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

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

Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Family As Core of Venezuelan Society

Very nice comment here about how the whole of Venezuelan society is structured around a close-knit family unit. Actually, I have found that most of Latin America is like this, at least in the white and mestizo countries. It’s also true in Brazil. I really don’t how true it is in the Black Caribbean because I don’t understand that part of the world very well.

Please note that a stable father is typically not a part of the Venezuelan extended family! Yet society carries on anyway.

Manuel Rodriguez: I think that the stigma about labeling “momma boys” to men with an healthy attachment to their mothers might be mostly about western culture. We could also add the culture of individualism and the atomization and lack of relevance of blood families.

See, in Venezuela, we have a matrifocal system that is present in the majority of the popular class families. The father usually has little if any relevance on the stability and development of the family. The children might have other male models (usually other boyfriends of the mother), but their weight is still not significant.

Boys not only end up being raised mainly viewing their mother as the source of stability of the family, but she is literally the base of the family unit.

The families are “nuclear” in the sense that usually it will be two partners and children in a household, with the possibility of grandparents and grandchildren. But there is a good connection with those you consider to be part of the family. You can go stay with your relatives at their home without any problems as long as you behave yourself, say if you have to travel somewhere near where they live to study or do some other business.

There is the “family welfare” where families usually have the responsibility of giving medicine, food, and money to their relatives in need. This has been present for as far back as anyone can remember, but during the pandemic, this system has been of vital importance for the survival of the Venezuelan people. This is in contrast to countries like Spain, where families simply dropping their elderly on nursing homes ended in tragedy when the pandemic hit those places.

Other thing is that Western countries, specially Anglos, view the family as having a very limited role in the lives of adults.

The family is seen as composed of a nuclear family of two spouses and their immediate children. Apparently, they are expected to be independent and disconnect from their raised family as soon as they turn 18. They may interact occasionally with their immediate family sometimes, but they are otherwise expected to depend on themselves and don’t get much help.

The cultural expectations in other cultures in the world usually are that children are to stay in the family household until they either get married or end up financially secure enough to live independently without issue.

In said cultures the extended family is considered part of the basic family unit. You are also expected to help and give support to any family member that is in need.

This is strengthened when there is a mentality of collectivism or tribalism of sorts, as usually those who are connected to the bloodline are part of the tribe.

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

Old post still getting posted around…

Seriously? writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is very interesting about that poll.

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

It doesn’t make any sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different Types of Child Pornography: Under 13 (Kiddie Porn) and 13-17 (Teen Porn)

Teenage girl CP is completely different from the little kiddie kind.

First of all, most people would not be freaked out seeing teenage girl porn. In many cases, they would probably assume it was legal because it doesn’t look any different from adult porn. Even where they obviously not 18, it doesn’t have that creeptastic shock factor that throws you out of your seat. Also even in those cases, the girls have an adult sex drive (which makes all the difference), and they typically look like they are enjoying themselves.

So who’s harmed by this stuff? The typical argument is that child porn is “the record of a crime.” That’s not controversial, but if so, why aren’t videos showing murder and beheadings illegal too?

Arguments against Child Porn (Pornography of Children under 13 or “Kiddie Porn)

  1. It is the record of abuse. In a lot of cases, that’s not even true, but in other cases, it is.
  2. By being out there and people possessing it, it creates more demand. I agree with that.
  3. The child is harmed every time someone downloads a photo of her CP. This seems dubious. What if she doesn’t even know it’s out there? Even if she does, does she get a notification every time someone downloads her movie? How does that work? If it gets downloaded 1,000 times, how is she anymore harmed than if it’s downloaded one time? She isn’t.
  4. The child did not consent to having their CP spread far and wide all over the Internet. I’m sure that’s true in most cases, so that’s quite a violation, one that can follow the child until adulthood if they know their CP is still floating around out there.
  5. The more pedophiles look at this stuff, the more it arouses them to actually molest. That’s not a good argument and the limited studies we have shows that legal CP makes rates of molestation go down.
  6. A lot of this stuff is not consensual but forced or coerced. That’s a good argument, but would videos of a rape also be illegal. How about videos of a murder? But that kid should be protected from having his abuse put out there for everyone to see. No argument there.
  7. This stuff is just weird, freaky, and gross. I would certainly agree there. If you’ve ever seen this stuff, there’s a yuck factor involved that’s hard to put into words.
  8. The victim was a kid when it happened, kids need to be protected from having crimes committed against them broadcast for all to see, and the depiction of the crime is against the law in the first place. You’re not allowed to take pictures of this crime, while you probably could of most other crimes. This is an argument to show how the photographing of the crime of child molestation is different from the photographing of other serious crimes, such as battery, homicide, etc. Also the others are adults and presumably they could handle their victimization being out there better than a kid could.

What about Teen CP?

Almost all of the above arguments fall apart when you talk about teen CP. Show me one argument that still holds up when we apply it to teens.

  1. It is the depiction of a crime, typically statutory rape. Sure we can photograph other crimes, but this is one crime we cannot photograph because photographing this crime is illegal itself.
  2. It’s yucky, awful, and horrible – it’s upsetting to the senses. The yuck factor argument here falls apart because I imagine a lot of doesn’t even look yucky. Does it look any different from “barely legal” porn out there? Probably not. Even where they look underage, though it does look weird and somewhat disturbing to me, it’s not on the same level as real CP, which almost flings you out of your chair when you see it.
  3. Although most of this activity is probably consensual, some may be forced. Now we get into the argument of whether videos of rapes would be legal. But once again, this is one crime we are not even allowed to photograph, whereas we can photograph just about any other crime, I assume.
  4. If men looked at teen CP, this would arouse them to go out and have illegal sex with teens. That’s dubious, and it’s not the end of the world even if it does happen. In European countries, the age of consent is 14 or 15, and there’s no epidemic of older men hanging out outside high schools to prey on the girls. Nor is there much in the way of 14 and 15 year old girls having sex with older men. 15 year old French girls are capable to telling men to get lost. In other words, just legalizing something doesn’t necessarily increase the rate of it.
  5. The teen did not consent to having their porn all over the Net. Unfortunately, that’s probably not even true in most cases. In most cases, they probably made this stuff themselves as almost all of the teen CP out there is made by girls themselves and their boyfriends. Then they put it up on the Net and apparently don’t care if it goes far and wide, and it can’t go too far and wide anyway.
  6. The teen is harmed every time someone downloads the video. This suffers from the same flaw as the real CP argument, with the added factor that the girl probably doesn’t even feel harmed by the material in the first place as she produced it herself.
  7. By being out there and people looking at it, it creates more demand for the product. I’m not even sure that’s hard to prove because it teen CP doesn’t appear to be a commercial enterprise, probably because it’s so hard to tell it from real porn. Anyway there doesn’t appear to be much of a market for it anyway.
  8. Teen CP is the record of abuse. That’s probably almost never true unless it’s coerced and porn with adult women who were coerced would also be a record of abuse. There’s nothing “abusive” about adults having sex with teens.
  9. It is the record of a crime. Once again, why are homicides of beatings, homicides, presidential assassinations, etc. legal then? Those are records of crimes.

Good Arguments to Keep Teen CP Illegal (with Some Modifications)

I would not be opposed to teens having these photos and videos of each other. Millions of them already do and mostly nothing happens to them. All of the above arguments fall apart in the case of teens keeping porn of each other.

But then it should be restricted. I would say you can have it in your possession, but you can’t distribute it, say put it up on the Internet or sell or give away DVD’s of it. This would seriously limit the spread because how much can anything spread if it’s not on DVD or the Net? Hardly at all. But one thing I dread is going on the Porn Net and getting bombarded by offers to go to sites featuring 16 and 17 year old girls! Because as soon as you make that stuff legal, pornographers, being the sleazeballs that they are, are going to flood the Net within weeks with underage girls naked and soon enough in full hardcore porn.

If you put teen porn up on the Net for everyone to see for commercial purposes, you can and should go to jail. Most of this stuff is distributed in discreet networks that are hard to get to if you don’t know exactly where they are. Teen porn posted in these networks stays where it is. It’s almost all made by teenage girls themselves either alone or with their boyfriends. As long as it’s not spreading wildly to the wide-open web and staying on secretive channels, I don’t see the harm.

But how are you going to differentiate between keeping it on discreet channels and putting it out there for all to see? I have no idea. The main purpose of prosecution ought to be to keep teen porn off the Web in the sense that it is outside of the eyes and ears of your average person. You also need to keep it off of all large commercial, ad-supported, or porn video sites like PornHub. But how do you hold PornHub liable for teen porn it’s users put up there? You can’t. But where the girl is obviously not 18, you could make a case that PornHub should be liable if there is a complaint. You can’t expect them to sort through all the videos, but you can expect them to look at anything that generates complaints.

Society doesn’t want men approaching underage teen girls on the Net and trying to get photos and videos out of them. That the girls willingly hand this stuff out is no matter. This is just something society doesn’t like, along the lines of statutory rape. The penalties ought to be similar to statutory rape instead of CP. It’s hard to argue that having a video of a teenage girl having sex is 5-10X worse than actually having sex with her, but this is what the law will say. I’d want to make the penalties strict enough to deter men from doing this though.

What about adults in legal relationships with teens who have photos and videos of the teen, even in sex acts. It’s even harder to make an argument that this should be illegal or that it’s even CP. It’s legal to have with this girl every day for a year, but if you snap a picture of her naked, you get 10 years? That’s just getting weird. I suppose I would argue that the “personal possession ok, distribution illegal” argument ought to apply here. If it’s legal to have sex with a girl, it ought to be legal to take sex photos and videos of her for your own personal use. The law might require that you prove you were in a relationship with her.

Teens who take videos and photos of themselves is not really CP. There are people getting arrested for making sex photos and videos of themselves when they were underage. One man is on the sex offender list for possessing, when he was 21, a sex video of himself alone he made when he was 17. That’s just nuts. And putting girls in jail for making their own solo porn and keeping it on their drives is crazy.

As with so many sex laws, this issue runs up into all sorts of thorny issues and arguments that make little if any sense. It boils down an emotional revulsion towards this sort of thing and society’s decision to encode its revulsion in law. Many of the justifications for such laws fall apart when you analyze them. And justifications for some laws, for instance CP, change constantly, along with the definitions of it. The best policy is whatever protects the morals and norms of the majority while interfering with the privacy and individual rights of the potential criminal as little as possible.

Friend Knows a Woman’s Husband Who Went Down on Child Porn for Chatting Dirty with an Underage Teenage Girl

A commenter in the private group told about how the husband of a woman she knows got arrested for child porn and now he’s on a sex offender list. Apparently he was talking to one or more underage teenage girls online, and I guess they were sending pics back and forth and his wife found out and turned him in. It’s not really child porn to me. To me the only child porn is the yucky stuff with little children and adults. Gross. A teenage girl looks like a woman. Most men like to look at videos and photos of naked women either posing or doing sexual things. Videos or photos of teenage girls doing the same things probably wouldn’t look much different.

There is a technically illegal video up on the web. Some porn company in Florida shot it. A 15 year old girl lied about her age to do the shoot. It has stayed up on the web for some reason. I think they said 25 million people have watched it so far, so I wasn’t really worried. It was just typical porn, nothing too weird. The odd thing was that if I did not know that girl was 15, there is no way I would think she’s underage. She didn’t look 1% different from a lot of the young 18-19 year old girls in porn, and there are lots of them.

On the other hand, society doesn’t want us men looking at that stuff and it doesn’t want us men to exchange dirty photos and videos with underage teenage girls. The fact that it’s pretty normal behavior is irrelevant. Most crime is probably normal in the sense that it’s not nuts or crazy. We dislike crime not because it’s nuts or crazy but because we think it’s wrong, bad, evil, on and on. It’s a right and wrong, good and bad societal morals thing.

Society has a right to whatever reasonable morals it wishes to have, and not allowing adult men collect or trade pics with minor girls is a legitimate moral value for a society to have. Same with age of consent laws. Society has a right to put the age of consent for sex wherever it wants, anywhere from 14 in much of Europe to 18 in US federal law.

If people tried to set it higher than 18, I’d get mad because now society would be acting ridiculous. Below a certain age, different societies, states, nations, do not want us men messing around sexually with those girls. The fact it’s a normal aspect of male sexuality is irrelevant. As noted above, lots of “normal” behavior is against the law not because it’s nuts because it’s wrong. Society happens to think sex with men and girls below a certain age is wrong. We live in society. The age of consent in my state is 18 and I’m perfectly happy to obey that law and I have since age 21.

I think the AOC here is too high and it’s silly, but I still have to deal with society’s morals. If I violate society’s morals because I think they’re stupid, I might go to jail because society has decided that a lot of what it considers immoral, wrong, bad, or evil behavior should be against the law. This is why we have criminal codes.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for older guys going down on these stat rape crimes, though the sentences are bizarre, absurd, and almost cruel and unusual. I look at a guy like that and I think, “What an idiot. He knew it was against the law but he did it anyway all because he couldn’t control himself.” There are a lot of stupid things you can do that might land you in jail. The solution is not to do stupid shit that might put you behind gay bars.

About “Child Porn” Involving Teenage Girls

First of all, there has to be “lascivious display of the genitalia” or she has to be engaging in some sort of sexual behavior. Just nudity doesn’t cut it. If she’s standing naked in front of a mirror it’s probably legal. If she has her top off and is flashing her tits, it’s probably legal. Nevertheless, I still probably would not want to have that stuff on my drive, legal or not.

