.
None of the above were White Supremacists. They were all non-Whites, and none were self-haters.
Also as you can see above, fascism need not be anti-Semitic.
I also listed a number of fascist and anti-Islamic movements, rightwing dictatorships along with the post-fascist conservatives in Spain and Italy. The former fascist followers of Mussolini and Franco simply melted into the rightwing movements of both countries. In Spain it was the Conservative Party, a party with fascist roots.The Francoists simply changed clothes and melted into the Conservative Party. Francoism is still extremely popular, mostly in the form of anti-separatism, these days. I’ve been to their very popular websites.
Burlusconi in Italy has inherited the descendants of fascism in Italy. A fascist and racist separatist and somewhat White Supremacist movement has formed in Northern Italy. They are White Supremacists in the sense that they claim the are Celts or “pure Whites” and they despise Southern Italians as de facto “niggers.”
A friend in Italy told me that fascism was still very popular in Italy to this very day, although it was also widely hated as the Left in Italy is often Far Left or almost Communist. There are cities in Sicily were the leftwingers are all Communists and the rightwingers are all fascists. They engage in street battles all the time.
My friend told me that the Red Brigades, an anti-fascist Far Left group of Communists that attacked the state, was extremely popular in Northern Italy, particularly in Vicenzia Province where he lived. His sister was a strong supporter of the Red Brigades, and she came from a normal middle class background in Trieste.
Fascism is said to be anti-Muslim, yet we have Islamic fascism in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Morocco, and probably the Taliban in Afghanistan. Turkey and Azerbaijan are classic fascists of the 1930’s type, however they have married this to Ottoman imperialism and Islamic jihadism, particularly the genocidal variety that held sway in Turkey from 1880 until 1940.
That the Taliban are a new sort of fascism was an argument of the Leftists at Three Way Fight. I’m not sure I agree with that. Other Muslim fascists used to rule in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Iran. Above I listed more Muslim fascists in the Arab World, who might better be described as rightwing dictatorships.
Fascism is chameleon-like and changes shape endlessly to mirror and capture whatever times it is in. I can even see chameleon-like fascists adopting yoga, meditation, and bodywork, the “Left” body psychology mechanisms the author refers to. Hitler was a vegetarian and a good animal rights supporter, if terrible in so many other ways.
This aspect of fascism of what makes this political mercury blob so hard to pin down. Indeed, many fascists pose as anti-Nazis and anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists! I’ve seen this with my own eyes.
Problem is the Modern Left starts talking about fascism, and it immediately degenerates into propaganda and nonsense where we push views that line up whatever biases our Left formation is pushing du jour. The Cultural Left, which is almost devoid of intelligence or intellectual honesty of any sort, in particular cannot be relied upon, as almost everything coming out of there is propaganda and a lie in some form or another. For instance, the Cultural Left argues that White Supremacists, anti-feminists (or what feminists would call misogynists), homophobes, and transphobes are all “fascists.”
That’s utter nonsense as none of this Identity Stuff has anything to do with the Left in the first place, as the Left is only about economics and many Communists of the last century were in fact social conservatives described under the epithets above. Many of the antifascist fighters fighting in the Allies in World War 2 were White Supremacists, racists (in particular, racist against Blacks), “misogynists” (or at the very least strong sexists), and virulent homophobes. Trannies didn’t exist back then, but they would have been hated much worse than gays.
The very racist White Southern Democrats of that time absolutely despised Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest of the European fascists along with the Japanese, who were promoting a sort of “fascist militarism.”
The Cultural Left would have us believe that Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hoxha, Deng, Ho Chi Minh, the Bulgarian Communists, etc. were all fascists because they were social conservatives. Homosexuality was banned as a bourgeois vice in the Eastern Blog. The Shining Path executed homosexuals and cocaine abusers (another bourgeois vice). The Khmer Rogue were terribly racist. I don’t think anyone will deny that they were Communists.
Even Strasserites are Communists, granted they were odd ones. Further, Strasser had no biological race-based objection to Jews. He had an economic objection. And he wasn’t the best anti-Semite. He kept asking the others why they were so overboard on the Jewish Question.
Stalin wasn’t the best on women’s rights.
The Bulgarian Communists had opinions on race that would be considered Nazism nowadays.
As noted, homosexuality was banned in all of the Communist World. Castro put them in labor camps. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation even today doesn’t have the best policy on gays nor on Jews for that matter. I’m pretty sure they are Communists.
Trans people were not even acknowledged by any Communist country ever.
We have to completely rethink our view of fascism.
It is perfectly possible to have a libertine fascism in a porn-drenched society, which is what we just went through with Trump. MAGA folks are not repressed at all in my observation. They’re not out of touch with their bodies. The Sex Revolution of the 60’s which I was a part of took care of that.
MAGA fascism even allowed for equal rights for women. MAGA women do not appear to be discriminated against legally. A lot of them made a lot of money and held high positions.
Fascism has always been homophobic, yet the Nazi brownshirts were full of homosexuals, and I’ve talked to many gay MAGA types.
I assure you that there are gay MAGA folks. I’ve talked to a number of them. Mitch McConnell is a lifelong homosexual. He’s as fascist as they come. The first brownshirts were full of homosexuals. The Republican Convention welcomed an open fascist, the founder of Ebay, to their convention. They gave him a standing ovation.
I’m aware of Neo-Nazis to this day who are open homosexuals. James O’Meara was one. A number of White Supremacists have been outed as closeted gays. One was murdered by his young Black boyfriend. A friend used to be involved in these groups and he told me that was a LOT of homosexuality in this scene.
Brazilian fascist integralism was multi-racial and formally anti-racist, populist to the core. But Bolsonaro does not come from this milieu; he represents an actual throwback in some ways to classical European fascism of the 1930’s.
Fascism has traditionally been racist, but Black and Indian fascism is a real thing. I believe that fascism knows no color. The Tonton Macoutes of Haiti were black fascists. The Black Hutu government in Rwanda was fascist, as was Mobutu in Zaire and Samuel Doe in Liberia.
A fascist indigenist Indian rights activist is running for President in Ecuador. He’s pulled support from Cultural Left morons who support his Identity Politics while overlooking his fascism, a typical error of IP types, who are the a scourge of the Left.
Obviously modern fascism opposes transsexualism, but that’s not necessarily the case into the future. Caitlin Jenner, a fully-transitioned transwoman, is MAGA.
In the future we may see even forms of fascism that offer equal rights to gays and maybe even transsexuals.