An Explanation for the Use of Anti-Gay Slurs on This Site: We’re Not Using Them to Refer to Gay Men

Imagine being this obsessed with faggots lmao are you trying to tell us something Lindsay?

Hope this helps: https://lgbt.foundation/comingout

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.

We’re not talking about you!

Request to My Black Readers

All my Black readers:

If you ever catch me using anti-Black racist language or tropes, go ahead and call me on it. I’m trying to be cool to my readers here. My Black readers are awesome people, and I’m not interested in hurting their feelings or making them uncomfortable. Just don’t be a PC woketard SJW about it, or I won’t even listen to you. But I don’t want to say ugly, hurtful, mean things to you all. I don’t like it when people say stuff like that to me. If you’d rather keep your critique quiet and private, feel free to email me with your concerns. Tulio and I had an agreement on this stuff, and he used to call me on my tropes every now and then.

Surprise! Black Identity Politics Liars Fake Another BLM Video

Here.

Yet another BLM fake “police brutality against Blacks” video making the rounds, skillfully edited to make the cops seem like the bad guys and the inevitable ghetto Blacks  – not regular decent Black folks per se but actual ghetto Blacks – which are almost all of the Black problem – seem like innocent, dipped-in-goodness-and-mercy Children of God.

Problem is the video was fake. The man was going 101 mph in a 55 zone, so he got pulled over for speeding. Then he refused to give the cop his driver’s license. When the officer was trying to cuff him, he resisted arrest just like these fake BLM brutality cases always do. The cop showed remarkable restraint when the man started fighting with the cop and threw the officer off of him. The officer pulled his taser on the man but didn’t even use it, instead waiting for backup.

The man kept arguing with the cop in an exercise in utter futility. His ghetto Black girlfriend tried to talk some sense into him, but to no avail. Finally backup showed up, they tried to cuff the man, and all Hell broke  loose. The girlfriend, previous sensible, went into full ratchet mode, screaming at the two cops as they tried to wrestle the man to the ground. This is the only part of the video that the BLM liars released. As you can see, the man resisted both officers when they tried to cuff him, so they obviously had to wrestle him to the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Definitions: Rape, Statutory Rape/Illegal Intercourse

Rape: Non-consensual sex generally involving force, the threat of force, gross deception like pretending to be another person, or drugging the victim. Everything else is gray rape and most DA’s won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Realistically, if she is protesting and telling you to stop and you are forcing yourself on her, it’s rape whether a DA will take it or not.

Coercion is an odd word. Anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal. People have been coercing me all my life. It’s not very nice, but it’s hardly rape as long as she ends up willing. It’s important to limit our definition of rape because even stranger rape is rarely prosecuted.

Almost no one ever goes down on sex with an intoxicated woman, no matter what she is intoxicated on. The feminist line that intoxicated women can never consent to sex is odd.

By this logic, intoxicated men can never consent either. Conceivably, a sober woman having sex with an intoxicated man is guilty or rape!

By the same token, an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman are guilty of raping each other! Except of course only the man will conceivably ever go down on it.

And what of alcoholic women and women are drug addicts? Apparently every single time they have sex with anyone, they’re being raped!

Also, no one even knows what intoxicated means? At what point is someone drunk enough to not consent? Who knows!

What about other drugs – heroin, cocaine, cannabis, hallucinogens? At what point is one so intoxicated on this or that drug that they cannot consent? No one knows!

Obviously this law is ridiculously vague. All vague laws are unconstitutional and illegal because no one knows whether they are breaking them or not.

As usual, the intoxication is rape argument makes absolutely no sense, like almost everything feminists say ever. Which is a good reason to abandon feminism. It’s nothing but lies!

If you wish to know, DA’s will only prosecute on intoxicated sex as rape if she is passed out cold or passing in and out of consciousness. And even then, some video evidence might be nice. Case in point: the Steubenville boys. If she’s passed out, leave her alone! What are you, a necrophile? If she’s passing in and out of consciousness, forget it. She’s too wasted to enjoy it and half the time, you’ll be having sex with a corpse. In which case, what the Hell is wrong with you?

Logically speaking, you can coerce anyone into sex legally. If you make a condition of a job, it’s not illegal then either, but you can be sued as it’s a civil offense. As I said, anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal as long as there is no force or threat of force involved. If by the time she’s in bed, she’s awake and enthusiastic, it’s not important how you got her there unless you used force or the threat of force.

All affirmative consent laws are insane and stupid because no man has ever gone down on failing to read a woman’s mind properly. But if she looks terrified and unenthusiastic in bed as if you are forcing her to do something you don’t want to do, I don’t know pal, but that sounds awful rapey to me. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

Statutory rape (illegal intercourse): Of course teenage girls can consent, but in a legal sense we say some cannot with certain different-aged partners for various reasons, mostly that society finds the idea of adults having sex with teens of certain ages to be unsavory. Where it is consensual, the harm is almost zero.

Nevertheless, men should be advised that these laws are enforced, and nowadays they put you in prison. It’s mostly a non-issue compared to the others here. AOC varies but tends to be ~15-16 in most of the world. In European countries with AOC’s at this level, problems are very rare. This isn’t even really rape. It’s better to call it “illegal intercourse.”

Child molestation: Any sex with an adult and a child under 13 is child molestation. It has to be sex. Backrubs and shoulder pats don’t count. There has to be some sort of genital contact. As I noted in a previous post, harm varies with the degree of coercion.

Feminists should wish to recover all victims of child molestation to live full lives instead of being victims. Child molestation is illegal and should never be allowed. Some kids actually like it believe it or not (I’ve met adult women who enjoyed being molested), but we still need to keep it illegal because we do not wish to live in a society where adults have sex with kids.

Child rape: Sadly it is important to separate child rape from child molestation. This is because feminists and moral scolds have taken to conflating all child molestation as “child rape.” They’re not the same thing. Yes, small children cannot consent to sex with adults but that doesn’t mean it’s rape when it happens. Instead we use the word molestation to refer to the fact that little kids can’t legally consent. There’s no need to muddy the waters here.

Child molestation is generally “consensual” psychologically. However it is not consensual legally because we say that kids can’t consent to sex with an adult. Almost all sex with kids is molestation, not rape. Child rape does exist and it is a severe crime. It often involves strangers, abductions, threats, weapons, and violence. It’s always non-consensual by definition. In some cases, the children are physically harmed or even killed.

The consequences can certainly be long-lasting, even affecting the victim over a lifetime. Nonetheless, women seem to be able to get over rape. I know a number of women who were raped and got over it fine. I’ve only met one woman raped as a child and she won’t discuss it. And yes, it was pretty bad. Two 11 year old girls raped at knifepoint. As bad as it gets.

Pedophilia: This is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality that means the primary or sole attraction is to children under 13. Hebephilia (primary attraction to pubescents age 12-14) and ephebephilia (primary attraction to teenagers) are not included in pedophilia.

These men cannot help their condition and need to be helped to manage it so they do not offend. There are now organizations of virtuous pedophiles dedicated to pedophiles who have committed themselves to non-offending. Pedophilia cannot be combated or prevented because we have no idea what causes it. There’s no way to fight it because it simply exists.

Alt Left: Verbal, Physical, and Sexual Abuse Does Not Automatically Have a Lasting and Detrimental Effect on Victims

This is from a session about a paper called “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather. There were many problems with this paper, including repeated conflation of pedophilia, a sexual orientation, with child molestation, an act that is typically a crime. There were numerous remarks about fighting, preventing, combating pedophilia.

Pedophilia can be neither fought nor combated. It’s a sexual orientation. It simply is. It exists. Once it sets on in a man, it’s for life. 3% of men are primary pedophiles who are more attracted to children under 13 than to mature persons. That’s 3.3 million men in the US. Good luck putting them all in prison! Pedophilia needs to be managed.

Pedophiles who have not offended deserve our compassion. They didn’t choose their orientation. Pedophiles need to get with a caring therapist and see them regularly to keep from offending. Many pedophiles can go decades without offending. A followup of pedophiles released from prison found that 25 years later, only 50% had offended. So 50% of a cohort of offending pedophiles were able to go 25 years without molesting a child.

Consequently, pedophilia cannot be prevented because we do not have any idea what causes it in the first place. We simply know that 3% of US adult males end up with this orientation.

Here in the UK we have finally come around to the understanding that any form of abuse, be it verbal, physical or sexual will have a lasting and detrimental effect on the victim.

From a comment from a session on “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather

There is no evidence that this is true. See Ritter et al for the definitive statement on CSA. Far be it for me to defend psychological, physical, or sexual abuse of children, but there’s no evidence that any of those has lasting harmful effects on everyone subjected to it. My whole family was subjected to a lot of psychological abuse. I’m certainly not harmed by it but choice of my own.

I have no idea about physical abuse. Most people can work their way out of whatever damage this sort of thing caused. Of course, in some cases, there is long-lasting harm.

I work in mental health and I seldom find a client who is damaged from a bad familial upbringing, barring extreme situations. Instead most seem damaged from peer relations, especially those from junior high and high school. Many of these folks are still suffering decades later in their 30’s.

It’s not helpful to tell the hundreds of millions subjected to this sort of thing growing up that they are damaged for life unless you want to create hundreds of billions of professional victims, which I suspect is the feminist project.

Back to child sexual abuse, meaning molestation of children under 13. That leaves out all the childhood sex play, peer sex among teens, and statutory rape, which usually leave no ill effects at all.

I certainly don’t wish to advocate CSA of little kids.

However, in many cases there was no coercion. That is, the molestation was consensual. Kids can consent to sex of course; it’s just that legally we say they can’t because they are too young to make that decision.

At any rate, molestation is divided into with and without coercion. Even coercive molestation usually does not rise to the level of rape. Child rape is terrible and should never be conflated with run of the mill molestation. It is usually done by a stranger, a weapon is often used, the child is often abducted, and injury or death is not uncommon.

The psychiatric literature is clear. Coerced child molestation can and is often quite harmful to the child, with harm extending to adulthood. However, non-coerced child molestation usually does not leave lasting ill effects. That is, most subjected to it simply work their way out of it over time. I have been involved with a few women who were molested and worked their way out of it without lasting harm.

The fact that many are able to get over being molested does not mean it should be allowed. Most of us don’t want to live in a society where adults have sex with little kids, regardless of whether the kids work their way out of it eventually or not.

Promoting perpetual victimization or lifetime victimization is not a feminist value IMHO. It certainly does not benefit the victim.

Alt Left: Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

There Is No Society

Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.

Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.

Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.

Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.

I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.

Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.

Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.

Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.

I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.

They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.

They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.

They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

If you haven’t noticed, there’s no more social democracy or democratic socialism in Europe. Probably the only thing left is Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, and Russia. Possibly Iceland because they told the banks to go pound sand. Greece elected a Leftist government, Syriza, that quickly went full-blown neoliberal, reportedly out of necessity. What has happened to social democracy is something that any Marxist could have predicted – the incompatibility of even trying to have any sort of socialist society in the midst of a capitalist economy.

The fate of social democracy is the what has always been the fate of social liberalism in the US and its counterpart in Canada and Australia. All of these variants have never been anything but reactionary on foreign policy – smashing the slightest sign of liberalism anywhere in the world if it even dared to peek its head out. Many governments in Latin America were overthrown for the crime of raising the minimum wage.

And most of these were overthrown by “liberal” Democratic governments. Bill Clinton set the stage for the overthrow of Aristide. Aristide’s crime? He dared to raise the minimum wage. He had investments in some factories there. So did Hilary. Hilary overthrew Honduras. The crime? Raising the minimum wage.

Even FDR, the most progressive President of the 20th century, was a raving reactionary freak on foreign policy. “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

Teddy Roosevelt was progressive at home but an imperialist brute overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

The standard formula for all of these countries has always been some form of liberalism at home combined with hard right or ultra right policies that favored rightwing dictatorships, death squads, the genocide of the Left, and out and out fascism overseas. Liberal at home, reactionary abroad. And now Joe Biden, one of the most liberal Presidents in modern memory, is already treading down the same worn path.

And now the social democracies have undergone the same transformation that social liberalism, etc. has had from the start. One gets the feeling that liberalism or socialism at home in a capitalist country will always have to co-exist with ultra-right, pro-fascist politics overseas. In other words, a foreign policy of imperialism.

Most of Europe is whored to the ultra-rightwing NATO. The EU is for all intents and purposes the civilian state and NATO is the Defense Ministry of that state. Even Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are hard right countries when it comes to their NATO alliance. Finnish foreign policy has always been rightwing, a legacy of their hatred for Russia. Dutch, French, British, and Spanish foreign policy have been horribly rightwing forever now under social democratic and conservative governments both. Indeed in Europe, there is little difference between the two.

Spain strides around Latin America like a brute. Apparently they still think they rule the place as they once did.Most of this involves threats, arm-twisting, sanctions and whatnot every time countries try to assert more control over their resources, which are inevitably being exploited by Spanish corporations. Bolivia’s nationalization of oil and gas is instructive in this regard. The social democratic Spanish government was just as reactionary as the conservative one.

The French are cruel and colonialist towards their former colonies and do not allow any independent governments to form there, especially in Africa. The French and Canadians were deeply involved in the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, apparently for the crime of raising the minimum wage. In addition, France is still demanding that Haiti repay it for its losses when the slaves of Haiti were freed and the slave-holding families were massacred. France is a social democracy.

The Dutch held a phony inquest in the M17 false flag shootdown where a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down an airliner in order to blame it on Russia. The EU was also deeply involved in this plot and especially the coverup. As were the British and in particular the BBC, the official organ of the British state. The British stole $4 million in gold from Venezuela by confiscating it. British foreign policy mimics US foreign policy in every reactionary thing we do. The UK is a social democracy.

Italy led the charge against Qaddafi and helped steal billions of his gold reserves. Italian corporations also quickly tried to get on Libya’s oil. Italy is a social democracy.

100% of the EU is sanctioning Venezuela for the crime of trying to create a social democracy in America’s backyard. No socialist country would ever sanction Venezuela. Same with Nicaragua. They’re all sanctioning Nicaragua too. Nicaragua’s even less socialist than Venezuela and Norway’s probably a lot more socialist than Venezuela.

So you see, these countries may have some sort of socialism at home (increasingly threadbare) but in foreign policy, it’s straight up full-blown reaction and imperialism, support for rightwing dictatorships and out and out fascists. The reason is simple. The economies of all EU countries are based on their multinational corporations.

Multinational corporations want nothing but rightwing dictatorship, preferably fascist, when they cannot elect hard Right democratic states. These corporations will not tolerate the slightest socialism or even liberalism overseas because they all operate on a predatory model towards the Third World.

Hence the foreign policy of all of the EU “socialist” countries is all about what’s good for the corporations that run their economies. Their corporations wish to go abroad and rape, ruin, exploit, destroy, and stripmine the economies of the Third World by exploiting their resources such that the corporations get almost everything and the countries themselves barely get a nickel.

This has always been the model and it always will be the model. So the EU social democracies have the same problem of the Democratic Party – while they can be leftwing at home to some extent, they all go hard rightwing and pro-fascist and rightwing dictatorship overseas due to their fealty to the corporations that run their economies.

Alt Left: Evidence That Israel Attacked Syria and Lebanon With Nuclear Weapons

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

RL: [The August 2020 Beirut explosion]… was when Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Lebanon’s wheat supply in silo in the Beirut port. And Hezbollah was blamed…You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

Jackrabbit: The nuke theory is known to be false without a doubt. The characteristics of the fireball match that of an Ammonium Nitrate explosion and no radiation was reported.

Sun Tzu: There was no mysterious explosion in Beirut in August 2020. There was a predictable “waiting to happen” detonation of an Ammonium Nitrate Nitrate load unprofessionally stored for years in a port facility near a highly dense population center. There is wilful or criminal neglect of legal and well established international norms and regulations for the storage of dangerous goods UN placards 1942 / UN 2067. What exactly set it off, among the plurality of anecdotal and hearsay versions, is for forensic investigators to determine.

No Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer Explosion

There was no fireworks factory in the area. The explosion looks nothing at all like a fertilizer explosion. Ammonium nitrate sends up a yellow cloud and this cloud was reddish brown, which makes sense as according to Lebanese intelligence, the warehouse it hit was full of bags of rocks and dirt masquerading as fertilizer. Lebanese intelligence, as noted, said there was no fertilizer.

Anyway, the crater that was blown was so wide it probably could not even have been blown with 280 tons of fertilizer instead of the 2.8 tons that was said to be in there. In other words, the amount of fertilizer said to be in that warehouse was not large enough to blow a crater that size. In addition, the characteristic mushroom cloud seen afterwards is only seen after nuclear blasts. No other weapon can produce such a cloud.

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

Everything I have ever heard says it has to be mixed with fuel oil and then a flame or spark has to be thrown onto it. Otherwise nothing happens. If you drop a bomb on it, it’s like dropping a bomb on a pile of sand. Also notice that the liars who made up this story changed the story after a couple of weeks after this fact came out. The new story said that fuel oil had been absolutely mixed in with the fertilizer mix a couple of years before.

Furthermore, neither ammonium nitrate nor any other explosive device can blow a hole that deep in solid rock.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with a Tactical Nuclear Weapon

A mining engineer wrote a column saying that no known explosive could blow a crater that deep in solid rock. In fact, all known explosives blow upwards when they hit solid rock. The engineer said that because explosives can’t penetrate down into solid rock, holes must be bored deep into the rock. The explosive is placed deep inside the rock and detonated, as they can blow upwards into rock. The only known explosive that can blow a huge crater in solid rock is a tactical nuclear weapon. This includes bunker busters, which are actually small tactical nukes.

Syrian intelligence told another journalist team that the Beirut blast was caused by Israel bombing Beirut with a “new and experimental weapon.”

They also said that the explosion looked a lot like the one in Syria prior. I have seen photographs of that blast. The two explosion clouds look very similar. It is thought that Israel dropped a tactical nuke on Syria in that attack. I do not know what the target was.

The Russians were suspicious so they sent a team to the site. At the bomb site, the team did find low levels of radiation that could only have come there from a nuclear weapon. Based on video of the blast and the radiation found at the blast site, the Russian team concluded that Israel had bombed Syria with a tactical nuclear weapon. However, the Syrian government has never officially reported this.

No radiation was found in Beirut, sure, but also none was not found, as nobody even looked for any!

Anyway, with tactical nukes, you will only have small amounts of radiation in and around the crater after a day or two. They will linger for a week or so and then disappear. I am aware of a team from the US that arrived in Beirut by plane a day or two after the explosion. They had a lot of equipment with them, including radiation counters. The Lebanese military denied them entry to the country.

The nuclear arms control branch of the UN reported a large wave of radiation at their station in Sicily right around the time of the blast. I saw a printout from their data. The amount of radiation was consistent with either a nuclear explosion or a nuclear reactor failure.

An arms inspector for this UN agency, a Berkeley professor of Physics, reported told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. The Italian government told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. An addition, both Lebanese intelligence and the Lebanese military told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with No Mention of Tactical Nukes

Richard Silverstein reported that his source deep inside the Israeli government reported told him that Israel bombed Beirut and that the target was a Hezbollah missile depot. Israel was basically saying that the fertilizer report was a lie and what really happened was a missile depot was blown up.

Another team of journalists was told by Saudi and UAE intelligence that Israel attacked Beirut and blew up a Hezbollah missile depot. So these two intelligence agencies are also saying there was no fertilizer blast.

The Hezbollah missile depot story was put out by Israel in case the fake fertilizer story washed out. It did wash out, but fools keep repeating it anyway. The purpose was to blame Hezbollah for the blast and casualties by endangering the Lebanese people by carelessly storing missiles at the harbor, thereby leading to a loss of popularity for Hezbollah. This does not seem to have worked. All the usual idiots are sticking with the insipid fertilizer story.

A team of journalists was told by the Pentagon that Israel had attacked Beirut. No mention was made of a nuclear weapon. A group of generals then relayed this information to President Trump. Very soon afterwards, Trump said that the Beirut explosion was the result of a military attack.

Seven Different Countries and the UN Tell Five Different Teams of Journalists That the Blast Was Due to An Attack, with Most Saying It Was an Israeli Attack

We now have people from seven different governments telling five different journalist outfits that the blast was a result of an attack on Beirut.

UN: UN nuclear weapons control agency released a graph showing a large radiation release in the area at their station in Sicily. A US arms inspector for this agency reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

US: Generals report blast caused by attack on Beirut. Perpetrator and weapon used not named. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

Italy: Government reported that Israel attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon. (Journalist 1- Veterans Today)

Lebanon: Government, military, and intelligence reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut harbor. Intelligence said there was no ammonium nitrate in the sacks. There were only sacks filled with rocks and dirt, a result of a six year long Mossad plot the culmination of which was the nuclear bombing of the harbor.