The crazy “child porn” laws change all the time and the definition of “child porn” increasingly whatever the Hell the FBI thinks it is at that moment. I think a lot of these convictions where people thought they were obeying the law but went down on this stuff anyway should be vacated. You can’t have vague laws that nobody knows the definition of. You can’t have crimes where the definition of the crime is always changing so you never really know if you’re breaking the law or not.

Nudist photos are legal. There are nudist sites all over the Net with adults and kids of all ages strolling around naked in the woods, at beaches, at pools. All perfectly legal.

As far as getting arrested for that stuff, you have to either know she was underage and you saved the material anyway (as in she told you how old she was) or else, looking at the material, there’s no way she could possibly be 18. If she doesn’t tell you her age and she could plausibly be 18, it’s basically legal.

I’ve had underage teenage girls come to me several times over the years wanting to trade pics with me. They tended to be 15-17. I’m not going to say what happened other than I ain’t keeping that crap on my drive. It’s probably also a bad idea to send nudes to those girls. I know they ask for them. You’ll probably get away with it, but you might not. I doubt if it’s worth it.

Most of the recent ones came to me on Kik. I was in some Younger Women for Older Men groups on Kik. I guess they see my pic in the members and decide to come talk. One came to me recently on Kik. A really hot 15 year old girl came to me a couple of months ago and wanted to trade pics. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. If she’s talking like that, good chance she’s not a cop because cops don’t send out pics. I knew she was 15, so told her I was afraid to do it because it was illegal, and she took off just like that. I felt like a pussy but at least I didn’t break the law.

Sometimes they just pop up and send me a pic with some text and then go away. I had one pop up recently and send me a message, “Me Daddy.” She’s nude standing in front of a mirror. I doubt it was CP. She was really hot. I tried to talk to her to ask her how old she was, but she went away. I looked at it for a while and concluded that while she was definitely on the young side, she could plausibly be 18, so I kept it. Really any 15-17 year old girl could plausibly be 18, so unless they can prove that you knew her age, it’s basically legal.

Below 15, things get really touch and go. Nudes and videos with 13 year old girls (or what look like them) just look “way too young.” How do I know? I’ve seen some that look to be about that age. And I ain’t putting any of that garbage on my drive either. When they’re that young, the stuff just looks illegal. Some idiot sent me a pic in a private chat son Kik the other day. I have no idea how old she was, but she was a young teenage girl, and I just got that “way too young” vibe off it. I didn’t save it and I blocked him right away. I was a bit pissed that he sent me that crap.

97% of all CP convictions are for material with minors under 13 having actual sex with adults. In other words, the really bad stuff. There are a ton of people collecting that – so many that there’s no way they can keep up with all of them. There are so many adult men collecting pics and videos of teenage girls 15-17 years old that the cops don’t have the time to waste going after those people, so most of these cases are ignored.

If they went after all the men who have teen stuff on their drives, the cops wouldn’t have time to do anything else, and they still wouldn’t make a dent in it. In the Black Cat Scans case (which was creepy stuff but the girls wore clothes) that site had 25 million unique visitors. That shows you how many men are looking at that stuff. The cops are going to arrest 25 million men? Really? That shows you the scope of the problem. The cops have to triage.

I’ve been in some Kik groups that were literally set up by underage girls themselves. I think one was 13 (but didn’t look it) and the other was 16. They just like to talk to grown men for whatever reason and they want the chat clean. I’ll stay in there a  bit but it starts to get a bit boring. Just some silly teenage girl talking about how school went that day or how she needs to lie down and take a nap. It’s more boring than anything else. They want the chat clean.

If you start talking about sex in there, they often shut the conversation down. And they don’t want dick pics. Some idiots send dick pics and the girls just throw them out of the room. I’m not sure what their agenda is except both are always posting cheesecake sexy photos of themselves in bathing suits or whatever. I think maybe they want to post sexy pics of themselves to get attention from men.

Every now and then, some joker posts something illegal in the group. Someone did a couple of months ago, a video. The girl running the group just said, “Way too young” and threw the guy out. It was a video of a couple of teenagers having sex, but there was no way that girl was 18, so it was illegal. I got the impression that the girl and her boyfriend made this video themselves and then put it on the web. I am hearing that more and more teens are taking porn videos of themselves when they’re having sex. It’s illegal but I doubt if they care, and 98% of them will never get caught.

Also there’s a lot of porn out nowadays that’s not just “barely legal” but they specifically choose adult women with childlike features and bodies so they look like underage teen girls. I think it’s lame myself because as far as females go, whatever the Hell age they are, I want them to look like a woman, not a girl. If she’s 15 and looks like a woman, she’s hot in my book. If she’s 18 and looks underage because she’s so childlike, I’m almost uncomfortable and creeped out by it.

I remember once I was having sex with this 18 year old Korean girl I picked up in LA. I’m not going to say what sort of sex we were having, but she had this curious delight about her her and she was looking at my cock with her eyes down right next to it like it was a cobra that was charming her into a trance. She acted so much like a “kid” even though she was of age that it honestly creeped me out, and for a while I couldn’t get it up. But later I did and it was all good. I still didn’t want to repeat the experience, and that was the only time I saw her. I almost felt like a pedophile having sex with her, and she was a grown woman!

I think there should be lower penalties for “teen girl porn” because let’s face it, it’s not really CP. And all of the arguments they make against CP, including the main one – that it is the depiction of a crime or the depiction of the abuse of a child – totally fall apart when it comes to photos and videos of teen girls.

Game/PUA: Sure, Men Like ‘Em Young, but How Young?

Warning: Long, 18 pages.

This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.

However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.

I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.

I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.

I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.

For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.

78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?

Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.

I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.

In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.

Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.

If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.

Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychological objection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.

About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.

Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.

I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.

Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.

As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.

On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.

Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.

I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.

In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.

By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.

I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.

The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late  teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?

Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.

In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.

It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.

Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.

12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.

Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.

When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.

She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.

Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.

The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.

We can see that rape and other sex crimes against females peak in the teenage years.

Another graphic.

A bunch of idiot fool women who don’t understand the reality of human male sexuality and that being attracted to girls from 12-17 is 100% normal in every sense of the word.

At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.

He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.

A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.

Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.

It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.

The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.

I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.

For example, Belle Delphine.

Belle Delphine

He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.

If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.

The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.

During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.

The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.

This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.

The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.

Popular female figures in fairy tales tend to be rather young.

Fairy tale men below.

As you can see, fairly tale men seem to be older than fairy tale women.

So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.

The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.

A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.

According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.

Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.

The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.

Popular hentai figurine.

In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.

Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.

Sam, Samsung’s young-looking female assistant.

This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.

Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.

What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.

But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.

According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.

The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.

If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.

Menarche and Mammories

In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.

There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.

Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?

I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.

I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.

I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.

So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.

When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.

Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.

Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.

Alt Left: Neuveau Fascism in South America and Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vamos are Argentine fascists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game/PUA: The Pussy Market: Basic Supply and Demand

Manuel Rodriguez: I just wanted to mention briefly how i was studying about Game and mating systems for a while and share some of my findings.

In summary, since men have youthfulness as an significant part on how they score attractiveness on a mate, some feminists are trying harshly to outlaw men from being able to have sex with young women (sometimes reaching ridiculousness), which would eliminate them (those girls) as competitors, increasing their own chances in the mating game. Under the logic of sexual market economy/mating market, women “sell” sex to men.

Much like oil producing OPEC countries have in their best interest to make oil as expensive as possible, is in the interest of women to make sexual access as expensive as they can. Under this logic, banning pornography serves to increase the price of sex. That’s not to say that some of their arguments and demands are invalid, like sex trafficking and enslavement in pornography. Still, one can’t deny that this might be a reason too.

I figured out that the people that attempt to ban prostitution, putting aside religious fundamentalists, are mostly upper middle and high class women, and they do it when they manage to get a majority political control.

Sure, but why do upper middle and upper class women wish to ban prostitution. A lot of them are basically the biggest whores of them all. How do you think they got all that money? You think they earned it on their own? LOL. A lot of them earned it on their backs by getting with rich men!

Yes, banning porn does increase the price of sex, or Pussy as I call it.

This is a perfect comment. I call it the Pussy Market. That’s crude, but that’s what it is. It’s in women’s interest to keep the price of Pussy as high as possible and furthermore to restrict the supply of Pussy as much as possible. As there is a chronic Pussy shortage, shortages of products always drive up prices.

Therefore, the more women restrict the supply of Pussy, the more the price goes up. That’s one of the main reasons they want to keep teenage girls, even 16 and 17 year old girls, off the market. Those girls compete with women and they go straight for the best of the best men in my experience. It’s hard for a woman to compete with a jailbait hottie, and hundreds of millions of men will fuck these girls if they get a chance.

In Sweden, feminists are trying to outlaw men taking mail order brides simply to dry up the Pussy supply and drive up the price of Pussy. Swedish women are such horrendous feminists now that Swedish men are just bailing on these bitches altogether. They are going over to Thailand to pick up traditional Thai women, who incidentally do make very good wives. Instead of quitting being such awful bitches so there men might like them more, they are outlawing the competition.

Feminists are also trying very hard to outlaw sex dolls. I don’t really care about these dolls and I’ve never used one. But it’s obvious that these things are used as Pussy substitutes, and men using them drives down demand for Pussy, which drives down the price. Men also use porn instead of having sex with women, so this also drives down demand for Pussy. Declining demand means declining prices. I’m not sure about prostitution.

I suppose if prostitution exists, men can buy prostitutes instead of dating ordinary women, so that might drive down the demand for Pussy. But on the other hand, that prostitution exists at all shows most women that they can get money for Pussy. If women find out you have even bought a prostitute, a lot of them will narrow their eyes, knowing that they have a sucker who pays for pussy. Women find allegiance with prostitutes. After all, prostitutes are doing what all the rest of them are doing, which is charging for pussy.

I had a Black girlfriend once whose eyes lit up when I told her I had bought a few prostitutes in my day. To her that meant I was a sucker idiot who paid for Pussy, and now she felt even more motivated to charge me than she already did. And boy did charge me. By the way, no race of women has a more whorish attitude towards sex than Black women.

As long as all these whores are out there charging top dollar for Pussy, a lot of women look at that and say, “Hmmmm, I should charge too, just like them.” It sets an example. I’m not sure if outlawing prostitution would affect the Pussy market in any way. Obviously it increases the Pussy shortage and increases the demand for Pussy, therefore, it probably drives up the price of Pussy. But I’m not sure if it works out that way in real life.

Game/PUA: Advice for Men: Don’t Cry around Your Girlfriends or Wives

A commenter: Crying is for MEN AND WOMEN. For centuries the patriarchy has stuffed us with bullshit where women are considered the weak that cry and men are MEN.

If a man crying will not be respected by the woman, it is most likely due to the fact the man has done some ‘manly’ thing, she is just not interested that much in him, or the woman is just too influenced by the patriarchy.

Advice from another man: Cry your eyes out, experience emotions, you are a brittle and sensitive human being.

You know what? Normally I would agree with you. On the other hand, I have known men who just cried too much. It was pussy, sissy, weak behavior. They were not gay but they were wimpy, and worse, they were male feminists who believed in rape culture and the rest of that nonsense.

I felt like you for many years. I finally gave up and caved in to the patriarchy. Women want toxic masculinity in men. IMHO, that’s pretty much all they want. I would be surprised to find a woman who would tolerate anything less in a man, especially nowadays. I’m a man who has had women troubles my whole life due to the fact that I seem soft. Women interpret that to mean pussy, gay, wimpy, weak, etc., and they get aggressive and try to dom me or bully me or they turn into bitches.

A lot of sadistic bitches deliberately hook up with what they see as weak men so they can kick their asses their whole lives. And some of these women may indeed love their men. It’s terrible to be in a relationship like that. The last thing you want to hear from other women is, “We don’t like the way she treats you! She is really mean to you, and we don’t like it!” It’s nice that they have your back, but it looks terrible. If you are out in public and she is bitching you out, people will look at you with disgust. Hispanics, both men and women, are by far the worst about this.

I used to call myself a pure androgyne along the lines of Bowie, the Dolls, or Mick Jagger. That worked back in the 70’s and early 80’s when everyone was like that and men had the freedom to act that way, but we no longer have that freedom.

Society has gone completely backwards in the way men are allowed to express ourselves. And this change has been enforced by women. Most toxic masculinity is enforced by women. Most men accept me as a perfectly masculine man because I walk the walk and talk the talk. But what works with men does not work with women. Women are far more demanding in terms of masculinity than men are. Further, they don’t understand the meaning of masculinity in the male world. They have a cartoon version of masculinity that does not line up at all with what men experience with other men.

I’ve basically given up and I act a lot more masculine now. I must say my life with women has gotten a lot better. I also cuss out girlfriends in the meanest way possible when they get out of line with me. Since I started doing this, I have never had such deep relationships with women. Women have loved me more than they ever did before.

I think women want a mean man. Not one who is mean all the time, but one is mean sometimes. All you have to be is mean sometimes. You can be a real nice guy all the rest of the time. But you can’t let her get away with shit, and you can’t let her get out of line. If she does, read her the riot act. It is also important that your woman be a bit afraid of you.

The more afraid of you she is, the less she will bitch you out. A woman who bitches you out a lot is often doing it because she’s not afraid of you. If she’s afraid of you and bitching you out, then she’s just a crazy, suicidal bitch. No woman should bitch out a scary man without a good reason, but they do it all the time. I call that “trying to get murdered.” Which, by the way, is also something women do all the time. Unsurprisingly, sometimes when women are trying to do this, they actually achieve their goal. That is, they get murdered.

If you are going to cry, cry around other men. Many men have said that it’s much easier to cry around other men than it is to cry around women. We men know how painful life is. All men know what sadness is and how sadness is an essential and important part of life.

Alt Left: Socialism for the Win!

Socialism beating all capitalist countries!

You guys wonder why some of us are socialists. Well, here ya go.

As you can see, Cuban socialism beats all of its capitalist competitors in administering COVID-19 vaccines to the largest number of people in the shortest period of time. And keep in mind that the US has, I believe, a GNP 15 times bigger than Cuba’s and it still totally failed in this competition. In addition, many of those countries have social democracies with attendant socialized medicine, but even that didn’t seem to do very well against socialist planning in the health sector. Cuba beat the UK, Europe and North America as a whole, and the combined groups of high and upper middle low income countries.

I don’t have anything against socialized medicine in social democracies, but it does seem to fair worse against a pure Communist system. And in the UK and parts of Europe, public health is under relentless attack by the capitalists under the rubric of austerity and budget cuts.

The UK in particular has been devastated by these cuts which the Tories have been doing for decades now. Nevertheless, the idiot Brits appear to be ready to march off to vote Tory once again in the next election. The entire media combined to promote the Tories and destroy Labor’s left candidate. The current candidate is a centrist named Starmer and he’s so bad, he loses to pathetic Tories like the clown Boris Johnson. But hey, at least Starmer cleaned out the antisemites in the party! That’s all that matters, right Jews. You all would rather have a damned Tory government than a left Labor government unfriendly to your precious little hate state over there.

I’m not sure about the rest of Europe, but I know that public health has been devastated in Greece. The Left Syriza ran on an anti-austerity program but changed and went Centrist as soon as they got in, supposedly due to “forces beyond their control.”

This shows how hard it is to change the system absent an actual revolution as happened in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Without a truly revolutionary party as we had and have in those countries, the forces of capitalism will simply assert themselves and any Left candidate will be boxed in. This is already happening to Castillo in Peru, who finds his options limited more and more every week by the forces of the military, the big capitalists, the media, and the population in media, which is really all the same thing and could be called the Peruvian oligarchy or in US terms, the Peruvian Deep State.

And we can see how this is happening in the US as Biden progressively scales down his promises. At first he rejected Sanders’ Medicare for All, though it has majority support. Then he rejected Sanders’ free college education, a staple in many countries, including places like Mexico! In its stead he offered free community college. Well, he just got rid of that, too. What’s next, Joe? Free ice cream on Sunday?

Really, I don’t blame him. America is still a terrifyingly reactionary country, and in fact it is nearly a fascist country as about half the population is perfectly willing to vote for fascism and the Republican party is now an undemocratic authoritarian fascist party along the lines of the Latin American Right. It follows because the Latin American Right is run by the oligarchies that run those countries, and increasingly, the US is also an oligarchy and is no longer a democracy at all.

Nor are our elections free and fair. They’ve been hopelessly corrupted since the advent of computerized voting and gerrymandering and serious obstacles placed in the way of voting means that we are absolutely not a democratic country anymore.

Democratic countries do not allow partisan gerrymandering, attempts to steal elections, obstacles placed to discourage voting, and open theft of elections via computerized voting machines. I wonder if we ever had a democracy in this blighted country. Perhaps from 1965-2000, we had a pretty democratic system, but under Reagan, the Justice Department under Sessions interfered to keep voting restrictions against Blacks in while putting Blacks who worked for voting rights in jail. The FBI did this, if you can believe that. And you wonder why I despise feds so much.

Alt Left: Karl Marx, “The Genesis of Capital”: The Creation of Capitalism and Its Link to Modern Land Reform

This fascinating document is available in booklet form as it is only ~35 pages. It is an excerpt from the larger Capital volume. It’s not an easy read but it’s not impossible either.

Some of the writing is gorgeous. I read one sentence to my very anti-Communist liberal Democrat father and he swooned over the prose. That one sentence was both perfect and beautiful, though it dealt with some terrible.

In many places, this is forceful – see the fencing of the Commons in the 1300’s, done deliberately to force the peasants into the capitalist mode or production. Indeed theorists said that if the peasants could not be shoved into capitalism, there would be no capitalism, for their would be no workers. It was essential to destroy the peasants ability to live off the land for themselves in order to force them into worse circumstances as industrial workers.

We see this very same rhetoric employed today in India – where it is argued that the tribals in Chattisargh and other places must be uprooted from the lands, have their lands stolen from them to give to mining and forest industries, and forced into the capitalist mode in cities in order to properly develop the economy. It is argued that India cannot develop its economy until the Adivasis have been destroyed. Note that as with the ancient peasants, the Adivasis will live much poorer lives in the cities than the were in the rural areas.

In Colombia, we see something very similar. In Colombia, small farmers own a lot of land. They are able to subsist off this land and they do not need to participate in the larger economy. They grow enough food for themselves and some city people. The process of the Colombian revolution and the genocidal response of the Colombian oligarchy to it is all throwing the peasants off of these small plots, stealing their land at gunpoint (the paramilitaries are used for this), and terrorizing or killing them if they refuse to hand over their land.

The land is then confiscated by latifundias or large landowners who by and large control the Colombian economy. They grow coffee, bananas, etc. and raise cattle for export, generating money for the economy in the process.

In fact, this process has been going on all over Latin America for over 200 years as sort of a slow-motion process of ethnic cleansing and land theft. Smalholders are able to live off the land in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, and Brazil, and this is seen as unacceptable as they only grow food for themselves and possibly for city-dwellers but the produce cannot be exported.

These countries wish to develop an export model of agriculture based on the large scale production of food crops for export mostly to the US. In return, their ability to produce their own food is destroyed, in my opinion, rendering their economies completely backwards. The people are then rendered vulnerable to the purchase of imported food from the US, often packaged or canned food that is not very good for you.

As you can see, the country gets screwed and the US wins both ways. By destroying the basis for feeding themselves, the US wins an export market for its processed foods. By replacing these with food crops for export to the US, the US gets to make money by importing and selling these food crops. In return the country gains nothing.

Only a small landholding and import-export elite (maybe 20% of the population) gains and the vast majority of the poorer people lose as they can no longer feed themselves, no longer own land and are self-supporting, have to resort to unhealthy foods that they need much of their income to purchase, and they also are rendered much poorer as low wage proletariat in the slums of the large cities.

And in the process, of course, the country generates a revolutionary movement, often an armed one.

This can be seen in areas of Colombia. In one particular part of Southern Colombia, most of the rural peasantry had been thrown off the land and most of the land was now held by a few large landowners who were raising cattle on the land. The peasants had been terrorized off of their stolen land and formed ghettos in a large city nearby, which increased the poverty rate and the slump percentage of the city by a lot. Here they were poor, unhealthy, poorly fed and clothed, living in slums in shacks with no sewage systems, clean water or electricity.

These slums began to generate a lot of street crime as they tend to do. Outside of the cities on the main roads, there were soldiers and paramilitaries everywhere and one went from one armed roadblock to the other. Curiously enough, a large guerrilla movement had developed among the few remaining peasants and in teeming slums. Armed guerrillas extorted the latifundias for money that they called “war taxes.” The latifundias now paid a lot of money for paramilitaries to patrol their lands.

In the slums, an urban guerrilla movement was developing. Police, soldiers and paramilitary members were attacked with bombs, RPG’s and automatic weapons all the time and took significant casualties. The war had now moved to the city where there was no war before. Bomb and gun attacks hit city police stations on a regular basis. Death squads and army units roamed the land and the unarmed Left in the form or human rights activists, labor union members and organizers, community organizers and activists, environmentalists, campesino organizations, organizations of slum-dwellers and indigineous leaders were murdered and tortured to death on a regular basis.

The idiot US and the West see this as a process of “Communist guerrillas trying to subvert Colombian democracy, shoot their way into power, and set up a murderous Communist dictatorship which will destroy freedom and prosperity in Colombia”. The vast majority of Americans and others in the West actually buy this bullshit. Many on the Left refuse to support the Colombian guerrilla, insisting that they are anachronistic and that they should try to seek power peacefully. However, since the FARC disarmed, former members and members of newly formed political parties have been massacred like flies. So state terror blocks all road to peaceful change, leaving no alternative but the way of the gun.

Obviously the ridiculous analysis of this situation that Westerners believe has no basis in reality. The Western media cheers on the genocidal Colombian state and says that the Colombian democracy is waging a war against irrational and bloodthirsty terrorism, typically linked with drug trafficking to describe them as criminals and destroy their legitimacy.

As long as this process goes on, Colombia’s economy will stay forever backwards.

It is necessary to do a land reform in the rural areas before any country can prosper economically. Indeed this “socialist” project of land reform which the US spent decades in the Cold War slaughtering millions of people to stop was actually implemented by the US in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in order to fend off a Communist threat. Oddly enough, it ended up creating the basis for subsequent booming development in those places.

Land reform was and is the basis for the Communist and Leftist revolutions and guerrilla forces in South Vietnam, Thailand, Colombia, Nepal, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay in the past 55-65 years, with some of the revolutions happening later 40 years ago. In Paraguay this process has just started several years ago when a FARC split has taken up arms agains the state.

Alt Left: Take Your Taboo Subjects and Shove Them All Right up Your Asses

The Very Idea of Taboo Subjects Outside of People’s Personal Matters Is Pretty Much Bullshit

I really don’t believe in taboo subjects. “Whoa! We don’t talk about that!?” Well, why the Hell not for God’s sake? Maybe someone’s personal life is rather taboo. I’m not particularly interested in people’s sex lives, for instance. Of course I can gossip with the rest but in general, people’s sex lives are a rather personal matter, especially if revealing things about it would be embarrassing to the person. People have a right to privacy in a sense. I’ve always outed everyone I’ve ever known who was gay or bi though if I knew about it. Not out of malice but simply because I felt that that was an interesting fact about them.

There are some things that have happened in our family that are so shameful and embarrassing that no one talks about them. I in particular don’t want to hear about them considering I was the victim.

If you are doling out people’s personal lives in order to insult or humiliate them, I don’t see the point.

I had a cousin who was gay. He died recently. Of course I asked about his love life. My family completely flipped out and kept saying over and over, “It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter!” It didn’t seem very woke to me. It seemed more like they were ashamed of it. Finally my Mom told me that he’d had a long series of relationships with older men. Actually his homosexuality was a huge taboo in my stupid family, and it was not to be discussed. His own father simply refused to believe that he was gay and kept saying he would find a nice girl one day. I don’t understand what’s so cool and woke about an attitude like that. It sounds like his father was ashamed of him.

The basic stupid attitude is that if you never talk about something, it’s hopefully going to go away. This is magical thinking, but humans excel at this. People literally believe that if we just never talk about this thing, it will either vanish or more properly, it will cease to exist.

All of this nonsense seems to be all wrapped up in shame, and shame is bullshit if you ask me. What’s there to be ashamed of? Nothing!

Further most subjects are taboo because the standard view of them is completely insane. Dope was taboo forever because the whole society was insane about dope. Sex was taboo in my family while growing up because my family was nuts about sex. The sex lives of sexually mature minors is now taboo because society is stark raving batshit insane about this subject.

A lot of taboos were just shitty. My friend CL had a mother who was a horrendous bitch. She was also very cruel and demeaning to him and in particular, humiliated him in an emasculating way. His father was just some cold asshole who cheated on the bitch mother. His sister was a mental case who fucked anything that moved and took every drug known to exist. She eventually died of AIDS. She hung out with an extremely gay punker crowd.

The fact that my friend’s Mom was an unholy bitch was taboo. He defended that evil cunt to the hilt. And look how she treated him!

The fact that his father was cold bastard who cheated on his Mom was taboo. His father was a wonderful man.

Anything involving the lunatic sister was taboo. She was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every now and then, once every few years, my friend would go on an absolutely batshit insane bender of wild drinking for weeks on end which typically ended in some sort of a catastrophe. Of course discussion of this was taboo even though it was probably one of the most important themes of his life.

He could not express anger at all and he was freaked out and appalled if you ever displayed anger around him. Anger was taboo.

The guy across the street was a closeted faggot. Not a gay man, a faggot. And a real bad one too. He’d been in prison for a couple of years. Somehow I got tangled up in a very bad friendship with him that ended when one day I walked over to his house with a baseball and bat and smashed his front door down!

I had hired him to work on my car but halfway through I found someone to do it for less so he got mad. He went to my car in the middle of the night, switched every switch that could have been switched and then turned it on. Killed the engine. So he got his front door smashed down by me. This is what happens if you piss me off or fuck me over. I will go over to your damned house with a baseball bat and smash your front door down!

Anyway, he had been stealing people’s car stereos in the neighborhood for a long time. His father was a weird man with an evil look in his eye. Rumor was he was in on the son’s thievery and was selling the stolen goods. The guy’s mother was hideously ugly, grossly fat, and a deranged alcoholic. Periodically she would wake the neighborhood at ungodly hours screaming unintelligibly like a banshee or a howler monkey. This nonsense might go on for an hour or two. I once tried to bring it up with this guy. Taboo subject! His Mom was the greatest person on Earth.

I’m not sure if I ever brought up the fact that he used to be a thief and did prison time for burglary or the fact that his Dad looked like he had made a pact with the Devil, but I’m sure that would have been taboo too. After I smashed his door down I spread the rumor that he was a faggot closet case, which he was. This was also taboo and he threatened to beat me up for this insult.

Closets Are for Clothes

As an aside, the most utterly deranged, disturbed, creepy, tormented, and even dangerous homosexual men I have ever met were closet cases in their late 20’s and early 30’s with fake girlfriends. A few years back, I had a terrible interaction with a closet case, who was also profoundly disturbed and angry, at a local Starbucks. Closet case gay men are unbelievably fucked up. If you are biologically gay, please come out of the closet. We don’t like homosexuality but we will support you because we know you can’t help it. If anyone wants to chime in about why closet cases are so sick and fucked up, be my guest. I guess living a lie and hiding from yourself your whole life isn’t real great for mental health.