Israel: Source deep inside government said that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 2 – Richard Silverstein)
An Israeli newspaper quoted a rightwing Israel Congressman as saying that Israel attacked Beirut. I am not sure if he mentioned a missile depot. He also said, “That blast was huge. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think we attacked them with a nuclear bomb.” He was laughing and dancing a victory dance when he said that. That is a very suspicious statement. (Journalist 3)

UAE: UAE intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4 – Asia Times)

Saudi Arabia: Saudi intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4- Asia Times)

Syria: Syrian intelligence reported that Israel attacked Beirut with an unknown experimental weapon and that it resembled the blast from an attack on Syria a year ago. That blast was later proven by a Russian team of having been a tactical nuclear weapon. The two mushroom clouds look almost identical (Journalist 5 – Voltaire Network)

To reiterate:

Five different teams of journalists were told by seven different governments and the UN that there was at an attack on Beirut.

The same teams were told by five governments and the UN that the attack was the result of Israel bombing the harbor.

Two teams were told by three different governments that Israel either attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon or with a new and experimental weapon.

One team was told by two different governments that the attack was conducted by Israel with a tactical nuclear weapon.

The “No Bombing Attack” Theory

Wow, talk about complete nonsense! Jets were both heard and seen by hundreds and possibly thousands of Beirutis.

There is video of the Armenian Quarter where men are pointing up in the sky – presumably at jets – and soon afterwards, a terrible blast is heard and debris is flying in the street.

There is a video where you can hear with your very own ears the sound of a fighter jet – it sounded like an F-16 to my ears – roaring in for about 10 seconds, followed by the huge blast. The people making the video can be heard asking, “What’s that?”

How is that hundreds to thousands of Beirutis reporting hearing or seeing jets prior to the blast? Are they all hallucinating?

Why are men in Beirut pointing up to the sky at unknown objects, followed by a huge blast that sends objects flying. Did all of these people hallucinate?

Did I hallucinate when I heard the clear sound a fighter jet for 10 seconds on a video followed by an explosion?

Did the UN fake a graph showing a radiation spike at its Sicily station?

None of this makes sense.

Furthermore we have statements from sources in six different governments telling five separate teams of journalists that the explosion was due to an attack on the harbor, with most of them adding that the attack was done by Israel. Are five different teams of journalists making this up? Were five separate teams of journalists fed false information that Israel attacked Beirut? How likely is any of that?

There were 3-4 US spy planes over Lebanon at the time. They showed up several hours before the attack and left several hours afterwards. US spy planes do not commonly fly over Lebanon. What were they doing there?

The Backstory

A few weeks prior, Israel said that if Hezbollah attacks Israel again, Israel will attack Lebanese economic targets.

Two weeks later and a week before the attack, Israel staged a fake Hezbollah attack on the border. They said a Hezbollah team had tried to plant a bomb on the border but they were eliminated by Israel. Hezbollah said there was no team. This attack was apparently completely made up.

Three days later, Netanyahu issued a speech in which he threatened Hezbollah in some of the strongest language ever used.

Four days later, Israel drops a tactical nuclear weapon on the Beirut harbor, blowing up the grain silo that contains all of Lebanon’s wheat supply for the next month. Notice that this is an attack on the economy.

1. Israel threatens to attack the Lebanese economy if Hezbollah attacks again.

2. Israel stages a fake Hezbollah attack on the border, which can now be followed via the threat by an attack on the Lebanese economy.

3. Israeli leader threatens Hezbollah in a speech containing some of the strongest language ever used.

4. Israel bombs a grain silo in Beirut harbor that contains the next month’s grain supply = attack on Lebanese economy.

Jackrabbit: You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

It is most certainly was not proven false.

In fact, seven different states and the UN told five different teams of journalists that the blast was due to a military attack on the harbor, with most saying it was an Israeli attack.

Three different states and the UN said or implied to two teams of journalists that Israel bombed Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon.

It’s imperative upon the doubters to prove that multiple governments lied and/or that multiple teams of journalists lied or were all fed the same false information. Most of these teams have a good record for advocacy, and half of the governments put out quite reliable information.

The Mossad Plot That Started It All

A team of journalists was informed by Lebanese intelligence that this whole episode was a Mossad plot dating back several years. They discovered that nothing about this ship made any sort of sense. All of the documentation about it was fraudulent, forged, or dishonest. Nothing added up. Mossad purchased a ship in Cyprus. Then they went on a rendezvous of three different countries, supposedly buying fertilizer. The last stop was in Georgia, where the ship purchased 2,800 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This is the ultimate source of the “fertilizer” on the ship.

There is a problem with this: Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not manufactured anywhere in Georgia, so the ship literally could not have bought this cargo there.

According to intelligence, there never was any fertilizer. Instead, the sacks were filled with rocks and dirt. The rocks and dirt labeled ammonium nitrate fertilizer were placed in the warehouse at the dock. They reportedly sat there for a number of years as buyers for the fertilizer supposedly fell through. Obviously there were no fertilizer buyers because there was never any fertilizer in the first place.

In addition, the ship’s owner, a Russian, went bankrupt and lost possession of the ship. This Russian ship owner may have been in on the plot. The fertilizer then had no owner.

Lebanese courts thought that the fertilizer was a hazard and issued a number of orders to remove it from the warehouse. None of these orders were followed. It is hard to explain this part of the story.

That part of the port of Beirut is owned by Lebanese Maronite Falangists, hardcore opponents of Hezbollah who formed the pro-Israel Southern Lebanese Army that enforced the Israeli conquest and annexation of Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah forced the Israelis to leave via continuous deadly or injurious attacks and the SLA had to flee for their lives. Most of them were quickly taken in by Israel but a few went to the US. One was arrested and imprisoned a few years ago when he came back to Lebanon. He was the head of a notorious prison in Southern Lebanon where resistance fighters were imprisoned and tortured.

It is certainly possible that these Falange worked with Israel on this plot. They may have been involved in the refusal to remove the “fertilizer.” We must also note that since the Falange control that part of the port, there is no way that Hezbollah could have stashed missiles there. So the “Hezbollah missile depot” story cannot possibly be true.

The figure of 2,800 tons is important. As noted, the crater of the blast was so large that it is dubious whether even 280,000 tons or 100 times that amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown a hole that big. And no amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown that deep crater in the solid rock below.  As noted, only a nuclear bomb, tactical or otherwise can blow a hole in solid rock. This is why all known bunker buster bombs are actually small tactical nuclear weapons. They have to be.

That the fertilizer was ammonium nitrate is also important. An Italian chemist noted that ammonium nitrate leaves a large yellow cloud when it blows up. The cloud in the explosion was red-brown. The chemist thought that may have been due to the Hezbollah missiles blowing up. But as we now know, there were no Hezbollah missiles. Lebanese President Auon himself said there was no missile depot at the port.

The Aims of the Attack

Also, note that the “fertilizer explosion” or “Hezbollah missile depot blast” occurred only a week before a corrupt UN investigation team was due to convict Hezbollah for killing former President Hariri. However, Hezbollah was framed for this crime as Hariri was actually killed by an Israeli drone overhead. This would be a one-two blow for Hezbollah. Hezbollah would be blamed twice in a week for serious catastrophes that befell the land. The idea was to make Hezbollah lose all its support.

In the event of the fertilizer explosion story, the intent there was to blame the Lebanese government. “The Lebanese government killed 1,000 Lebanese people!” This was then very suspiciously followed by a US-led color revolution supposedly outraged over the government ineptitude that caused the explosion in which a mere 3,000 paid demonstrators managed to overthrow the government. US government regime change specialists were spotted at these demonstrations with huge grins on their faces.

As soon as the government of Lebanon was overthrown, the (((Rothschild-controlled))) President Macron of France flew in and immediately began strongarming the Lebanese government into setting up a new government without any Hezbollah supporters. Lebanon was specifically threatened with consequences if they did not set this government up.

The US then put crushing sanctions of Lebanon that wrecked its economy. With the addition of a banking crisis that also collapsed the economy, the idea was to wreck the economy to make people so angry they would throw out the pro-Hezbollah government. It hasn’t worked yet.

In other words, the entire aim of the attack was to get Hezbollah out of the Lebanese government and marginalized in Lebanese society.

Very Suspicious Concurrent Attacks

The very next day after the attacks, US forces blew up several grain silos in Syria. Note that Israel’s attack blew up Lebanon’s entire supply of grain. So the US attack on Syria’s grain is concurrent with an Israeli attack on Lebanese grain. The US blowing up Syrian grain silos does not fit with an accidental fertilizer explosion. Why would we bomb grain silos because some fertilizer blew up?

In the next couple of days, a series of fires broke out at food warehouses in the southern Shia part of Iraq. Israel or the US is suspected. So the connection? In all three cases, food supplies for pro-Iranian populations were destroyed. The Lebanese people support Hezbollah by 65%. Their food was blown up. Syria supports Iran. Their bread was blown up too. The Shia in Southern Iraq support Iran. Their food supplies caught fire. The day after, a huge Iranian-owned mall in the UAE went up in flames. Israel or the US is suspected again.

Lebanon: Attack on Hezbollah and the people of Lebanon for supporting Hezbollah and Iran by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Syria: Attack on Syria, a pro-Iranian government, by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Iraq: Attack on the Iran-supporting Shia of Iraqi South by destroying their food supply.

UAE: Attack on Iran by setting an Iranian-owned shopping mall on fire, destroying it.

Why would an accidental fertilizer explosion just happen to destroy a country’s food supply. Why would it be followed by attacks on the food supply of two other populations which just happen to support Iran? Why would it also be followed by the destruction by fire of a shopping mall in the UAE that just happens to be owned by Iran?

All four of these attacks were obviously coordinated. Accidents are not followed by coordinated attacks destroying similar things that got destroyed in the accident. All attacks were against either Iran, or pro-Iranian armed groups, governments and populations.

Starting to get the picture?

The Coverup

A team of journalists was told by the Lebanese military and intelligence that all parties had agreed to cover up this incident and go with the fake fertilizer story. The Lebanese government wanted to cover it up so as not to spread panic in the population. Also it made the government look very weak in the face of Israeli aggression. Hezbollah wanted it covered up too because they have no effective response or deterrent now that the Israelis are using nuclear weapons against their adversaries.