Taboo Subjects are Crap, Continued

Anyway, as you can see, most of the taboo subjects I’ve dealt with in my life were about fucked up people who no one would admit were fucked up, about unpleasant emotions that people tried to deny that they had, about people who lived lies, had shameful secrets, lived wicked and idiotic lives, and in general, subjects about which society didn’t know its ass from a Goddamned hole in the ground.

I’ve always told all of you guys that I’ll never lie you to about anything important in terms of current affairs, history, or politics, or much of anything, really. I might mystify my own life a bit, but so what? So shoot me.

As I noted at that start, I’m sitting here trying to think of a subject that is justifiably taboo,l and I just can’t think of one! Can any of my readers come up with some subject anywhere on God’s green Earth that is justifiably taboo? The whole idea of taboo subjects is stupid and lame. I’m against it.

My motto on this site is I’m going take every one of the taboo subjects whose secrecy you most cherish and shove them right up your asses. I’m going to force you to confront your bullshit, lies, and games. I’m going to make you question every single damn thing you believe and then some. I’m here to piss you off. If I’m not pissing you off, I’m not doing my job. If any of my commenters wish to follow suit and become professional trolls or provocateurs, be my guest. You will right in spirit with the site.

Now I gave you a question to think about, right?

Alt Left: The Syriza Party in Greece: Anatomy of a Sellout

Interesting abstract from Academia. All papers on Academia can be downloaded and reprinted for free. Syriza was the radial left hope for Europe in the wake of the 2008 Depression in which Greece was hit perhaps worst of all. The Right says it was because of Greece’s tax and spend policies, but Greece’s taxes are not high, nor is it’s social democracy particularly robust. The true problem is massive corruption of the political classes at all ends of the spectrum combined with an absolute failure of the wealthy classes to pay as much as one nickel in taxes. In other words, The Latin American Disease (in part) because Latin America suffers from exactly these problems more than anything else.

Syriza had a very powerful voice in opposition to the Austerity Regime demanded by the EU out of Germany (Germany basically runs the EU and lays down the law). There were two ways out of the debt crisis. Either go into crisis austerity and sell off a good portion of their public lands and enterprises, or simply default on their debt and start all over again. Perhaps both would have been equally painful, but I think default would have been best.

As is, a good portion of Greece’s public lands and public enterprises (the health care system, national parks, electric grid, hydropower, a number of actual islands of the country itself) were sold off the lowest of capitalist parasites. Anyone think the national parks, electric grid, health care system, hydropower, and even the very islands of the nation itself will be any better off now that they are in the hands of a lot of greedheads? They’re not. Nothing good ever happens with any of these sell-offs of private enterprises.

Worse, the selling off of the very partrimony of Greece itself was combined with the worst austerity, elimination of health care and all social programs for the masses combined with massive job losses so the masses of unemployed could not count on any state help now that they could not pay their bills. In other words, the Greeks got the worst of both worlds. Austerity and selloff and they gained nothing at all other than emptied pockets and rifled and ransacked goods.

No one could pay for medical care or hospital beds either. Many people were thrown out of their homes because they could not pay the rent and shantytowns of former workers and even middle class people sprung up all over Greece. Some political parties, even the far Right Golden Dawn to their credit, stepped in to try to provide the social help that the state would not.

This was followed by the election of Syriza, which campaigned on not paying the debt and opposing austerity. As soon as they got in power, they quickly changed their tune. I don’t think they sold out so much as they did not have the guts to go through with the program. No doubt there were massive pressures on them to go through the standard austerity model. At any rate, Syriza did not default on its debt like Argentina and Iceland did (to little effect on their economies), and they implemented austerity with full force. They sold out the masses completely.

As they stayed in power, they moved more and more to the right. Now that they are out of power, they have moved even further to the right. There is a new rightwing government called New Democracy in charge about which I know little, except I assume they’re not real great. Syriza is now utterly unable to offer an alternative to ND, while ND has apparently completely failed in the COVID epidemic as most rightwing governments everywhere did, no doubt leaving many corpses in its wake.

We have the standard Latin American model here where the Right (call it the Conservatives in Colombia or ARENA in El Salvador) “the right wing of the oligarchy” is absolutely toxic, but the Left (call it the Liberals in Colombia, the AD and APRA “social democratic” traitors in Venezuela and Peru), etc. are simply the “liberal wing of the oligarchy,” which in practice means virtually no change at all.

AD in Venezuela has combined with the fascist Right to overthrow the Chavistas, backing every coup attempt of various flavors against the government. For all intents and purposes, they’re not much different from Guaido. AD was always just a party to split up the loot from the oil rents from the state oil company amongst the oligarchs and the upper middle class management of the company.

This is very discouraging and it sounds like Thatcher’s TINA (There is No Alternative) response to neoliberalism. Perhaps there is no alternative to neoliberalism and austerity in the EU model, which has always been based on neoliberal orthodoxy. Note that debt cannot exceed 3% of GNP in any given year. That’s far too low an amount of public spending to run a country decently. There was no reason to put that in other than for neoliberal orthodoxy which despises all public spending for whatever rationale they have for doing that, either ideological, war of ideas, or economic.

If the situation in the EU is TINA, then Brexit is the way to go. Greece and a few others have been threatening to do that, but the NATO fascist military alliance (NATO has always been run by the US) is the imperialist glue that holds the EU economic community together. A neoliberal economic community held together by a fascist imperialist army. What else is new? Straight out of Milton Friedman (“Neoliberalism cannot be imposed democratically; it must be imposed by dictatorship”) himself. It is very hard to leave NATO. Notice even the Brits didn’t do that. NATO may be an abusive spouse for many of the nations inside the alliance, but if so, most NATO countries are Stockholmed wives.

I don’t know what to say except that this is yet another sellout of the Left.

For all of their faults, the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Argentina have refused to go this route. At the moment, Peru is also challenging this model. The penalty has been repeated coup attempts in most these countries, economic wars, and sanctions, but at least they didn’t sell out. I still think this sort of resistance is the way to go, painful or not.

Our existences have dignity or they are worthless. The EU model is the death of dignity. At least with the Pink Tide, those nations can hold their heads up amidst the ruins and say

At least we are free. We may be poor but at least we are free.

You know that’s got to be worth something.

Outside of the homeland, there is nothing.

– A famous Baath Party intellectual from Iraq

Whatever beefs I had with Saddam, and I had plenty; Hell, at least he was a nationalist in a time when such patriots are scarce and viewed as traitors to the International Globalist Elite based on multinational corporate rule over the rule of actual states. Governments are increasingly irrelevant now that billionaires and corporations have more money and power than many actual countries.

SISP Conference 2021, Online, 9-11 September 2021

SYRIZA back in opposition (2019-2021): Towards a new political direction?

Grigoris Markou

Postdoctoral researcher, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Abstract

SYRIZA’s spectacular rise to power through a radical political proposal and a strong populist discourse has been the field of study of a large number of political scientists in recent years. Alexis Tsipras (Syriza’s leader) in opposition and in power expressed a strong inclusionary populist discourse, placing popular classes at a central position and opposing the political and economic establishment of the country and Europe.

SYRIZA, during its second term began to change its physiognomy, abandoning gradually its radicalism and embracing a typed of “political realism” and consensus, while it began to soften its populist intensity and passion. After the end of its rule (2019), it became clear that SYRIZA’s populism had nothing to do with the populist intensity and passion of the previous years.

SYRIZA (2019-present) continued to maintain some populist slogans and a kind of anti-elitism (e.g. “the many” against “the establishment”), but to a lesser extent.

Furthermore, a huge gap has been created between the party and the popular classes. SYRIZA can’t persuade, mobilize and lead the people against the right-wing government of New Democracy in a period of intense social discontent with the management of the pandemic and the economy by the Greek government and at a time when popular demands for democracy, justice, and labor protection are emerging.

In this presentation, I will present the main characteristics of SYRIZA’s political discourse after its defeat in the 2019 national election, attempting to find if the party continues to express a populist discourse or not through discourse analysis while underlining its new political direction. Furthermore, I will examine the reasons the rapid transformation of the party in a more mainstream and “realistic” direction.

Alt Left: Psychopathy and the Left

Another really cool comment from a commenter on psychopathy, in this case from a Left perspective. I’m so glad some of my commenters have figured out I’m a Leftie. I am. I’m a really, really weird Leftie, but I’m basically a Leftie. There’s nothing in any form of US conservatism that appeals to me and the Democrats are far better than the Republicans, though my complaint is they are not left enough. On the other hand, I am rather socially conservative for a Leftie, but I have a feeling a lot of us are like that.

In Manuel’s previous post about his own country, Venezuela, where 70% of the citizens state openly that they are Chavistas (polls show that 70% of the population support the Chavista program), and hence Leftists, indicated nevertheless that this country is terribly patriarchal and most of the men and women for that matter are very socially conservative. I’d even venture so far as to call them backwards.

I’m thinking there are lot more “Conservative Left” types out there. I can see quite a few in Nicaragua. There seem to be a lot in Russia and the former USSR, Eastern Europe, Turkey, North Africa, the Basque Country, the Arab World, and especially in China. Conservative Left people are still on the Left. We will vote left most everywhere on Earth. We’re just not down with whatever the latest PC, SJW, woke lunacy of the week is, that’s all.

Manuel Rodriguez: Putting that aside, there is something else I wanted to talk about. Let’s talk about psychopathy from a leftist perspective! This is an angle that nobody seems to take.

I realized that just like patriarchy and capitalism go together, so are psychopathy and capitalism almost bedfellows. The values that capitalism promotes feed into psychopathy allow encourage it to resonate through society almost as an unseen force like gravity. The end products of individualism socially rewarded in capitalism, even though they maximizing one’s material wealth either morally or not and using other people to get it. Capitalism defends its interests from perceived threats with violence, often extreme violence, via endlessly creative methods.

One thing I always wondered about was how psychopathy might effect leftist and revolutionary processes. I thought of cases where a “dictator” type climbs up the social ladder and reaches the top. These people seem to be pretty brutal and in some cases, they have lived like kings via the labor of their countrymen. This same mechanism, these same types are easily able to infiltrate and advance in political parties to where they can climb the social hierarchy, often leading to these people becoming extremely corrupt.

Whenever psychopathy is brought up, there is always someone who points out who psychopathy can be beneficial to society in the case of controlled psychopaths in the police and military. This led me to wonder whether controlled psychopaths may have a role to play in revolutionary processes.

On the whole though, I think psychopaths, controlled and uncontrolled, do more harm than good.

A Race Realist View of India

Main issue I have with this theory is that the Indian IQ would not have dropped so fast in just 70 years with the end of famines and the reduction of diseases. A disproportionate number of lower classes would have had to have survived for centuries for it to have an effect on IQ. Is that really what happened? Weren’t they dying in droves back then? Keep in mind that the higher IQ Brahmins are only 5% of the population. A good 95% of the population is lower, maybe down ~81 IQ. The less intelligent have been vastly outnumbering the intelligent forever down there.

I agree that Hinduism is indeed a severe regression, degradation, and I would argue vandalization of Santam Dharma.

Tamberlane: The shittiest, weakest, dumbest, and most cowardly Indians bred the most prolifically due to the wide availability of food year-round in combination with the lack of devastating plagues and diseases. The vast majority of Indians have low-tier genetics due to the Indian trash component of their population having 4-5 kids, while the best Indians only had only 1-2 kids.

This in turn creates a toxic, overcrowded, deracinated environment and culture. Let’s not even get started with the malnutrition, lack of infrastructure, toxic air quality, etc. Therefore you get a sandbox in which the vast majority of Indians are sexually frustrated Beta males with an inferiority complex wanting to one up each other for a mere rupee.

Hinduism is a severe regression and degradation of Sanatan Dharma, arguably one of the most beautiful and complete spiritual philosophies in the world. Modern-day Hinduism is just the dog-turd on top of the shit sundae that is India.

Although I will admit, Indians have a lot of untapped potential and are becoming a better and better version of themselves every year. 2000’s India was exponentially better than 1990’s India. 2010’s India was exponentially better than 2000’s India. And 2020’s India is exponentially better than 2010’s India.

Letter from India

Absolutely superb comment from a Hindu Brahmin on a very old post of mine. India and sadly Hinduism is simply antithetical to all Left and progressive values. I suppose Republicans would like them. After all, Republicans believe in rule by aristocracy.

I have long said that there are two philosophies, conservatism and liberalism, or the Right and the Left.

Conservatism or the Right believes in aristocratic rule. Worse – that aristocrats must rule, and there can be no exceptions to this clause. It’s the Divine Right of Kings all over again. Or, the Ancien Regime. Same thing. This thinking didn’t start with Hobbes’ Leviathan and its first opposition was not Locke. The contradiction between rulers and ruled, oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited, rich and poor is as old as civilization itself. Conservatism believes that the Left has no right to rule. None, zero. Why do you think they steal elections and have coups every time the people take power and rule over the rich?

The opposite of conservatism is liberalism or the Left. Although it differs, liberalism believes in democratic rule, rule by the people, not the aristocrats. This is true all the way from US social liberalism to Communism.

India has conservatism and aristocratic rule baked right into its veins. It can literally never be a progressive country until they have a complete Cultural Revolution. And they may need to get rid of Hinduism, as it seems to be beyond reform.