They felt it would lead to disillusionment and defeatist thinking on the part of the Lebanese people with a resulting loss of support for Hezbollah: “Hezbollah is impotent to defend us against Israeli nuclear weapons, so why support them? Let’s just surrender. The war’s over.” In addition, Iran also wished to cover it up because they have no effective response to Israeli nuclear weapons either and admitting this might lead to similar disillusionment and defeatism on the part of the population. “Just surrender to the US and Israel already. We can’t win.”

As noted above, there is excellent evidence that Israeli dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Syria about a year before the Beirut blast. The Syrian government has not admitted this for the same reasons as the Lebanese, Hezbollah, and Iran above.

Israel will of course never admit to using tactical nuclear weapons for fear it would set off an increase in anti-Israel sentiments in the world. However, considering how Israel-cucked the US and increasingly the EU is, not to mention the Arab sellouts and traitors, I think a lot of the world would probably cheer that Israel was nuking the Arabs.s

The US will also not admit to using tactical nuclear weapons. Any mention of this will be relegated to the usual conspiracy theory tinfoil hat territory. We reasonably fear an increase in anti-US sentiment after such a revelation. But considering how US-cucked the Europeans are, I’m wondering if they wouldn’t cheer that America is dropping nukes on those dirty Muslims.

Israel started using tactical nukes as early as 2008 when they used them against the Hezbollah resistance. A very suspicious blast was investigated soon afterwards by a Russian team and they indeed found abnormal levels of radiation at the site. The Russians concluded that Israel had used a tactical nuclear weapon against Hezbollah.

There is now excellent evidence that the US used a few to several tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) against Al Qaeda’s cave fortifications at Tora Bora. In addition, we now know that the first US use of tactical nuclear weapons was in the first Iraq War in 1991, when we dropped a tactical nuclear weapon 13 miles east of Basra. This marked the first use of a tactical nuclear weapon by a military in the modern era.

Alt Left: Evidence for Massive Republican Election Fraud in the 2020 Election

154 million votes exit and pre-election polls

Biden                            83.5 million votes 55%
Trump                          71 million votes 45.5%
Separation:                12.5 million votes 8.5%
Pre-election polls: Biden +8.2%
Exit polls:                    Biden 7.9%
Match between pre-election and exit polls: Biden +0.3% (perfect)

154 million votes actual results

Biden                            80 million votes 51.1%
Trump                          74 million votes 47.2%
Separation:                6 million votes Biden +3.9%
Pre-election polls: Biden +8.2%
Match between pre-election and exit polls and actual results:                                          Trump +4.1% (large red shift)
Theft:                           6.5 million votes Trump +4.1%

This is a blatant example of massive election fraud by the Republicans via hacking of voting machines (mostly ESS machines) in almost every state because almost every state uses voting machines that in general cannot even be monitored or checked for election theft because the vote printout it gives you about your choices might be false. In other words, the machine would tell you you voted exactly as you did, but then it would mis-record your votes.

In states like Pennsylvania, it is even harder to prove election fraud. It necessitates actually looking at the hardware and software in a forensic sense. Recently, Virginia went to all hand-counted paper ballots for state elections. The next year there was a Democratic sweep of the state and polls and exit polls were right on the money.

It is important to note that aggregate polls and exit polls were right on the money in the US for decades until the onset of computerized voting in 2002. Computerized voting was put in in that year via HAVA – Help America Vote Act – written by Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff. This was actually the start of a plot to steal our elections.

A few voting machine companies were set up, all run by radical rightwing Republicans, often Christian Dominionists. The money behind all of the firms came from the Bush and Romney families. These families still own most of these voting machine companies to this day. Dominion was sold to another company and the new owners appear to be Democrats.

It’s not true that Democrats are in on the election theft too because only Republicans control the voting machines. But the hacking even involves Democratic elections. The Clinton-Sanders primaries were hacked by Republicans to give the victory to Clinton. In many cases, the hacks simply pick the most conservative candidate, even on the Democratic side.

Furthermore there appears to have been massive hacking of state elections all across the US, the result being Republican Legislatures, Senates, and Governors in many states that consistently vote Democratic. These state governments then put in gerrymandering rules that make it almost impossible for the Democrats to win. For instance, in Wisconsin, Democrats would have to win 65% of the vote to take over the Legislature and Congress due to gerrymandering.

Obviously all gerrymandering must be made illegal as it’s anti-Democratic. But Democrats engage in gerrymandering when they’re in power too. What happened was that in the last two decades, when the electorate was 10-20 points more Democratic than Republican, the Democrats suffered inexplicable losses all across the country. This makes no sense. A +15 point Democrat electorate should be winning elections for Democrats on a regular basis.

After 2002, for the first time, aggregate polls and exit polls started going off badly. The Idiocracy in our media and political classes twisted themselves into all sorts of doughnut shapes to try to explain this. The theories are many, varied, and all equally preposterous. Somehow we always seem to “miss” countless Republicans who never answer either pre-election or exit polls!

Even Nate Silver at 538.com has bought into the “terrible polling and exit polling failures” nonsense. The Democratic Party, especially the DNC and Markos at Daily Kos, has utterly refused to consider that our elections might be being hacked. That’s too much to bear for them. Their excuse is, “If we admitted our elections are being stolen on a massive scale, Americans would lose faith in our elections and in our democracy.”

There’s also the insane attitude of our media and political elites that conspiracy theory is always false. Hence the truth about our stolen elections is relegated to conspiracy theory and tinfoil hat territory. There is so much lying, misdirection, bias, provocations, tricks, false flags, fake attacks, and overt conspiracy theory in Western relations that I feel instead that conspiracy theory may be the only proper mode in which to analyze modern geopolitical reality in the West.

Put another way, here in the West, we are getting to the point where conspiracy theory is simply the normal, day to day operation of the state. This also extends to political parties and mass movements themselves.

In our modern era here in the West, it might be better to say that Life Itself Is Now a Conspiracy Theory. False flags have certainly become so common that they are nearly normal now.

Parables for Paranoids: As long as they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

– Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow (1973)

Well, we don’t have a democracy here. That should be clear to anyone, especially after two decades of election theft and election fraud along with gerrymandering and massive voter suppression at the polls. Any country that has gerrymandering, election fraud, and voter suppression as the hallmarks of its electoral process cannot possibly be a democracy. America has not been a democracy in a long time, probably for most of its history. The America as a shining beacon of democracy” lie is nevertheless believed by most Americans and millions of dupes and rubes around the world.

Notice that the aggregate pre-election polls were 8.2% and the exit polls were 7.9%. That is an almost perfect match. The exit polls were correct as usual. And the pre-election polls were also good if we look at the perfect lineup between pre-election and exit polls. But Biden won by only 3.9%, a theft of 4.1 percentage points or an astonishing 6.5 million votes.

American Gangster

American Gangster. Just watched this movie on TV at home. Yes, I finally got TV. I’ve been living without TV for 11 years. I’ll tell you what. I barely missed a damn thing! Life without TV is quite possible and in a way, it’s interesting because in a sense it’s very freeing. No longer are we attached to this object which seems to become our source of, well, everything! I’m not sure TV is necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on what you watch.

It’s definitely a pretty passive experience though some action is necessary on the part of the watcher to pay attention to what is being said, the plot, or the storyline of whatever is on. Especially when you watch a movie on TV, I doubt if it’s much different from experiencing it in a theater or in any other way. I’m thinking reading is a more interactive experience, but perhaps I’m wrong and that’s just as passive as TV.

An interesting finding is that violence usually goes way up in any society about 10-15 years after the introduction of TV. The 10-15 year lag is probably due to the lag time it takes for children who grow up on TV to become adults where they are capable of committing crimes. This finding has been replicated in a number of separate countries. No one is quite sure why this effect occurs.

Alt Left: The “Stab in the Back” and the Balfour Declaration: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Myth

Polar Bear: I thought the stab in the back was real. The British offered Jews Israel to turn on Germany and the scorpion stung the frog.

The British offered which Jews Israel if they turned on Germany? You mean the Balfour Declaration?

This is not correct.

Balfour had no effect on German Jews, most of whom disliked Zionism. You must realize that Zionism was unpopular among European Jews at that time and all through the 1920’s. As James Schipper notes in the comments,  Zionism was not popular among West European Jews. However, it was popular among East European Jews, especially the less religious ones.

As James Schipper notes in the comments, the notion that the British gave the Jews Palestine if they would get the Americans into the war does not appear to be correct. The US entered WW1 in April 1917. The Balfour Declaration was signed in November 1917. Unless someone makes a good argument otherwise, the timelines don’t line up.

However, I have seen this theory written up on the Internet – that the British promised the Jews Palestine and US Jews said, “If you give us Palestine, we will get the Americans into the war.” And then the Jews used money and media power to brainwash Americans into joining the war. As Schipper notes, this may well not be true as the timelines don’t add up.

In lieu of verification of this theory, this would have to be listed as a possibly antisemitic argument accusing US Jews of tricking the US into war against Germany in WW1 in response to the Jews getting Israel.

Although many of them had come from Germany, German Jews and US Jews nevertheless had very tenuous connections.

Jewish Hypocrisy on Race Is Astounding

Polar Bear: Jews and Gentiles are conditioned to side with Jews.

Well, Jews are not wonderful and special and perfect just because they got genocided. Lots of groups got genocided. Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Cambodians, American Indian tribes, Aboriginals, Moiriori, Chechens, Gypsies, Herero, Congolese, Hutus, Yezidis, East Timorese, Hindus in Bangladesh, got genocided. Have they turned into diabolical monsters because of it like the Jews did? I don’t see why getting genocided gives Jews the right to turn into the worst human beings on Earth. All that does is make people think maybe they deserved it.

I don’t think the world has the stomach for any more Jew-killing. It’s been going on a pretty long time, and this last go-round was a doozy. In fact, it was so bad that I think that all mass-Jew-killing is off the table for probably centuries into the future. No one wants a repeat of the Holocaust.

Why should I automatically side with Jews? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! This is going to sound cruel, but boo hoo! I’m sad that y’all got massacred, but now that you’ve turned into human monsters, I’m not going  to support you because bad people did something terrible to your people. By the way, you are now playing the role of the bad people doing terrible things to others.

Israel is a dyed in the wool racist state to the very core of its being. The racism or bigotry is enshrouded in virtually every law and code in the country. The other correlate is apartheid South Africa, which it seems to have been modeled on. It is also very similar to the Jim Crow laws that Blacks were forced to live under not just in the US South but in many places in Latin America. You never knew that Jim Crow was in place in other places too, did you? I know for a fact that there was legal segregation in Cuba until after the Revolution. And there was de facto legal segregation of coastal Blacks in Ecuador.