Me being a Hindu Brahmin following extreme Orthodox beliefs, I can answer your question honestly. You may dislike Brahmins, seems we deserve this for the decadent beliefs we have produced in the Subcontinent which has destroyed the entire fabric of the region. Not all Brahmins practice priesthood; only a subsection of them do it.

I can tell you the reason that the Indian is such a hideous creature – Indian society itself operates in a hideous manner, and it’s the root of all filth that exists in India from corruption to hypocritical behavior. Indian culture boils down to religion. I perceive of religion and culture as different things, but most Indians have never had any cultural lineage. Nor do most Indians have any knowledge of any of their religious books. Almost every one of them was bought up watching religious movies portraying religious deities as pious and most godly.

That’s where most Indians get their religious education from. I can guarantee you pretty much 95 percent of them have never read even one Upanishads or Veda in their life. The reason is simple – education is limited to certain classes, and other classes were not simply allowed into Gurukuls.

After independence, the Hindu majority became bed partners with the British and formed their mythical nation of India. This needs to be emphasized: THERE WAS NO INDIA BEFORE 1947. It was a bunch of princely states always at war with each other. India is a British creation. It never existed prior to that. Never in the subcontinent’s history had Hindus had such power; they never controlled such a vast proportion of land that they control today. But they had a problem – most backward castes in India were simply illiterate and were separated by tribe and language – they even had their own tribal Gods.

Since 1947, Hinduism for the first time became the doctrine of the state – previously only Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vyshas were considered Hindu. Brahmins secretly believed that they were the only followers of Hinduism and had authority to enforce their dogma onto the other two varnas. But after Independence, they realized that the vast majority of Dalits and backward castes were simply too isolated from their dogma, and in a nation with many tribes, castes, tribal gods, and languages, it became impossible for Hindus to unite all of them under one umbrella.

Thus Hinduism was used as a state doctrine, and the state used its propaganda techniques to brainwash the nation with the Hindu Doctrine. After Independence most Indians were illiterate and had never seen the world outside. Hinduism was never a conquering force; it has always operated in treacherous ways since the Gupta period.

Whenever Hindus stretched themselves, their neighbors disliked them and resisted their ways of governance, so basically Hinduism and Hindus have brainwashed other castes with bullshit such as…“Crossing a river is a deadly sin as per the Upanishads,” which means moving to other lands is a sin, and every religious Hindu and caste must not cross the river and explore the world – most Indians were in a cocoon for almost 2,500 years.
None of them explored other nations, trade was minimal, and India was colonized repeatedly by other conquering forces since ancient Hellenic times.

Even after independence, for 40 years India was a backwards agrarian society mostly following a culture of “honor.” But in early 1990’s, something remarkable happened to India. For the first time the average Indian moved out of his filthy nation and saw the glory of other civilizations. But Indians are living in a paradox; they can’t understand why they are being taught that their culture is supreme since childhood and yet they are such a backward dirty nation. Having seen other great civilizations and their societies, most if not all of them have realized one fundamental thing – that they are the most degenerate people of all.

Now even the state and religious classes have apprehended the reality that other cultures and civilizations have created more productive societies than they have. The ruling class is aware that they have destroyed the nation; they are fully aware that they have fiddled for the past 50 years for some frivolous pride. But they have realized that it’s easy to keep all these different tribes under their control as long as they remain in impoverished and  ignorant. Few may make their way out, but for our caste-based society which has lived for past 1,500 years feeding on others like a parasite, it’s hard to swallow the new liberation that young Indians are experiencing.

The Brahmin does not want the Dalit to read. The Brahmin does not want the Shudra to prosper. And this has become encoded in the genetics of the masses here. So it’s essential to create a sense of pride again, pride that must not be oriented towards social ethics but instead must be channeled into useless things which have no logical or rational nature. Like most Indians are proud to be Indians, but no one can even answer in few words what exactly they take “pride” in. Most are proud to be Hindus; they created one shallow story after another to rationalize their pride.
Most Indian schools are distributing Mein Kampf for college kids to create pride.

There is a reason for all these things, and there is a rationale behind the hideousness of the Hindutvas who spout their nonsense across Internet forums. The reasons are inherent insecurity, lack of creative ability, and most importantly, fear. Exactly, fear of colonization. It has happened repeatedly for past 1,500 years. That’s the reason why India is the largest importer of weapons. It will not even hesitate to use weapons on its own people, such the “Tribal adivasis” who are resisting the mining of their lands. India wants to show to the world that they are not insecure, at least outwardly. There must be a bandwagon of pride and chest thumping among Indians.

Most Indians are like beaten-down losers who have lost every game that they played but never learned to do better or tried to practice more. But we have learnt how to corrupt and progress. Now the only thing that matters to most of Hindutva Indians (most of whom are not Brahmins but call center operators who just copy/paste useless Hindu propaganda) is to show to this world that they are something or at least stand that they stand for something. It’s a pride stemming from insecurity, suspicion, a deep-seated inferiority complex, and ignorance. A kind of pride generated by continuous propaganda from movies, books, school curricula, and most importantly, the economic progress that occurred in the last 12-15 years.

This gave us a chance to migrate and look at industrious civilizations in West and apprehend their great cultures and values. But it also exposed Indians’ own filthy morality and hypocrisy. What to do? More propaganda. The recipe? Add Hindu mythology + economic progress + everyday propaganda in movies and soap operas + hatred towards neighboring countries and peoples (Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Muslims in general) + superpower myth articles in every tabloid. This has created the myopic view that most Indians have today.

Most of them don’t know anything they speak about. The clowns on Quora and YouTube are sending low IQ missiles stemming from an ill-seated inferiority complex and a desire to be involved on the world stage which never happens. We expats are fortunate in that we can still send money home to India while residing as long as possible in the progressive West, all the while continuously ridiculing Western women and their degenerate values while secretly fantasizing about the same Western women. This our new way of life. Call it parasitism or degeneracy but most of us have never had any culture, nor most of us have ever dreamt that there exists any place on Earth with equitable social values.

We have lived for the past 1,500 years by backstabbing and cheating each other. We preached hypocrisy and superstition and practiced the same. Our society only cared about personal glory – the more glorious you were, the more Godly you become in our eyes. And the only possible attribute  that glorious person could have was the wealth he has amassed, and whether it came via business or cricket games matters not.

Wealth is all it counts in our society. It’s been this way for a very long time, but we don’t say it openly. For many centuries we have preached and practiced duplicity in life, family, relations, business, and love. And the result is before your eyes – a hypocritical duplicitous society which prides itself on morality, virtue, spirituality, and sympathy. But underneath the rug, we all know that we stink, are duplicitous and treacherous, and sometimes excel at nothing other than stabbing each other in the back.

Porn: What’s Legal? What Illegal?

Note: I don’t really hate cops, but I’m not wild about them either. Now if a cop is, say, a detective working robbery or homicide, why should I have a beef with him? He’s catching robbers and killers. Why would I have an issue with that?

I don’t even mind dope cops anymore (although I used to hate narcs) as long as they aren’t busting pot. I have no problems with cops busting people for selling meth, crack cocaine, fentanyl, or heroin. That’s stuff’s garbage.

Now we get down to your ordinary street cop. Let’s look at my city. About half of the cops in my city are huge assholes, the biggest dicks on Earth. It’s like they’re always trying to pick a fight. Don’t like them one bit. But the other half are often pretty nice, and sometimes, they’re extremely nice to me.

But fed cops busting guys for buying whores or fucking 17 year old girls or kids sexting each other or adults possessing written stories or pictures of clothed humans that the cops don’t like? Get out. They’re pigs, plain and simple. Pests.

And the worst cops of all are feds.  Now if feds are only going after murderers as some FBI do, I have no problem with them. Or financial criminals or fraudsters.

But you don’t even want to be a subject of one of their investigations. Federal sentencing guidelines are batshit insane, far in excess of a reasonable sentence. They’re ridiculous! And if the feds want to get you, they will get you. They will dump all of your possessions on the  floor and go over them with a fine toothcomb. They will examine your whole life with a magnifying glass. And they will probably find that you are breaking some law somewhere somehow.

I imagine most of us are violating some stupid-ass law on a fairly regular basis. I know I do. I don’t feel good about myself unless I’m breaking at least one law. I feel like a great big pussy. Call it Permanent Bad Boy Syndrome. God forbid I should arrive at a time in my life when I’m no longer at least one dumbass law. I would probably look around like crazy to try to find a new idiot law to break. Who wants to be a goody-good or an altar boy? Screw that.

So if you see the word pigs below, I’m referring to sex cops. Cops butt out of our sex lives!

Butthead, a commenter, linked to a Youtube video. I clicked on it but it was already taken down.

RL: What was on the video?

Butthead: Bare schoolgirl boobage. She was brushing her hair in the bathroom and her towel “accidentally” slipped for a second.

Well, that’s legal. It’s not CP. Tits are legal on anyone of any age.

Nudity Is Not Necessarily Child Porn

So is nudity, honestly, but that does get a bit trickier. There are sites all over the Net of teenage girls, probably underage but who knows, taking nude selfies of themselves in front of mirrors. A lot of them are in Russia. They’re actually a bit hard to find but if you know what you are looking for, you can find them. I’ve seen them before but I don’t have a teenage girl fetish, so it’s not big deal to me, and I haven’t been back. Been there, done that. As long as they are just standing in front of a mirror or on the beach with their clothes off, it’s not child porn, because child porn is a lot worse than nudity.

There was a site where a lot of teenagers were camming all the time, teenage girls and boys both. Fairly regularly, one of the girls would take off some or all of her clothes. You could see over to the side the people camming and how many were watching. One cammer would suddenly go from five to 50 to 100 viewers, and if you went to look at the cam, sure enough, there’s some teenage girl with her top off.

I did watch one video like that. Two teenage girls aged 17 with their tops off. Problem was every time they opened up their mouths, they sounded like 10 year olds. All this retarded high school gossip. Total turnoff. I went once and never went back. Like I said, it’s not my fetish.

I’ve seen enough naked teenage girls in the flesh back in the day for 10 or 20 lifetimes. There’s nothing special. It just looks like the body of a woman, same thing.

I will never understand why everyone is so freaked out about the Goddamned naked body of a human being, whether it’s a teenager or a child, no matter. A naked human being isn’t necessarily sexual. It’s simply the way we were all born. This idea that some photos of naked human beings are some sort of evil pornography is completely insane. And not to mention, it’s wildly puritanical and prudish. It’s downright sex-hating and anti-sexual.

“Lascivious Display of the Genitalia”

As long as there is no “lascivious display of the genitalia,” everything’s fine. Child porn must involve “lascivious display of the genitalia.” There’s a lot of uncertainty about what that means, but usually it means she has her legs spread or she’s masturbating. Or it could simply be a photo or a video where the focus on the photographic material via zoom lens or whatever is the genitalia. That would be considered lascivious display. For a girl, it would be a focus on the vaginal area. For a boy it would be a focus on his penis, particularly if it is erect. It all depends on the focus of the photographic material.

“If She Has Clothes on, It’s Legal,” until It’s Not!

If she has clothes on, it was traditionally legal. The FBI was quoted as saying, “If she clothes on, it’s not child porn.” This seems reasonable to me. How on Earth could a photo of any human with their Goddamned clothes on be considered the most evil type of pornography? That’s wildly priggish and Victorian right there?

You see, any possible photographic material is legal (not child porn) until one day the fed pigs decide the change the rules and say it’s illegal! And they’re always changing the rules. It’s madness and you would think it’s out and out unconstitutional because you never know when you are breaking the law. A photo that is legal one day when the fed pigs are in a good mood all of a sudden becomes illegal the next day when the pigs automagically declare it to be illegal!

Erotic Stories

For instance, pedophilic stories have always been legal. They’re all over the Internet. I’ve read them for a few weeks decades ago before I decided this was one perversion I’d rather not explore, and I haven’t read one since. On the other hand, I don’t really read written erotica on the Net anymore.That was more of a phase I went through in my 40’s.

There was a large site called Mr. D.’s which dealt in pornographic stories. I’ve been on the site and there was a Hell of a lot of pedophilic material on there.

What was odd was that many of the authors were women! Grown women, often in their 30’s or 40’s, with a husband and kids! A lot of them had photographs and biographies on their author profile. I have no idea why those women were writing that stuff except that perhaps more people are interested in that kink than we think. Indeed, 18% of men and 7% of women report pedophilic sex fantasies, and many of them have masturbated to them. The vast majority of these people are not pedophiles.

Anyway, Mr. D.’s  had been sitting up there forever with all that pedophilic erotica and nobody did a thing about it. In fact, the top OCD experts on  the world out of Phillipson’s office back east were assigning those stories as homework for people who had OCD with the pedophile theme, which is an extremely common theme by the way. I know because I spoke to one of their clients.

Well, the other day, the fed pigs decided to change the law again! All of a sudden, written pedophilic erotica was illegal! Mr. D. was arrested in Florida, and his site was shut down. They were looking at throwing the book at him too.

So the fed pigs decided to change the law on the fly.

The Sad Saga of the Black Cat Scans

For instance, as I noted above, the rule always was, “If they have clothes on, it’s legal.” The men who ran Black Cat Scans and their photographer read the law and felt that they were within the law with their hebephilic photos of fully clothed young girls posing in some very erotic photos. All of a sudden out of the blue, the fed pigs decided that if they have clothes on, it could be illegal sometimes!

They arrested the two guys who ran the site, both Jews by the way, and they also arrested the photographer, who seemed like a really good man. They threw the book at all of them. None of these men were pedophilic or hebephilic. The Jews were just out to make a buck like they always are, and the photographer just liked to take pictures.