Israel is probably one of the most openly and brazenly racist countries on Earth. Why do they get to be racist monsters? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! Boo hoo. It doesn’t give you the right to turn into racist kleptomaniacs. No one gets to be racist monsters or terrible people. I don’t care what got done to them. You don’t get to turn bad in revenge because something bad got done to you.

Jews drive me up the wall.  They are absolutely committed to flooding all White Christian countries with non-Whites and non-Christians. Why? Because when the White  Christian population gets below 50%, a Nazi type regime can never come into power. I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Some Arab Muslim countries were pretty cruel to their Jews in the last 75 years. Be careful what you wish for.

They  scream and yell about racism of all types, but they exaggerate it by a factor of 10, and they make mountains out of molehills. It’s all done to demonize White Christians as racist devils. You know why they do this? Revenge. It’s revenge for the Holocaust. And part of it may be resentment because there was some legal discrimination against Jews for a while in the US.

As a counterpart to the argument about Blacks, the Jews seem to have prospered pretty well in spite of all of that discrimination. So there may be revenge for the anti-Jewish discrimination we put them through. A famous Jewish psychiatrist, Stanley
Rothman, in the 1960’s diagnosed the basic Jewish character as Paranoid-Masochistic Character. The masochistic part means they love being victims. I say you can take anything away from a Jew, but never take away his sense of victimhood. He will fight for that for his dear life. It’s literally the most important thing in his life. It’s his fuel for living.

The paranoid part is obvious. Jews are paranoid. You look at a Jew wrong and you just like those people who threw them in the ovens. They spend most of their lives all revved up about what their enemies trying to do them and how they are poor, pitiful victims. That’s a Hell of a way to live your life.

The young Jewish men Rothman saw were very angry at US society. Most of their rage focused on WASP’s. Coded, that means White Christians. Traditionally, WASP’s were the ruling class in the US, but that has probably not been true for a long time if we speak of mere White Anglo Saxon Protestants. The US ruling class for some time now has consisted of all White Christians. They were full of rage and hatred for WASP’s and harbored an extreme desire to get revenge on the WASP’s that had supposedly been holding the Jews back. So here you can maybe see the antagonistic position that a lot of Jews take towards White Christians.

Jews scream all the time about how wonderful all the non-Whites are, especially Blacks and Hispanics, but they won’t be caught dead living within 10 miles of any of them. But if we complain about crime, litter, or graffiti, we’re evil racist scum, and we need to get canceled.

Cancel culture was started by the Jews. So was Identity Politics. The Jews are the original Identity Politics group.

This above is raw, naked hypocrisy. They scream at us for being racists for complaining that some Black guy stole our car. They won’t shut up about how evil and racist White Christians are. But they won’t live anywhere near these minorities because they know full well how crime-prone they are and all of the pathologies that typically follow large numbers of these people.

So our countries all get flooded with non-Whites and non-Christians for the benefit of the Jews and the detriment of the White Christian sons and daughters of the land. Why? Because that’s good for the Jews.

But we’re all Nazis so we deserve it.

And Israel gets to be one of the most racist countries on Earth because…? Because why? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! See what hypocrites they are? Anti-racist, White-hating fanatics in the Diaspora hypocritically proclaiming their love of all non-Whites whom they disdain so much that they won’t even live near them. And in Israel, they’re as racist as a Southern cracker in the 1950’s. Why? Because that’s good for the Jews.

See how they think? Everything’s all about them. It’s all about what’s good for them. If it’s good for them, we have to do it, no matter if it’s bad for everyone else, no matter that it’s in direct contradiction to whatever they’re pushing on the other side of the world. What if we all went through life maximizing what’s good for us? It wouldn’t be a very pretty world.

Alt Left: TThe SJW Left Is the Fake Left

As long as few Americans die, Americans don’t care what sort of terrible things we do overseas. It doesn’t matter how many people we kill. It doesn’t matter how many countries we destroy. It doesn’t matter how much money and oil we steal. It doesn’t matter how much land or countries we illegally occupy. The American people strike me as a rather depraved bunch.

The thing is that if you discuss all the terrible things our military does overseas, most people throw a block up. Most people believe US foreign policy and the behavior of the US military is 100% pure good fighting against 100% pure evil. I can hardly get one person, even a “liberal Democrat,” to criticize US foreign policy or the army.

And some of these people are fanatical SJW’s. So you see most SJW fanatics support full-blown US imperialism, bombing, destroying, killing, stealing, conquering, occupying, bullying, menacing, the whole nine yards.

One more reason that the SJW movement is fake. It’s not even the Left. It’s the fake Left. You think 1% of those woke SJW corporations is even 1% progressive on anything important like US foreign policy, US imperialism, and economics? Get real! They’re rightwing as Hell on all of those issues.

So the SJW Left isn’t even doing any good. And it’s probably dividing the workers because all people labeled as oppressors – Whites, men, straights, cis people, nationalists – tend to go rightwing because they Left is demonizing them and calling them oppressors.So the SJW’s are like a gigantic rightwinger manufacturing facility. They’re a factory that churns out conservatives by the boatload. Congratulations!

I will show you how the SJW Left is the Fake Left.

No Communist country ever called a certain race or ethnic group of the country oppressors and singled them out.  There has never been one anti-White or anti-European Communist country anywhere on Earth, though South Africa comes close. Still, the South African Communist Party doesn’t run the country and the ANC is just another rightwing party by now. But South Africa is the only place on Earth that a White-hating Left has come into power.

No Communist country ever demonized men or masculinity, nor did they attack men for the crime of trying to get laid. Sex was seen as a healthy drive between male and female workers. There has never been one anti-male Communist country on Earth.

No Communist country ever demonized straight people. In fact, most were very conservative, and in most places, homosexuality was made illegal as a bourgeois vice.

Needless to say, no Communist country ever demonized cis people and exalted trans people as the best thing since sliced bread.

 Alt Left: Identity Politics Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

 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 possible mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the antiracism 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.

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

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. There’s 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 gaybasher hiding in every bush. It’s enough to drive you nuts.

Alt Left: Black Identity Politics: Dialogue with an “Antiracist” Black

Dialogue with an “Antiracist” Black

– Those crackers are harassing you? I’m sorry. I’m keeping out of this crap. I ain’t joining that mob.

– But wait, hold on. It’s not ok just to not harm us Blacks. Silence is violence! You’re a fencesitter. Fencesitters are all on the other side. You have to pick sides. Us or them and if you ain’t risking your ass with us, you’re obviously an enemy spy!

– Whoa! I better tone down my queasiness around you Blacks. I’m hurting your feelings. How would I like it? But I  get no credit. I wipe my mind free of preconceptions, and meet Blacks with an open heart.

– Gong! Not good enough.

– You forgot to attack your microaggressions!

– WTH? I don’t even know what they are!

– I don’t have time to educate you. My job is to chide you like a mother to a five your old. Next time I see your White ass, you better have bug sprayed all these microaggressive midges that hover around you!

– Ok, ok. I got out a magnifying glass, and saw a bunch of racist gnats hanging around me and using me as a base to attack local Blacks. I got out the Raid can and Shoah’d them all. To the flying specks, I’m Richard Speck! Ha ha!

– Hi, my Black friends. Think you can relax now? You can talk to me without batting away swarms of no see ums! Can we be friends now?

– Nope! Sure your wiped your mind slate clean and consciously, you’re MLK in White skin. But that’s an illusion! Underneath all your brand new antiracist makeup, you’re still a Klansman!

– Whoa. How is that?

– Well, you’re a Klansman, but you can’t see that fact.

– Eek! What gives?

– Your night-riderness is lurking inside of you, but you can’t see even see it! It’s in your damned unconscious. And that only comes out at night, and you’re not conscious enough to deal with it.

– I guess I’m screwed to be permanently racist, huh, Trayvon?

– Oh no! Have no fear. We can provide a purgative for your evil racistness.

– Cool. How?

– Just give me $thousands$ of $dollars$ and attend my stupid seminar for six months where we will attack your unconscious racistness by telling you you’re fucked, and it’s never going away!

– Dude! Sounds like a con job. No way, man.

– You have to do it. Everybody at work has to do it. You want me to can your White ass? Submit, White man! Supplicate yourself at my Black feet. Kiss them, I said!

Repost: Frances Cress Welsing

This is an old post from, believe it or not, 10 years ago! The old post also had a lot of comments too. I’ve changed my views in the last 10 years, and I am now less “racist” (LOL) than I was in this post. Still I think it’s for the better. There’s something umcomely about my smirking and smug attitude towards the Black race in this post. I’d like to think I’m beyond that. What I would say now is that most Whites do not necessarily feel that we are superior to Blacks in general. We tend to regard Blacks on an individual level.

Nevertheless, we do see the average Black as existing on a somewhat lower basis than the average White. They are human of course, but they’re just not up there with us. Sort of the way that white collar workers somewhat look down on blue collar workers or how moneyed people look down on the poor. They may be perfectly nice people, but they’re just not on our level.

Now I for one don’t like this particular mindset, yet most Blacks I regard as inferior are decidedly that. They tend to be part of that ghetto culture. It’s an inferior culture that creates inferior human products. Not biologically inferior. Culturally inferior. And I’m not sure to what extent any of them are recoverable.

The recoverable ones are capable of two existences: a middle class one where they more or less conform to satisfactory values, and  ghetto one where they revel in the ghetto culture they apparently find so appealing. This is why the split between ghetto Blacks and middle class Blacks is somewhat false. Because so many Blacks are “floaters.” They float in between both ghetto and middle class cultures. They’re capable of either more or less, but one gets the feeling that they feel most at home in ghetto culture.

Because I feel bad about this, I’m always on the lookout for Blacks who I can see as being on my level. And I’m pretty generous about my endowing them with that trait.

Anyway, this post is good for seeing where my mind was at 10 years ago, and unfortunately, I’m sure many Whites think in exactly this same way. Not that this is such an evil racist way to think. It’s not. But it’s a little bit racist, and I for one think it’s a bit too much. Black people have a whole world of problems. Last thing we Whites need to do is hate them on and make everything all that much worse.

Frances Cress Welsing has written many a ridiculous thing in her career as a Black radical. God pray she is not a tenured academic somewhere. Here are a few. Check out the mouth-feel as you read over them. Scrumptious!

The color of White people is the result of leprosy and genetic inferiority and the ancestors of White people are the sexual partners of dogs and jackals. It took 600 years to breed them, part man and part beast. Hence is it any wonder that Whites lack true emotions in their creation? Is it any wonder that white people are never peaceful? Whites were only created to fight other invading races, to protect the God race of the Black man…

LOL.

White men give there women chocolate with nuts on Mothers day, so they can feel sexual equal to the Black man. You notice the way so many White males are homos? It’s because through anal intercourse, the sick self-debasing White male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is S**T. Do not take what I say lightly, this is the truth.

LOL wut.

You know something, silly Blacks? Most White guys don’t go around all the time being worried about Black guys and their big Black cocks.

Anyway, some of us White guys, like the author, are pretty big themselves, not that it matters, but still. I once had a Black woman tell me, in the midst of the frolics but before the penetration, “You’re pretty big, you know?” Her terrified eyes were as big as moons. I’ll take that compliment to the bank, hun. Really, how big do you need to be? I’m big enough for my own ego. Who needs more?

Most White guys think that White women who slut for big Black cocks are whores anyway. Many of us effectively throw them right on out of the White race. That’s punishment enough.

White guys? I hate to break it to you Black guys. We feel superior to you. You can argue on and on how this is racism, how it’s crap, how it’s really inferiority transposed as superiority, but still. We just think Black guys are inferior. On a group level, at worst, you’re animals. At best, you’re still below us. On an individual level that may vary, but we still often don’t feel that the individual Black guy is our better. A lot of us have residual racism that gets in the way of that.

That sucks but that’s how we feel, even White liberals. Sure, Black guys are better at some stuff, but nothing that’s important. Sure, White women dump us for Blacks, but those are women of the street, nothing more than silly whores who are being evicted from the Great Race. Who worries about whores?

A much better analysis is to see White Supremacy for what it is, not psychoanalyze it away with nonsense. Yeah! We think we’re better! Not just better than you Blacks, but better than everyone else on Earth! And we really, really do believe it, too.

All races are supremacist in a sense, ethnocentrism being what it is after all.

But there are a few races, like the European Whites (North Europeans worst of all) and the NE Asians (Japanese worst of all) who have a truly extreme sense of their superiority. They don’t just feel superior to those “wife-stealing bastards over the hill” as most tribes do, they actually feel better than most other humans on the planet! And they really believe it.

The consequences of Super-Supremacism are not good. That Germany and Japan, two ultra-supremacist nations, engaged in mass genocides recently is not incidental. It’s easy to kill the inferior, not much harder than stomping on bugs.

Blacks and humanist Whites have written whole libraries full of the harm that White Supremacy as an ideology has done especially to Blacks and to other non-Whites.

  • We think we’re better. This is the real problem. Discuss.
  • We don’t think we’re worse. This is a Black fantasy to avoid dealing with the painful reality of number 1, that the Black is the butt of jokes and the object of humiliation by Supremacist Whites.

Game/PUA: How the Patriarchy Oppresses Womyn: All Their Money’s for Them, and All Their Money’s for Them

I am womyn, hear me whore
In numbers too big to ignore

Variation on lyrics from a popular song by Helen Reddy, “I Am Womyn” 1971, long ago in another world.

From a comment from our illustrious co-blogger:

Alpha Unit: Biologists, anthropologists, and the like have written for a long time about the practice observed across animal species of giving nuptial gifts. From an article by the Royal Society:

“Nuptial gifts are widespread in the animal kingdom. Snails, squid, crickets, ladybirds, bedbugs, butterflies, fireflies, and humans have all been known to deliver gifts to their prospective mates in attempts to improve mating success.”

It is almost always the male of the species who presents the gift. Males seem to realize instinctually that sexual access is going to come at a cost to them.

As far as humans are concerned, I think women have evolved to expect or demand something in return for sexual access. As these anthropologists and others will tell you (and as we all can see), the burden of reproduction falls mainly on women. She’s the one who has to carry a child to term, deliver that child (sometimes at risk to herself), feed the child from her own body, and spend most of her day tending and watching over this defenseless child.

Giving a man sexual access was a huge deal for a woman, with the potential for a huge downside for her. I think women evolved to secure something from a man in exchange for it. And nothing has really changed. When a woman is sexually involved with a man, she naturally expects his favor, time, attention, help, resources, etc.

Some women are open about the transaction they’re making with a man. They specify right upfront that it’s his money they want. And plenty of men are okay with that!

“All women are whores” is a very blunt, crude way of acknowledging these things.

Typical woman. You’re defending it. But I believe you told me you don’t do this stuff? If it’s so great, why don’t you do it? You’re defending the scam because your tribe (the womyn) is making out like bandits on it.

My Mom defends it to the hilt too, even though she thinks whores are lowly, disgusting women, assuming they weren’t coerced into it. She also thinks they’re incorrigible. “You can take the womyn out of the whorehouse, but you can’t take the whorehouse out of the womyn,” is one of her favorite sayings. She also says the the prostitute with a heart of gold is a lie made up by Hollywood.

I told her that actual prostitutes, including porn stars, strippers, etc. were basically the worst women on Earth, and she nodded her head and said, “Well, of course.” 45% of womyn prostitutes are diagnosed psychopaths. If you ever get to know any prostitutes, you will understand what I mean. To me, a prostitute and a thief is more or less the same thing.

As a rule with humans, once a group of humans gets in on some sort of a scam, they defend it to the hilt. Almost all the Punjabis around here are high caste – jats or landowners. I’ve asked many of them about caste. As a general rule, all jats – nearly 100% of them – defend caste to the hilt. And why not? They’re making out like bandits on this scam. What’s funny is that caste has supposedly been declared illegal by the Indian government. Yet everywhere you go in India, there it is.

Nowadays they make just as much money as we do. But if we want to get laid, we have to give all our money to them. I they want to get laid, they had a pocketful of cash. Must be awful tough to be a womyn, huh?

All their money’s for them. All our money’s for them*. The evil patriarchy sure is oppressing those womyn!

Screw that noise.

I’m an older man and I’m supposed to have a bunch of money. I don’t, but maybe I’m an aberration. Anyway, I may well have more money and resources than a young woman. I’ve dated young women aged 18 and 19 recently who had no car, no money, no real job, and no place to live other than their parents’ house. Neither knew how to drive a car. We would go out to eat or for coffee and I always paid for everything. On the other hand, there was a 40 year age difference between us and they didn’t have a dime. And I did have more resources than they did. I had my own place and a car at the very least. And I knew how to drive.

I don’t mind the idea of an older man with resources sharing some of them with a very young woman just starting out in life who doesn’t have a nickel.  That’s just socialism, the people with money sharing it with the people who don’t. Also with a 40 year age gap, I’m aware I’ll probably be paying at least some money. I’m willing to  pay for dates, but $400/week? “Give me $100 so I can buy a new outfit?” Hell with that. I can buy a real whore cheaper than that instead of a pale imitation who doesn’t even know what she’s doing in bed.

Are you familiar with the Ache? Primitive tribe in Paraguay living in the Chaco, a near uninhabitable region of nasty jungle. In the 1950’s, they were still living primitive lives and had had barely any experience with civilized life.

There were no STD’s. Everyone screwed everyone, all the time. Note that the prior two sentences may be connected.

Mom typically had a few kids by her 30’s, usually from a few different men. I’m not aware if they had any abortifacients. All of the different men helped raise all of the kids. None of the kids was the slightest bit damaged by being raised by a single Mom or not particularly knowing or caring who his father was. Of course all of the men helped raise the kids, so it’s not like there wasn’t a father around.

But I’m not sure about the best family environment being one man and one woman in a family structure. Maybe a village can raise a child after all. However, notable attempts by socialists and Communists to destroy the family structure in kibbutzes and communes in the USSR in the 1920’s and in Israel didn’t seem to work very well for whatever reason.

Couples would take off and go into the jungle to have sex all the time. Adultery was commonplace. Monogamy was rare. None of the women charged the men a nickel for sexual access.

*To be clear though, in recent years, women my age haven’t charged me at all, and in fact some of them even paid my way everywhere because they had more money that I did. But that never lasts long. And recently women my age (60’s) don’t demand money. I had a date with a 63 year old woman a few weeks ago, and she insisted on buying her own coffee. They usually insist on paying their own way for some reason. I guess when you can’t really sell your body anymore as it’s past its sell-by date, a lot of womyn quit charging.

Alt Left: Repost: The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so. They left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Maori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the beef was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. The Morioris gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason.

The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

Morioris were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide. From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive.

Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

Alt Left: Why It’s Hard for Non-Whites to Insult White People

You see, we Whites have a dirty secret. An evil secret. Deep inside, we are rather evil. It doesn’t come out much, but it lurks in all us.

And here it is.

We are not insecure. We are not worried. We can’t be insulted.

Why?

Because other races insulting us is laughable! Call us names all you want. Call us cavemen. Call us albinos. Call us devils. We don’t give a damn because you’re not hurting our feelings.

You are not hurting us because deep down inside – and here’s where the evil part come in – we Whites secretly think we are better than a lot of the other races.  You see, we already think we’re Kings of the Hill, deep down inside, even if it only comes out rarely and remains hidden most of the time. A lot of us walk around most of the time dealing with non-Whites and thinking “I am no better than this person merely because of my race.” I see groups of non-Whites and I think “I am no better than any of those people due to my race.”

Whether this attitude is fake or not, I am not sure. I can tell you that sadly I have to force it on myself a lot because a lot of the time my mind simply defaults to White Superiority. Not White Supremacy because I don’t think Whites are better than all other races. I believe there are races superior to us. This does not bother me one bit. In fact, I am perfectly happy that they are better than we are.

But I would not want to be them. I still want to be my race, even if it is somewhat inferior to a few other groups. Superiority and inferiority doesn’t matter to me. Anyway I find my mind defaulting to Superiority a lot, and then I have to force myself to think that those people are the equal of me. It’s a lot easier to do if they don’t behave like they are inferior. The more they act like they’re inferior, the harder it is to convince myself that they’re not.

I’m not going to say how I feel about Black people deep down inside. I try to feel like they are on the same level as I am, but with ghetto Blacks that is hard to do because they act like they are inferior and it’s hard to fool myself into thinking that they’re not. But I do not see individuals or groups of Blacks and think they are inferior to me necessarily. I take each individual in stride.

If I see three Black university professors discussing something, I assure you I will not think they are inferior because they are Black. That’s crappy. That’s being a bad person. And I have strong morals and a guilty conscience. If I meet an Hispanic attorney, like Hell I will think he’s inferior because “he’s a Mexican.” I don’t do that.