The arrest and sentencing of the photographer was particularly controversial. Most of the girl models were out of Russia, and they had all been brought in by their mothers. They were all adults by the time of the arrests, and they were all unrepentant about their modeling. There were 20-30 Youtube videos of former models and their mothers protesting  the  arrest of the photographer, saying that the girls were not harmed, that they did not regret what they did, and that the photographer was completely professional. It is important to note that none of the girls were molested in any way, shape or form. I believe the mothers were even present during the shooting.

Just to show you how absurd the law is, Black Cat scans had been visited by 25 million (!) men, and I assume a lot of them downloaded the pics. In order to enforce the law, the fed pigs would need to arrest and throw the book at 25 million guys! Good luck with that.

There are still some Black Cat scans floating around. What anyone sees in those photos is beyond me. I’ve seen them but I don’t like them because they seem creeptastic.

Art Photography

There are art photographers like David Hamilton who took many art photos of young teenage girls. You can find those all over the Net. They’re perfectly legal.

Nudist Photos

There are nudist photos all over the Net with humans of all ages, including plenty of teenagers and kids, strolling or sitting around naked in woods, beaches, and whatnot. It’s all perfectly legal. They don’t seem to be very popular so I imagine there isn’t much of a market for nudist pics.

Nude Beaches

It’s also perfectly legal for minors, including kids, to be stark naked at nude beaches, at least in the UK. Teenagers and kids get to walk around naked and look at naked adults and the adults are allowed to look at the kids. Anyone can look at anyone all they want.

I knew a 29 year old woman recently who often took her two daughters, ages 9 and 13, to nude beaches. She was always bugging me to go with them, but I never did. She also often made perverted comments about her girls, which seemed weird to me. She actually asked me to move in with her the second or third time I talked to her, but she was pretty far away, plus she was kind of fat. But she was cute.

Medical Text Photos

Medical texts often have nudity, including closeups of genitalia. All legal.

The Problem of Having an Internet Flooded with Photos of Nude Minors

Be that as it may, a lot of hosts want nothing to do with any photos of naked underage teen girls or kids, so sites with this material, even nudist sites, are few and far between.

I’d like to keep it like this.

Could you see if people started posting this stuff all over the Net and all these porn sites sprang up with nude underage teenagers and worse, kids?

That might flood the whole Internet porn industry pretty quickly. I don’t know what do do about that, as it would make me uncomfortable to see all this sites out there with naked underage teenagers and kids. Also, it would cause a tsunami of outrage, and there would be all these calls to ban the stuff.

Sexting

By the way, a lot of that sexting those teenagers are outrageously getting arrested for is probably legal. It the girls and boys are simply sending each other nudes with no lascivious display of the genitalia, it should be perfectly legal. So it’s not illegal for teenagers to send nudes to each other or at least it shouldn’t be, but who knows how the pigs enforce the crazy laws in their area.

The problem here is that most of them are probably not sending legal photos. Have you ever gotten nudes from a woman on the Net? Hell, they send them out before the first date these days! More women than I can count have sent me nudes over the Net. They were mostly 18-23. I have a whole huge folder of them. Unfortunately, you almost never get to meet them. They just send nudes and maybe talk dirty and then take off.

Well, if you have ever gotten nudes from a woman, first of all, there is typically a focus on the breasts and there is absolutely a focus on the genitalia. Often it is simply a photo of her breasts alone or her genitals alone, usually a huge closeup of the latter. Yep, women focus that camera right on those parts of their body. Women are such perverts!

And men, well, what are the complaints that women make about men when men send nudes? Men don’t send nudes. They send dick pics! So many selfies that men send women tend to focus on the male genitalia or it’s simply a photo of their penis.

So probably most of teen sexting involves sending each other pics with lascivious display of the genitalia, and yes, that would be CP.

But we have to think about this in some other way. It’s insane to bust teenagers for sending nudes to each other. It’s madness. But what can we do about it? I say we let them do send the real thing to each other – lascivious display of genitalia, photos of them having sex, whatever, but they can’t put it up on the Internet.

The Ever-Mutating Rationale for Making the “Child Porn Du Jour” Illegal

The rationale for making child porn illegal – that the child is harmed merely by having their photos floating around for everyone to see – doesn’t seem to apply here. These teens sexting each other – are they being harmed by sending those dirty pics to each other. Generally speaking, no! Ok, so what’s the new rationale for making this stuff illegal. The pigs have to go back to the drawing board and say the old rationale for illegal CP doesn’t apply here and somehow some new rationale applies. But what exactly would the new rationale be?

You see what they are doing?

First they make a reasonable case for making child pornography illegal. It is a document of a very serious crime of child molesting in most cases. But that alone does not seem a good argument because there are videos out there of criminals murdering their victims live on video. Perfectly legal. So photographic depictions of crimes is apparently completely legal.

The other better argument is that the kid did not consent to being molested, and the kid is being harmed merely by having pornographic photos of them floating around. I actually agree with this, though the rationale du jour “the child is harmed every time someone downloads one of their photos” seems ridiculous in a philosophical sense. How exactly does that work. So a girl’s photo gets downloaded 1,000 times. Does she  suffer 1,000X harm? What if it was downloaded once? Does she suffer 1X harm? How in God’s name does the victim know how many times their photo gets downloaded? Does the crime go out in some metaphysical space and zap over to the kid’s head and ring up another download in their brain, harming them ever so slightly more with each download? Of course not. But that is what this asinine article implies.

In the case above, did the girl whose photo was downloaded 1,000 times really suffer 1,000 times the harm of the girl whose photo was downloaded once? That seems bizarre. What if the girl doesn’t even know her stuff is out there on the Net. Theoretically, she suffers absolutely zero harm unless and until she discovers that her photo is out there. What she doesn’t know can’t hurt her, right?

Riffing off the argument above that the child is harmed every time their photo is downloaded, is the girl really harmed ever so slightly more with each subsequent download? Why would she? She has no idea how often the pic’s being saved.

This argument sounds convincing at first until you realize it’s garbage. But for kids who know their photos are out there or for adults who know pics of themselves are out there, I agree that they are being harmed, assuming they don’t want them to be there. But what if they are perfectly happy to have their child porn on the Net? Are they still being harmed with each and every new download? Of course not.

This argument is full of holes, but it does work in a number of cases.

I would make another much better argument that society is harmed by this stuff too. Even if it’s on the Dark Net where hardly anyone but the worst pedophiles is looking at it, I still think society is being harmed. Even if someone has the photos taken by themselves on their computer and has never shown them to anyone else? Yes, I would argue that society is still being harmed. We simply cannot allow photographic documentation of children being molested, willingly or not, floating around in society. I do not wish to live in a society where this garbage is legal. It’s disgusting and outrageous that it even exists at all. Kids shouldn’t be molested and we should not take photos of kids getting molested. Because we don’t wish to live in a society where we allow this sort of perverse and revolting garbage occur or exist.

The Anti-CP Argument Mutates Again

But notice how that definition alone isn’t good enough? What about in the case of the Black Cat Scans? The girls were not harmed and in fact they are quite happy to have these erotic pics of themselves floating around. So the argument that the girls are harmed is garbage. Are the Black Cat scans photos of a crime? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope it’s not illegal to take photographs of clothed pubescents in dirty poses.

So on what grounds is it illegal? Who knows? Notice how they have to keep going back to the drawing board and inventing new and weirder and weirder reasons for extending the crime beyond what was intended? Perhaps it is harmful to society to let this stuff float around willy-nilly. That’s a tough argument because even I find that stuff repulsive, but I don’t think stuff really harms society. But I don’t want the Net flooded with it either. If it only exists in a very secretive niche websites, I don’t have a problem with it.

And the Argument Mutates Again!

Pigs wouldn’t be pigs if they only had one mutating argument for making something questionable illegal. The reason they’re pigs is because the arguments for the illegality of this or that keep changing, seemingly with the wind. With each new unannounced expansion of the law, new justifications for the material’s illegal must be invented. The fact that people have to wrack their minds to come up with some argument, any argument, for making something illegal implies to me that it probably shouldn’t be illegal. Crimes ought to be justifiable on their face. It’s illegal to take another’s life without cause. It’s illegal to break into other’s homes. It’s illegal to see dangerous drugs that cause death and destruction. It’s illegal to drive drunk and possibly lethally endanger other people’s lives and limbs. It’s illegal to steal other people’s stuff.

With each of those crimes, did we have to wrack our brains forever to come up with some BS reason for the law to exist? Of course not. In general, all of those things are illegal because the person or possessions of another is harmed to taken from them. In other cases, innocent people are being subjected to unreasonable harm to life and limb due to the irresponsibility of others. Sensible laws are about hurting, harming, or killing other persons, relieving them of their possessions, or unreasonably threatening their lives and bodily health.

So we see that the child porn argument mutates yet again!

What about in the case of Mr. D.’s erotica? This is even crazier. The Black Cat scans at least dealt with real humans. With written erotica we are not even dealing with that. We are dealing with people who literally don’t even exist. The fictional characters apparently being harmed in these stories aren’t real! So how could they be harmed? There’s just a bunch of words. No humans, no photos, just words. Any girls get harmed? Nope, there were no girls to harm! A written depiction of a crime with fake fictional characters? I assume you can write stories about committing disgusting crimes all you want to. It’s a pretty weird thing to do, and I worry about people who do that, but it would seem to legal under freedom of speech.

Is society harmed by allowing pedophilic written erotica to exist? I doubt it. Who even knows that those stories even exist on the Net? 1% of the population? Who reads them? Less than that. I would argue that society is not harmed by a bunch of silly words that no one reads.

Teenage Girl Sex Panic: I Was Banned from Reddit

I got banned from Reddit a while back. I still go there all the time and I am always greeted by this horrible message that my account is permanently banned. The site keeps throwing it in my face while I surf around the site. It’s very depressing to see that message over and over. It makes you feel hopeless. I kept sneaking back on and they kept banning me again. Sucks that these bans are for a lifetime. I hardly think what I did was worth a lifetime ban. I posted something. My opinion on a particular issue. You know, like free speech. And it wasn’t even particularly outrageous.

People were posting the usual insane bullshit about adult men and teenage girls, and someone discussed a man and a 13 year old girl. I made a post that said, “A man having sex with a 13 year old girl is normal.” I was banned for promoting pedophilia!

You can’t “promote pedophilia.” You can’t be for it or against it. It’s a biological disorder that some folks just end up with. Can you promote schizophrenia? Blue eyes? Albinism? Manic-depressive illness? Borderline Personality Disorder? Foot fetishism? Depression?

How on Earth can you promote or oppose any of those things, and what difference would it make if you did? None of those are really acquired behaviors. You can’t just decide you want to acquire any of those things. You either get wired up that way or you don’t, pretty much. Most are acquired in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood, and tend to have a chronic course. People acquire mental disorders. You cannot promote or oppose any mental disorder. It’s ridiculous. These are simply maladaptive ways of thinking that some people get into. They’re not something where you wake up one day and decide you want to be this way.

And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not.

Those conditions are not really willed actions, as in, “I can decide to go to the store right now.”

Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions.

I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.

Anyway, what did I mean? Well, the American Psychiatric Association has decided that Hebephilia, usually an attraction or preference for pubescents aged ~12-14 is not a mental disorder. There was a big fight about it in the discussions of the latest DSM-5. The people saying it was not a disorder won. Furthermore, they went beyond that to say that not only was it not a disorder, it was also completely normal!

Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 18% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 18% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.

81% of men are primarily attracted to mature females, 15-16+. These men are called teleophiles. However, teleophilic men are also attracted to 11-14 year old girls, albeit on a slightly lower level than they are to matures. The usual estimate is that 100% of men are attracted to 12-15 year old girls and 95% of men are attracted to girls 2-12! However, in the latter case, almost all of those men are attracted to little girls at substantially lower level than they are to mature females. 3% of men are pedophiles; that is, they have are more attracted to girls under 11 than they are to mature females. That’s a lot of men.

So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree, frankly to a very substantial degree! Normal men are attracted to 12-14 year old girls at 87% of maximum. That’s a very high level of attraction.

Hence, does it follow that if he acts on the attraction, is that normal too? I said it was on Reddit, but I am not sure. It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically disordered behavior like child molestation. Men have been having sex with girls that age for almost all of human evolution. They still do in primitive societies, where men generally start having sex with girls after menarche, which is typically age 13.

In the DSM debate, they said that men who acted on their hebephilic urges were criminals in many Western countries. I would agree with that. If you’re asking me if I am advocating men to have sex with 13 year old girls ,I am not. The reason is because it’s illegal, and you might get caught. If you get caught they will throw the book at you, and you may go to prison for a long time, where you might not be real welcomed by the other inmates. If you ever get out you go on the Sex Offender list for life.

So I absolutely am not saying men should do these things. I completely oppose adult men having sex with 13 year old girls in our society. In addition, it ought to be illegal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. I would give a break to, say, an 18 year old man, but once you start  getting a bit above that, you have to seriously outlaw it. And if men are caught having sex with 13 year old girls, I think they should be incarcerated. I don’t wish to live in a society where it’s legal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. That creeps me out.

I’m just saying it’s not psychologically disordered to do so. Is it normal? Well, maybe, but perhaps a lot of bad behavior is normal. Almost all crime is considered “normal” in that it is not mentally disordered behavior. Criminals don’t do it because they’re crazy. Committing crimes doesn’t make you nuts.

Instead, while crime is “normal,” it is also wrong in most cases. And I think you can make a case that a lot of crime is intrinsically wrong. That is, when you seriously harm other persons or their property or cause them losses, that seems to be immoral in a global sense of universal morality. Wife beating is probably intrinsically wrong too. But it’s not nuts. Sadly, it’s very normal to beat your wife.