Other races hating on us is laughed off because when they do that, we Whites will always shift to White Superiority mode and see them as pathetic inferiors laughingly trying to insult superior people which is just about the lamest thing on Earth. We are just sitting back on our well-deserved White thrones, glass of wine in one hand, bunch of grapes in the other, members of our harem on each side of us, laughing our asses off at these subjects, these servants, these pathetic peasants and serfs, could possibly thing they are superior to the King of all Kings, our great White race.

Alt Left: The Difference Between Blacks and Whites Is There are Far More Bad Blacks Than Bad Whites

Yes, there are bad Whites, but there are not a lot of them.We all know there are scums amongst us. Except in the White community, someone like that usually gets a punch in the face. Or he gets his property damaged. Or gunshots in his window. Or a ton of menace and threats.  He goes out in town and people  confront him on the streets, walk up to him, try to start a fight with him, and literally order him out of town. The cops find out about it, don’t get involved, and seem to say, “He’s a scum. Go ahead and run his ass out of town. One less POS we have to deal with.”

Word travels fast among Whites. I would meet people who I had never met before, who would come up to me, and say, “Hey, Bob.” I’d look at them like, “Who the Hell are you?” Some of them were cops. How did they know my name? I’d meet people and they’d say, “You don’t know us but we know you. We’ve been watching you for years, five or ten years. We like you too. We went to some of your parties but you don’t recognize us.”

Also the White community polices its bad actors.

The Black community fails to set standards for behavior or sets them ridiculously low. It gladly tolerates minor shittiness that would get you a knuckle sandwich in Whiteville.

Like ripping people off for $5-15. Ghetto Blacks do this all the time. If you let them, they will take you for more, up to $50-80.

The ones who ripped me off were all Black women because Black men are so scary I mostly just don’t deal with them. But being a pig who screws anything that moves and thinks a lot of Black chicks are hot, of course I’ve dealt with Black chicks most of my life because I’m trying to fuck them. Duh.

They have a pretty damn poor track record. They were 5-10X more likely to steal from me than White women. White women don’t really rip you off. It’s considered to be low, literally “acting like a nigger.”

Whites don’t like to be called niggers or be told they act like niggers. And if you act bad enough, that is exactly what people will call you. You will essentially be evicted from the White race and be told you are Black.

We don’t care what you look like. You act like a Goddamned ghetto nigger, so that’s what you will be called. Niggers come in all races.

You will be told, “Leave this town and go to Detroit where you belong.”

Usually scumbag Whites who act very bad in our communities are White lowlifes who just so happen to typically be White trash trailor park types who are usually quite racist. Way more racist then the rest of the town calling him a nigger. Well, racist Whites really hate being called niggers. Them’s fighting words. They look like they will murder you when you call them that. It’s their ultimate raw nerve designed to push them over the edge: calling them niggers. So of course that is what these Whites precisely get called, just because we know they hate it that much.

White policing seems to work. The community polices itself. The Black community does not police its own. It sets very low bars for behavior and lets other Blacks get away with shit that you would get your ass kicked pretty quick in Whitetown.

You stole $15? First of all that’s pathetic, and you are truly being a nigger by stealing a petty amount of cash. If we get ripped off for a good amount, of course we hate you but we get it. It was worth it to grab your $240. In a way you admire them because at least the crime was understandable. And a lot of Whites will almost respect you for a good burn.

You showed us up. You shamed us. You showed us just how stupid we were. In the future we have to act smarter and quick being such chumps and marks. In that odd way, Whites get more furious about getting ripped off for $20 than for $200.

You go around Whiteville stealing $5-25 here and there on a regular basis, and you’re going to get hit. Punched. In the face. “Get the message, bitch? Knock it off!”

Blacks don’t do this. They act like this is normal behavior so amongst these Blacks you have all these sleazy people who think ripping you off for $5-25 is perfectly normal behavior and you are the jerk for getting mad about it. There’s no policing. It’s regarded as normal, like walking down the street.

The White Community Polices Its Own

A guy was going around ripping off us drug dealers and we got together and slashed all his tires. Then we engaged in nonstop phone terrorism against his home. Then we made a bomb and put it on his car and blew the Hell out of his windshield.

As if that weren’t enough, a bunch of other folks who he also ripped off went over to his car in his apartment complex garage in the middle of the night and somehow turned his car literally upside down! So when he came down to get in his VW bug the next morning, he saw a car that was literally sitting on its head with his wheels in the air. LOL! How the Hell do you remedy a situation like that?

The guy was a cocaine addict. Well, that was his excuse. He was really a Goddamned psychopath. He went around to all us dealers and got us to front him ounces of weed. $60 apiece back then. He nailed me for two.

Then he would take them, sell them for cocaine, hole up in some rat-hole motel in San Fransisco, and put a needle into his vein. When he came back, his attitude was, “Hey, fuck all of you. Sorry, I’m a cocaine addict and I can’t help being a thief. None of you are getting any of your money back. By the way, I did nothing wrong and of course we still friends even though I literally stole from you. And about the weed I stole? You’re never getting paid back. That’s the way of the world. Oh, and tough shit if you don’t like it. By the way, I’m an addict and I can’t help it. Ha ha.”

Well, we dealers were hopping furious at him because we were not used to being ripped off. Most of us never fronted because everyone is your best friend and would never rip you off and deserves a front and of course will pay you back except it’s not true. You get away with it for a while if you vet your friends well and act like you will murder them if you don’t the money. A little terror works wonders.

Problem is you can’t vet psychopaths. This guy, we had no idea he was a psychopath because it only came out in the context of drug addiction. But we thought he was being a huge ass even if he was an addict. “You’re an addict? So what! Pay for your dope, asshole. All the other addicts do!

But he was special so he got to steal, and ha ha, you can’t get him back neener neener. By the way, we’re still friends, right? God, the arrogance!

He looked me straight in the face and said, “Bob, I swear to God I will pay you back.” I’m good at reading people. I looked him hard straight in the face and sized him up. He saw me do it and straightened his back. “I swear to God, Bob.” I’ve literally known this guy like a good friend since, what? 7th grade? 1969? Here he is, it’s 1986, and he’s asking me to front him. I’ve known him for 17 damned years. I trust him, in part because of that.

Problem is psychopaths are chameleons. They look you straight in the face, and you gaze hard into their eyes, and you think, “There’s no possible way this guy could be lying to me. I know what a liar looks like, and this ain’t it.” He looks like a completely honest person. So you trust him, he fools you and he burns you. And that’s how psychopaths roll. And it’s how they’re so good at what they do.

Alt Left: Non-Whites: Please Culturally Appropriate Us Whites

Non-Whites and Especially Black People: Please Best Us, Show Us Up, Beat Us, Cause Us to Lose While You Win, and Culturally Appropriate Our White Asses All You Want

I don’t care how many Black people in this country want to start acting like White people. Y’all are free to act like us all you want. I won’t scream cultural appropriation. And it won’t worry me if you are spending more time with us.

Hence I would like to officially encourage as many Blacks in America as possible to talk, act, walk, and drive like Whites as much as we do or even moreso for that matter.

Try to best us. And do it all to get back at us.

Get back at our cracker asses by getting an advanced degree and besting your White peers. Please keep using and stealing our achievements. Even better, take our achievements and products and make them better. All just to show us up and get back at us.  Beat us. Outcompete us. Buy a bigger home than ours. Get a better job than we have. Make more money than our lazy asses do. Raise your kids better than we do to our rugrats.

And do it all to get us back for all the shitty racist stuff we peckerheads subjected you to.

Game/PUA: People Are Kinky, Perverted, and Sexually Weird as Hell

Black Women Who Are Going “White Cock Only”

My observation is that Blacks who get involved with Black Identity Politics don’t seem very happy. They seem pissed off and angry a lot of the time and many see Whites as their enemy.

I also met Blacks who had abandoned Black Identity Politics, more or less said the Hell with my race, and started liking White people a lot, identifying with them, trying to act like them, befriending them, refusing to see them as enemies.s

They never talked about racism against Blacks and said they didn’t experience it much because they loved White people too much. Some openly despised what they called ghetto Blacks and were going for White men because they were disgusted with the fucked up, criminal, ghetto men of their race. I’ve met a number of Black women like this from age 19 to age 47. Many of them were officially “White Cock Only.”

There was a sexual fetishization aspect to a lot of it. A Black guy who loved Whites was talking about fixing me up with his fat-assed bitch of a wife who he described as very racist against Whites, something that made him mad at her because this guy absolutely loved Whites, admired us, and saw us as role models.

To get her back or maybe punish her, he wanted to see her get fucked by a White man.

Sort of like some White might be annoyed at some racist White woman and want to see the bitch get fucked by some Black guy as punishment for being such a racist, hating bitch.

I know this sexual aspect seems weird and fucked up with aggressive and vengeance, and payback overtones, but trust me, a lot of people are all mixed up in exactly this way about sex and for women a lot of sex is mixed up with hate for the men who fuck them.

There is this whole fetish of women wanting to get fucked by guys they absolutely despised, liberal White guys wanting to get liberal women get cucked by asshole Trump MAGA assholes, liberal and even Communist women seeking out fascists, Proud Boys, Trump supporters, and MAGA dicks who they hate more than any other people in order to get fucked by the people they hate the most.

I know that seems weird and fucked up, but you have no idea how many people, especially women, are all perverted and fucked up sexually like this. When it comes to sex, don’t expect anyone to be sane! Especially the women. Humans are weird as fuck all when it comes to sex and you would not believe how many normal seeking people are incredibly weird, fucked up, sick, kinky and even perverted in bed.

If you knew them on the street and someone told you that, you would say no way is that true because it’s completely against this “totally normal and not weird sane person” persona you see when they are out of bed. As long as they are out of bed, they are pretty sane but once they get in bed and get sexual, they’re weird, insane, and fucked up as fuck-all.

Basically as far as I am concerned, humans are perverted!

Alt Left: Black Identity Politics Seems to Actually Be Bad for Black People

Onebelowall: On a side note Robert, do you think many American blacks carry a victim mentality that is irritating to you?

Unfortunately, most of them do just that. It’s very unappealing but it’s understandable why they feel that way. It’s hard to admit that your race is fucking up on purpose or can’t get its shit together for some reason.

I wish Blacks would stop identifying with their race. Are you a respectable, accomplished, polite Black woman? Good! We’re not talking about you when we bitch about Blacks. It ain’t about you, honey! We’re talking about all those others of your race that aren’t like that. But see? That real nice, polite, respectable, decent Black woman over there? She’s identifying with those ghetto animals. The good Blacks identify with ghetto Blacks. “They’re my people!”

No they’re not. I wish the Blacks who have their shit together and are decent people would just stop seeing themselves as primarily Black. You’re a Black woman? No, you’re not! You’re a woman, dammit. Just an ordinary woman like all the rest of them. Yeah, you happen to be Black, but so what? Why is that so important? What difference does it make? You’re a woman who just so happens to be Black, and the fact that you are Black doesn’t have a damn thing to do with anything. So quit identifying with it!

See? It’s hard for decent Blacks to say, “I am Black.” It feels shameful because they’re identifying with a group that fucks up so much when the good Blacks don’t have anything to do with that behavior! Yet they feel compelled to defend it.

Stop! Try something different. Instead of saying, “I am Black,” say, “I am a woman!” There. Now doesn’t that feel a lot better? Women aren’t a screw-up problem race that fucks up all the terrible, acts awful, causes a ton of crime, is rude, impolite, crude and mean, and who act and often are stupid. Women aren’t even a race at all. They’re a gender.

Women aren’t any of those things! You can’t think of a lot of terrible things to say about women because women are pretty much ok. So identify with the group that’s got it’s shit together and is pretty much an ok group of folks. That takes the weight off your shoulder of having to identify with a bunch of bad actors when you don’t even act that way yourself!

You’re a Black man? Like Hell you are! You’re a man, just like me, him, and all the rest of us. You are part of the society of men, and that is where your primary allegiance lies. You’re one of the boys! You’re part of our gang, provided you like Whites that is.

When you say, “I am Black,” you are identifying with a fuck-up race, in particular with the men of that race who act much worse than the women, as is the case with most ethnic groups.

Men act bad. White men act bad. But not real bad. Not too bad.

Compared to that, Black men act horrendous, and frankly they are one of the most problematic groups of humans on Earth.

So you’re a Black guy who acts good, is nice, polite, and decent, stays out of jail, and doesn’t fuck up in life. You’re like a typical White guy except you’ve got some dark skin. If you act good, why do you want to identify with all these fuckups who act awful? You don’t even act awful yourself! Your behavior is just fine.

So quit seeing those fuckups as part of “my group.” If it’s hard for a Black woman to say she’s Black, it’s nine times harder for a Black man to say he’s Black. You have to take responsible for a whole shitload of pure awfulness. You are identifying with the worst behaved group of people on Earth. Except possibly Gypsies. Don’t forget the Gypsies! Gypsies are so horrible they make Blacks seem like Norwegians and Japanese. I see Gypsies and I think, “Thank God we just got Blacks! They cause issues but we can deal. It could have been worse. Instead of Blacks, we could have gotten Gypsies!

So quit identifying with them! Instead of saying, “I’m a Black man,” say, “I’m a man! Just like that White guy over there. We’re all the same. We’re just a bunch of guys.”

Doesn’t it feel so much better to say, “I’m a man” than to say “I’m Black?” Who cares if you’re Black anyway? Why is that even important?

When you say, “I’m a man,” you look out there at the entire world of men, and most of us pretty damn good. And even when we fuck up and act bad, most of us don’t act that bad, and even when we do, we usually don’t act that bad (we’re mostly just being rebels or trying to act hard)and as a man, you can identify with some of that IDGAF and bad boy behavior.

Repost: Alt Left: Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Repost from the old blog. Interesting stuff.

Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels. Groups with the highest testosterone in the world today are primitive agriculturalists.

Hunter-gatherers tend to have lower testosterone. This is because in hunter-gatherer society, women need men to survive. So they  grab one pretty quickly and get married.

In primitive agricultural societies, women do not need men, since they can farm on their own. So they can afford to be choosy. These societies have tended to develop in a polygynous way, where a few high-ranking males monopolize most of the females, and the rest of the guys get none. It’s kind of like high school, except it keeps going for your whole life.

Sub-Saharan Blacks are highly polygynous, and this resulted in intense competition for fewer women and selection for very robust male body types. SS Blacks are more robust than Whites on all variables. In Namibia, the polygynous Kavango have much higher testosterone than the much less polygynous !Kung.

Young Black males have higher levels of active testosterone than European and Asian males. Asian levels are intermediate to Blacks and Whites, but Asians have lower levels of a chemical needed to convert testosterone to its active agent, so effectively they have lower levels. Androgen receptor sensitivity is highest in Black men, intermediate in Whites and lowest in Asians.

US Blacks have the highest rate of prostate cancer on Earth, and the levels in African Blacks may be just as high.

Blacks do not retain high testosterone throughout life.

Blacks have much higher testosterone levels than Whites from age 7-24. After 24, the difference starts shrinking, and by the early 30′s, it is gone. In later years, White men have higher testosterone than Black men. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to explain differing behavioral variables, including higher rates of crime and aggression, in Black males over the age of 33 on the basis of elevated testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. High testosterone results in lower IQ in males but better fighting and mating skills. Interestingly, the black male IQ is 83 and black female IQ is 87.

By the same token, Black females earn 99% of what White females earn when they are employed, implying either than White racism is minor in the US against Black females, or whatever racism exists is being effectively countered by diversity goals, affirmative action and whatnot.

Testosterone is an interesting hormone. A little extra testosterone makes a man – good visuospatial skills, etc. Lots of extra testosterone is too much of a good thing – it lowers IQ.

In the UK, young Black females have higher IQ’s than young Black males. However, Black females also have higher testosterone than White females.

Black boys’ exposure to high testosterone begins in the womb. Black mothers’ wombs have higher testosterone, and this feeds to the fetus.

Assuming that higher Black testosterone levels are a causative agent in Black crime, aggression and lowered IQ, experimental interventions could be tried: two pills – first one pill to lower testosterone to Black fetus’s brains by 20%, and possibly another pill to lower Black infant testosterone by 20% – could be beneficial. Such an intervention could possibly raise Black male IQ and decrease Black male crime.

Of course, in our insane PC anti-racist society, such interventions are banned now and forevermore as “racist.”

Alt Left: The World the Deep State Creates: Where Reality Is Fiction, Fiction is Reality, and Hundreds of Millions are Dangerously Mentally Ill

There’s Actual Reality, which we don’t see a lot of, but at least when we do, we know it’s real, or we think we do.

And then there’s the Fake Reality created by the Deep State and the West with the connivance of the media where things happened that never occurred, things that happened never did, where things that happened in one way actually happened in another, where the people who did things are not the real people who did them but patsies instead, where there are fake guilty parties for fake events for fake victims killed by fake substances they were never exposed to.

Where there are calls for trial and punishment of people who were framed for things they did not do, where victims are directed to the wrong perpetrators and urged to attack them, where public opinion is stirred and aroused by what boils down to a pile of fakery.

Or a Hollywood movie. Or a book. Or a TV show. The stuff that happens there isn’t real. The Deep State, the media and the West create a fake reality that is like a movie or a book, a fictional reality, and they overlay it on top of actually existing reality, so we think the movie or book or fictional world is the real thing.

What this boils down is that they are making it so we can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality, lies and truth, reality and unreality, existence and nonexistence, guilt and innocence, dreams and waking reality. What you end up with is a human that is a bundle of wild confusion that barely knows its ass from a hole in the ground because they’ve been brainwashed so thoroughly.

This is an easy object to mold for all sorts of other nefarious projects where you can pump new lies into these subject’s heads and get them aroused and agitated about new fictional worlds, while pointing at the real world, saying it’s not real, and saying that everyone who figures out that the real world is real is a mentally ill conspiracy theorist. This has the disturbing effect of labeling anyone who can tell reality from fiction as mentally ill, paranoid, and deranged. The only way to be sane is to say fiction is reality and reality is fiction. In other words, the only way to be “sane” in such a world is to be crazy!

And if you try to “go sane” and get away from the mass psychosis you are thrown into, you get the ultimate gaslighting, reputation and career destruction, ridicule, etc.

This is truly a world turned upside down. It’s Wonderland. A whole lot of stuff out there you think is real isn’t even there at all. And a whole lot of stuff you laugh and say isn’t out there is sitting right in front of your nose.

It’s the creation of mass mental disorder, delusion, and psychosis on the level of hundreds of millions of people at once, all with the same symptoms, and then giving militaries mass weaponry to blow things up and kill lots of people based on what are psychotic delusions. So hundreds of thousands of people die because hundreds of millions of people in the West are delusional and threw bombs at these people when they were in the midst of a full blown psychosis.

The West ends up being, in effect, not just mentally ill but dangerously mentally ill. Or criminally mentally ill. Those are the most disturbed criminals of all. In California they go to Atascadero. Whole societies are dangerously and criminally mentally ill and attack hundreds of thousands of innocent people due to crazy ideas in their heads. Most of the West ends up deserving to be locked away for life in Atascadero with John Hinkley, Arthur Brenner, and the rest of the crazy maniacs.

Alt Left: Paranoia, or How the Deep State Works

Basically, if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers! Follow?

Say in the Beirut blast, the wrong questions would be endless questions about the nature of the fertilizer that blew up, who left it there, who was negligent, or if you want to go full conspiracy theory, questions about the Hezbollah missile dump, how it got there, how it stayed so long without detection, where Hezbollah has other dumps, who they paid off, on and on.

Then onto analyses of the blasts and whether this is typical of fertilizer or missiles blowing up, endless comparisons of fertilizer blasts and ammo dumps or missile dumps blowing up, not to mention fireworks factory explosions because remember the first blast was a warehouse full of fireworks right next to the fertilizer.

Whether the Lebanese people realize how Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon with their missile dump going off, how this ties in to Lebanese state instability, to questions about needing new governments, to questions about shutting Hezbollah out of new governments due to missile dump negligence. To make matters worse, new questions suing the port authority of the Lebanese government for storing the fireworks, missiles or fertilizers without supervision, how we need to make these people for all the harm they caused, etc.

All of these questions are about things that never even happened! They’re about events in the Alternate Universe that the Western media creates about so much of what goes on in the world.

You are literally asking the wrong questions? You’re not asking any questions about what really happened. Instead you are asking about nonsense that never even happened? If you’re asking endless questions about nonsense, there’s not much need to care about the answers people come up with to their nonsensical questions. The questions are false, so the answers will be false too.

This is how paranoia (the real kind, that everyone needs to have), conspiracy theory (which is almost normative reality at this point), and the Deep State, which gets you asking the fake questions in the first place so they don’t have to worry about the answers work?

Remember that:

If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

One of the basic laws of Paranoia 101.