But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man, and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong. But whether it’s wrong or not, it’s still illegal, and we have to follow the laws of our society.

A good rule is that non-coercive sex is generally morally right (except with adults and little children under age 13), and coercive sex is morally wrong. And in certain societies, men having sex with 13 year old girls is morally proper, natural, and normal. It’s seen as immoral and abnormal in our society. Our society and any society has a right to decide what is right and what is wrong within reason. Societies get to make their own rules about morality.

Men having sex with young teenage girls is a behavior that is intrinsically neither right nor wrong. This is one of those behaviors where society decides whether and how right or wrong it is. Quite a few societies think it’s just fine. Our society thinks it is wrong, bad, immoral, evil, disgusting, creepy, on and on.

That’s the value that our society has placed on that act. It’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide that men having sex with 13 year old girls is dead wrong, a seriously immoral act. So societies have a right to outlaw this behavior and even throw the book at people who violate these laws. So it’s acceptable for a society to punish men who have sex with 13 year old girls with imprisonment.

These things are more matters of right and wrong, good and bad, good and evil than matters of crazy or sane or normal or abnormal. These are not things that psychiatry deals with. Psychiatry only cares if you are nuts or not. We don’t care if something is right or wrong, and we don’t have a good idea what is anyway. Issues of right and wrong and good and bad behavior are matters for Moral Philosophy, the Sociology of Morals and the Law to figure out. They are moral and legal matters, not psychiatric ones.

I still think it was low and hysterical to ban me on this petty offense. Obviously, Redditors are in the throes of this idiot sex panic. Society has gone completely hysterical about this stupid issue. Shame on every one of you for falling for this asinine moral panic.

Alt Left: According to the Cultural Left, Blacks and Women Are Permanent Children

Found on the Net: This is the media and academia spin on every topic — nothing is the loser’s fault, everything failing is caused by external White evil.

This is interesting in a philosophical sense.

According to the reigning narrative, Blacks (and any other fake oppressed group) literally have no agency. That is, they have no free will and cannot make any decisions at all for themselves, no matter how bright they are. Black people never do anything. They literally cannot because if they ever did anything, it would wreck the whole idea.

Instead, Black people are passive objects that only sit there and get things done to them, usually bad things and usually by Whites. They just sit there helplessly while all these bad things get done to them all day long which they are powerless to stop. Since they have no agency and never do anything, nothing can ever be their fault.

Feminists do this same thing with women. Women have no agency either and they never do anything; instead things just get done to them, usually bad things and usually by men. Women just sit around in life and get bad things done to them all day which they are powerless to stop.

Please note the extreme infantilization implied here. Both Blacks and women are permanent children, as children are usually thought to have little to no agency (minors can’t consent and all that nonsense).

Now, if one wants to make the argument that women are permanent children, I won’t argue with you. That’s part of the Feminine Character, and arguably it’s an evolutionary necessity.

A woman can literally sit in a playpen with an idiotic baby and play with the baby all day long without a care in the world. She’s in her happy place, heaven on Earth. You can’t do that unless you have a childlike or childish mind yourself. I wouldn’t last 10 minutes with that dumb baby.

On the other hand, sane societies (otherwise known as patriarchies, since these are the only societies that actually work) have always seriously proscribed childishness in grown women .

Sure, women want to be childish – it’s their nature. But if you enforce maturity and adulthood on them with serious punishments, most women will suppress their childish tendencies and act like grownups. My mother’s generation was like this.

The problem with feminism is that it is based on the idea that women are permanent children with no agency. It’s also encouraged women to act as crazy as possible. Acting crazy is also part of the Feminine Character, but once again, sane societies put serious punishments on women for acting nutty.

Women in my Mom’s generation acted like grownups and were quite sane. In these younger generations it seems like we are dealing with whole cohorts of females with symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder.

So, I’m wondering, based on this theory, does the woke crowd treat Blacks like children? They infantalize Black people, don’t they? According to them, Blacks are permanent children who never grow up .

That’s pretty insulting but perhaps Black people want it like this. There is a freedom in childhood, and acting like a child that we adults are generally denied. This is frustrating for a lot of adults who wish to reject the stultifying, over-serious rectitude of adulthood that can feel like a prison at times.

Furthermore, children have no responsibilities and people have few expectations of them – in fact it is expected and assumed they will act bad and this is seen as normal, albeit lamentable and annoying. They are not expected to be skilled or accomplished at much if anything, and failure in many tasks is assumed and treated as normal.

Most importantly in many ways, nothing us really a child’s fault. If a kid does something waited or crazy we excuse it by saying “Oh well, he’s just a child.” Young children are assumed to have diminished capacity for mist crimes and many ordinary acts if human behavior (minors can’t consent to sex, etc.)

All if these add up to a sense of freedom that might be appealing to many Black people. And I would add, to many Whites too. Reading the above and seeing how much responsibility and culpability I can avoid by remaining a permanent child is starting to make it a bit appealing even to me. And I’m a responsible, intelligent person. If permanent childhood is appealing to me, consider how it must feel to the tens of millions of Americans who are much less intelligent and responsible than I am.

Let’s Talk Social Skills: Conversations with Strangers

“Social Skills” Is a Sick Joke

Thing is, “social skills” is a sick joke. No one ever learns them 100%, there are 300,000-3 million of them at any given time, they’re always changing, and it’s impossible to keep track of all of them and their permutations. Everyone thinks they have great social skills, but they’re almost all liars. No one knows all those rules.

Anyway, extroverts break all of them all the time, and no one cares. We introverts agonize over every single one of them, are always worried about breaking them, and then get creamed when we forget to dot one i or cross one t.

With this insane #metoo crap, it’s gotten 10X worse than it already was, and it had been getting very bad for a good 15 years already. It started getting very bad in 2005-2008, somewhere thereabouts.

I remember for instance in the 1990’s, the baristas at a local coffee shop when I was told by the female manager that all the baristas talked about how I was always checking them out, but no one really cared because, you know, it’s normal for straight men (as in guys who are not screaming faggots) to, you know, look at women. Like, it’s what we do. Sure, they tell you not to stare and whatnot, but that’s hard to do. Some of the other baristas talked about it too, but they just shook their heads and sort of laughed. This is always the way it’s been my whole life. I’ve never even thought of this questions my whole life. “Do you stare at women? or “Do you look at women?” It seemed like I was doing it the whole time and simply never came up.

Punish Bad Service

I didn’t like the way the baristas were treating me, so I stopped tipping them. Then they got one that was really nice and I started tipping her. After a while, I saved up all my tips from the ones I was shunning and dumped them all on the nice one. One time I gave her $4.50, all in change. One of the ones I snubbed said, “Hey! You gave her a huge tip, and you never give me anything!” I said, “That’s right. Because she’s nice!” She said, “I’m nice…” and I said, “I don’t think so…” Anyway they figured out the drill and after that day all the baristas who had been so cold and mean to me were suddenly extremely friendly, almost over the top friendly.

I never knew if it was fake or not and I couldn’t care less if it was, honestly. I’m not sure if I care that people are just pretending to like me. Pretending to like me is a lot better than disliking me.

You have to discipline people sometimes.

Staring

There are a lot of things you can do. Animate your face a bit so it doesn’t look like a blank, creepy stare. Move your eyes around somewhat. Anyway, if a woman likes you, I assure you that she doesn’t give two one-hundreds of a shit about the fact that you “stare” at her. She won’t even call it staring. She’ll say, “He’s always looking at me he he.” It’s only staring if she doesn’t like you. Otherwise it’s just looking. Truth is you can “stare” exactly the same way at different women, and if they don’t like you, they will call it staring and if they like you, they will call it looking.

So there’s no real difference between staring and looking. Stares look creepy because they’re blank. Animate your face. Look happy. Smile. Tell yourself little jokes. If you look like you’re enjoying yourself, you’re not “staring.” It also helps to look around. Don’t stare at one woman the whole time. Though to be honest, I’ve “stared” at one woman a hundred million times, and I don’t think any of them ever cared. A lot of them like it, and they will call you over to talk to them.

Truth is, I’ve never given two-hundreds of a shit about any of this, and now that I think about it, I’ve probably been “staring” at women and girls my whole life. Generally speaking there have been no repercussions.

Until I started getting older.

At age 47, I got temporarily banned from a Starbucks for “looking at baristas’ bodies.” Some cuck faggot banned me and told me to “control myself.” Weird thing is he thought he was a big man but no real man confronts another man about something that pussy and gay. No real man gets another guy in trouble for checking out chicks.

I suppose if I were in a supervisory position and I was told to tell a customer that he was making the female employees mad by looking at them, I would take him outside and talk to him, man to man, smiling and winking, calling the women misogynistic names like “stupid bitches” and saying, “Look, there’s nothing wrong with looking at women but you’re being too obvious about it. Try these tricks instead.” The truth is the female employees tried to get him banned for the crime of being ugly and looking at women. Ugly men can’t look at women. Only Chad can look at women. The rest of the men? I dunno.

So what I had been getting away with my whole life, I could no longer get away with. All of the rules had changed. See how I told you they change the rules on you.

I also learned a few other things.

You Can’t Look at Kids Anymore. At All

You can’t look at kids anymore. Well, we all love kids, and everybody likes to look at cute little kids of either sex running around or having fun. At the same shop as above, there were these two boys running up and down this very steep hill, laughing and playing the whole time. They might have been 10. I did the same stuff when I was that age, so it reminded me of my youth.

I sat there and watched those boys going up and down that hill with a big smile on my face, traveling back in time. After a while, it seemed like some of the local cucks and fags were staring at me with a very hostile look. It took me until a while later to figure it out, but in our insane society nowadays, a grown man cannot watch two young boys play and enjoy themselves. If he does, that means he is a gay pedophile who is plotting to molest them. Pedophile Mass Hysteria again. Sigh. I don’t even date men. Why would I have sex with a boy?

But after that, I started being a lot more careful at how I look at kids. I still look at them sometimes, but I’m a lot more careful how I do it.

How to Talk to Kids Or Adults with Kids

Most of us are not molesters, but even if you’re not a molester, most adults still find kids delightful and any normal adult might want to talk to a kid of a parent with a kid sometime.

This is to show you how to do that.

I saw a boy with his apparent father the other in the store. They smiled back at me, and I went over and said, “Father and son?” I pointed to the boy, “Ten?” He smiled, “Eight.” That was it. I walked away. They were Hispanic and Hispanics are way less weird about this stuff.

One time a man and a woman and what must have been a 12 year old girl came into a coffee shop. The girl had to have been 12 years old because no other age looks like that. 12 year old girls are adorable and wonderful creatures, but obviously you can’t touch them. I don’t even have sexual thoughts when I look at them because they really don’t do it for me. The  girl had an equally adorable puppy in the pocket of her dress, poking its head out. The whole scene was quite adorable really, the adorable young girl and her adorable little dog and their obvious love for each other. She was with Mom and Dad.

I did turn around and look at her quite a bit. I would look for a bit, and then I would turn back around. I always mostly looked a the dog. I put these thoughts in my head while I was doing it,

What a wonderful, adorable dog! Look at that adorable little girl and how devoted she is to that too-cute little puppy! Tugs at your heartstrings!

I didn’t have any sexual thoughts about her, though there would have been nothing wrong if I did. Those girls just don’t do it for me. I like grown up girls, not little girls. I’m convinced that the thoughts you put in your head when you look at people help to convey a message. If you’re going to look at a little girl and her puppy, put innocent, angelic, “Oh how cute” thoughts in your head. I did that a while and no one cared. If you looked at me, it mostly looked like I was looking at the dog anyway. The parents didn’t care, but they were Hispanics and Hispanics don’t give a fuck. They probably figured I was looking at the cute dog, not perving on the girl, and they didn’t give a damn.

I Have to Admit It’s Pretty Fun Living in a Patriarchal Society as a Man

Now that I live a patriarchal “men rule” Hispanic community, you can sometimes approach a father and son and ask in a neighborly way whether they are father and son, that sort of thing. Don’t get nervous or scared that you will think the wrong thing. Just put completely innocent thoughts in your head.

Hey, I’m going over to talk to this guy and his son in a totally innocent and non-creepy way.

As long as you have that mindset, you should be ok. One guy to another sort of thing. For some reason, Hispanic men never think you’re trying to fuck their little boy like stupid White men are.

Now if it’s a girl, it’s a whole other ballgame. I was in a coffee shop and an Hispanic man had his little daughter in there. She was doing dance moves, running from the center of the room 15 feet towards the front and doing twirls and whatnot. She was wearing a little ballerina dress. It was cute as all get out watching that little girl do her delightful dance moves in public, so I sat back and admired her with a big smile on my face for a few minutes. I didn’t think sexual thoughts about her, but it wouldn’t have mattered if I did. Anyone can think anything they want. Seven year old girls just don’t do it for me, sorry!

The father soon glared at me, grabbed his daughter, and walked out. Ridiculous. See? You can’t even look at kids being their delightful selves anymore. Pedophile Mass Hysteria.

How to Ask How Old a Kid Is

Maybe you want to know how old the kid is. The ages of children and teens are interesting because they change so much with every year. Think of the growth spurts and changes from one year to the next from ages 1-10 or 11-17 and compare them to the year to year changes of someone in their 20’s. People in their 20’s barely register any perceptual changes from year to year. As far as kids go, I mostly want to guess their ages more than anything because that is interesting to me and it’s also a bit of an intellectual challenge.

Remember how I said you could ask the age of a man’s son? You can, but I prefer to do it as a guess. I nod to the kid and guess his age, “Eight?” Then the father beams and you’re either right or he happily corrects you. “How old is he?” sounds a bit weird and creepy in these ridiculous and hysterical times. It’s better to do it super casual like I do. Be totally relaxed when you do this because if you seem nervous or fearful, you might freak out the father.

After that I generally turn away unless the father gives me a signal to keep talking. It’s very non-creepy to walk up to a father and son, inquire if they are father and son, non-creepily ask the age of the kid, smile and then walk away, acting extremely casual about it the whole time. Don’t try to have conversations where other people clearly don’t want to have them.

Talking to Female Minors

The best attitude here is to do it as infrequently as possible because it’s so rent with landmines. But many men with no sexual intentions at all nevertheless wish to speak to female minors and even children because all normal humans love and are enchanted by kids and even teenagers.

Now if you see a girl and you want to ask her age, that’s going to be a lot more difficult, especially if she’s a teenager. If she’s a little girl with her Mom and you say it innocently enough, it will probably go over. A little girl alone or with a friend, just forget it. But you need to be extra careful where any female minors are involved. Most of the time, I probably wouldn’t even ask.

I used to but I started getting some bad vibes. I would talk to the mother, nod my head at the girl and say, “13?” Sometimes it went over but other times it didn’t at all. And once they start getting into 14-17, you can barely ask their ages at all because everything has sexual overtones and everyone assumes you are trying to fuck her. I’m not trying to fuck any girl that age, but if I try to talk to her, everyone is going to assume just that. Teenage Girl Sex Panic.

There were a pair of young Hispanic females who came in the other day. I kept looking at them because they were both quite Indian-looking and about the same height. One was 13 or so obviously, but I couldn’t figure out the other one. Was she the mother? I started thinking the mother looked about as old as the daughter. This was very puzzling to me so I was looking at them and trying to figure out which one was the mother  and which was the daughter! This shows you the degree of peadomorphiism  and neotenism in some of these Indian groups. Their neotenic appearance is enhanced by their small sizes – they are typically quite short.

I was looking at them ordering from behind, and I was looking at the older one’s body and trying to figure out if she was the mother. I wasn’t even really thinking anything sexual, though that would have been just fine. I was trying to discern a familial relationship! The barista looked at me weird like I shouldn’t be looking at them, and I didn’t understand that. Why can’t I look at a woman?

They ordered and then came back near me. I sidled over to them and spoke to them in extremely casual, “I don’t care” type of way (which could also be construed as “not serious” and “no need to worry about me”). Females of all ages feel pretty threatened by us men, especially male strangers, so it’s important to try to put them at ease not just for your own, not just for your own purpose but even if only from a humanistic point of view.

“Mother and daughter?,” I asked, as if it were the most casual, don’t give a damn question on Earth. They were very Hispanic which means very relaxed about most uptight bullshit like Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria. The older one looked at me and said, “No, sisters.” I laughed hard and said, “No way.” Then I think I asked their ages, but I was laughing the whole time. If you’re going to ask the ages of female minors, you have to do so in a joking, laughing, “don’t care” sort of way because this question can be frightening to them. When you laugh it takes the tension off and makes it seem less sexual.

“I’m 15 and she’s 13,” she said. I just said, “No way” and laughed some more. They didn’t particularly seem like they wanted to talk anymore, so I ended the conversation very quickly and walked away. Whenever someone acts like they don’t particularly want to talk to you (which is all day long every single day at my age), just end the conversation quickly, and turn around or walk away, all very casually. Don’t act angry. You can roll your eyes, though because it is pretty dicky to shut down friendly strangers.

The problem here is your brain. Your brain or ego really sees it as an insult that this person is giving off vibes saying, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Your brain and psyche would rather have a quite unpleasant conversation where the person acts like they don’t want to talk to you the whole time than to be shut down right away and walk away in humiliation. I suppose if you managed even an unpleasant conversation, your psyche sees it as some sort of a perverse win or at least not a fail.

You can often ask the age of the minor if you see what looks like an obvious mom and daughter. It’s probably better if she is a child than if she is a teenager because with the teenager both the girl and the mother are going to make a lot of automatic sexual assumptions. You might want to try to clear out sexual thoughts when you say it too, to the extent that’s possible. With a lot of teenage girls, that’s going to be quite difficult, so try to put them aside so to speak instead. Put them “on the backburner” in your brain. I am convinced that sexual thoughts get transmitted pretty easily to others.

Look at the girl, point to her, and guess an age in a very quick and casual way, and then turn and look away from them. Or look at both of them and ask, “Mother and daughter?” The latter question seems to go over a lot better. When you turn and look away from people this is a sign of submissiveness and harmlessness so you can appear casual, nonsexual, and nonthreatening. That’s how I see it. Keep it “casual.” Super, super casual. They will probably give you the girl’s age. Then just smile and nod and walk away if it doesn’t seem like they want to carry the conversation beyond that, which is the usual case.

I’m not sure what else you could say afterwards anyway, and I’d be afraid of continuing for fear of being seen as sexual. Generally I’m extremely cautious about saying much of anything to any female minors. Also, mothers of teenage girls are extremely dangerous and are insanely suspicious about any male stranger inquiring even in the most harmless way about her daughter. Especially now with Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria where even the admission of having the normal attraction that all men have to teenage girls is enough to bring out death threats and lynch mobs.

Teenage girls and their mothers are all totally paranoid nowadays because of the Moral Panics, so it’s best for you to be paranoid too.

You Can’t Just Go Up and Talk to Anybody

I got banned from a Starbucks for the crime of “talking to humans.” Some young women banned me. I think I knew the ones who did, too. I was literally talking to them about the weather. At that point in my life I was going up and talking to people all the time, talking to people out of the blue, etc. Basically treating a lot of strangers like potential conversation partners. Which I’d been doing my whole life because I’m the sort of person who strikes up conversations with strangers a lot. It had never been much of a problem but now at my age, it’s turning into a big deal.

Turns out I had been talking to young women, but I had been talking to people of every other age group too. I would walk over to a table and say something, make a joke or something, and walk away. Turns out you can’t do that anymore. Truth is I’d been going to this shop for years. Sure, I talked to a number of young women, but in my utter patheticness, I never flirted with a single one of them for even one second. I just chit-chatted about this, that, or whatever, the weather, made jokes, just casual conversational bullshit. Absolutely no sexual content or vibes whatsoever with any of them.

I would have loved to have flirted with some of them or even be openly sexual, but none of them even seemed to give off strong enough signals that they wanted to me to do that, and I need green lights.

Turns out you can’t do that anymore or at least I can’t do it anymore at my age. Past a certain age, you just can’t walk up to young women and start talking to them, even if they are standing next to you in life. It’s pretty much banned, and if you do it, people act like they are going to call the cops.

So I got banned for “talking to humans.” Apparently “talking to humans” is now “harassment.” I guess nowadays you are “harassing” people by trying to talk to them! Who knew? The speech need not be sexual in any way. The mere fact The sexual overtones are obvious but I never once even flirted with one of those women in the slightest. It shouldn’t really matter it I did because after all, men have a right to flirt with women, but I didn’t.

What I learned is that I have to be totally paranoid at my age. I only talk to people if they give off a strong vibe of wanting to talk to me. If they seem like they don’t want to talk to me, I don’t talk to them. If they seem like they are ignoring me, I don’t talk to them. If a woman acts like she’s ignoring you, she probably is. I don’t think you should approach her.

Look at people and see how they react. If they ignore you, leave them alone. If she’s busy on her laptop or with her schoolwork, leave her the Hell alone. Can’t you see she’s busy? Look over at people.

If you think you might want to talk to them, you can look at them a number of times. Look at them a bit, then look away. Then look at them a bit, then look away. Or look at them out of the corner of your eye. If they see you look at them but don’t act open and friendly, don’t go over and talk to them. That’s what I was doing before. It was a bad idea.

If people seem like they are not open and friendly and you go over and talk to them, they may open up. But more often than not, they don’t. They may just stay cold. You get vibes like:

  • “Why the Hell are you talking to us?”
  • “Who the Hell are you, anyway?”
  • “What gives you the right to talk to us?”
  • “You’re a stranger, why should I talk to you?”
  • “You’re being audacious.”
  • “We don’t know you, so why are you talking to us.”
  • You’re rude.”

I’ve gotten all of these messages a million times in my life, and nowadays it’s pretty much an all day every day type of thing.

The thing is once you get that vibe, you need to just take off. And try not to get mad. They have a right not to talk to you. They’re not being mean or cold or rude or anything by not talking to you. Nobody has to talk to anyone. Just because they don’t want to talk to you doesn’t mean that they necessarily don’t like you or hate you. Mostly you’re probably just not on their mind at all.

There’s a problem here. When someone gives off those vibes, your brain rebels. Actually, your ego rebels. Your ego takes it as an insult. Your ego will want to ignore the vibes they are giving off and try to keep talking to them. Your ego will tell you, “If you keep talking to them, they will warm up.” Also to walk away is to admit that someone snubbed you, and that’s an insult. It seems less of an insult if you keep talking to them. It keeps the insult at bay.

There’s a real problem here. It doesn’t work. When conversations start out bad like that, they never or almost never warm up. In fact, they tend to go downhill if they go anywhere. Still, your ego tells you to keep plugging on.

The “Subconscious Cope”

I call it “the subconscious cope.”

It has very serious Game/PUA implications. The subconscious cope is where your brain keeps telling you some woman is into you when she’s not. You always interpret everything in a positive way as if it’s a possible come-on. I’ve had to deal with this my whole life, but now that I am paranoid, I have a handle on my subconscious cope. The subconscious cope keeps telling you:

  • “Hey, that woman likes you!”
  • “Look, that woman smiled at you!”
  • “She stared at you – that means she likes you!”
  • “She stared at you with frightened eyes – that means she’s horny!”
  • “She’s nervous around you – that’s because she likes you!”
  • “She acted cold. She doesn’t mean it. Really she still likes you. Ignore it and keep trying!”

Your ego wants to think that all the women everywhere are into you and it’s going to be telling you that your whole life. Problem is it’s lying to you. They’re not all into you. A lot of them probably hate you. There are plenty of young women (and even some older women for that matter) around here who act like they hate me. I haven’t the faintest idea why they feel this way.

The woman who looked at you with those frightened eyes? That’s because you’re scaring her, not because she’s horny. And lately I have found a few cases of women staring at me because they hate me.

And for the first time in my life, I have found women acting nervous around me because they think I’m hitting on them and they’re not comfortable with that, probably because of my age. I’m starting to get pretty worried now whenever any woman acts nervous around me. Lately that’s just not a good thing at all.

I started noticing some other things too.

Some baristas at the coffee shop would go into the back room soon after I showed up. I didn’t think anything of it for a long time until it hit me with a hammer in the face. They were going to the back room because I looked at them, and they didn’t like it. Solution was to try not to look at them, but they were hot, so that was almost impossible. But that realization really hit me in the face. In order to see something like that, you have be able to see patterns. That’s hard to do because your brain doesn’t want to see patterns, especially lousy patterns.

Subconscious cope. Your brain is very biased to ignore expressions unpleasant patterns where people seem like they don’t like you. That’s something it just wants to ignore because it’s so painful. And it wants to look for pleasant and uplifting patterns because those make it feel good. So it’s always going to be biased towards thinking people like you when they don’t, and not recognizing it when people act like they don’t like you. When you’re being dumped, the subconscious cope says it’s not happening and she’s really still with you. It’s looking for positives everywhere and imagining a lot of them and ignoring all the negatives, even when they are real.

You need to recognize that your subconscious cope is operating all the time, and you need to try to combat it because if you listen to it, you tend to get into trouble.

 

 

 

Critical Race Theory Is So Bad That It’s Not Even Wrong!

Critical Race Theory or CRT is much in the news these days. Unfortunately, the lying about it, almost totally on the part of the Left, has been as bad as a 100 year flood.

But let’s take a look at just where CRT started. Its onset was in 1976 with the publications of papers from Black legal scholar Derrick J. Bell.

He noticed that anti-discrimination laws got passed, so discrimination, at least overt discrimination, was over. This was acknowledged by Bell himself. Many people had assumed that once discriminatory barriers against Blacks were lifted, they would match Whites in various areas where they were serious discrepancies. But the problem persisted. I would say the problems persisted because discrimination wasn’t the cause of all of it anyway, but people were still troubled because anti-discrimination laws didn’t fix the problem.

Blacks were still behind in so many areas. This caused a lot of reflection by antiracist scholars. First, they assumed that all discrepancies between Blacks and Whites were due to racism, something which has never been proven! But it was a comforting thing for these people to believe. So what was causing the discrepancies? What gave? Obviously the problem could not have been Blacks themselves due to some deficiency either inherent or acquired on their own part. It had to be some type of racism! But since overt racism had vanished or been reduced to low levels, what sort of racism was this? Clearly, it had to be some weird type of invisible racism that people cannot even see, sort of a ghost racism.

This is where he and his cohorts came up with the weird notions of invisible racism such as societal, structural, and institutional racism, the theories of which are all nonfalsifiable and therefore junk theory because all theory must be falsifiable.

Except in the social sciences, but they usually aren’t doing science there anyway. Instead they are doing politics. You are either doing Politics or Science. If you aren’t doing Science, you are doing Politics and vice versa. The variability of humans and the fact that social issues are so bound up in politics and extreme emotion means that empiricism is often an afterthought if not doomed from birth in the social sciences. The extreme emotion that theories of the social sciences provoke is because these theories are about people. Humans tend to get pretty emotional about any scientific ideas involving themselves. You might say it hits a bit too close to home.

The problem is that the extreme emotional atmosphere in which the social sciences operate tends to doom any empirical enterprises. It’s hard to come up with a positivist conclusion about much of anything when everyone’s shouting at each other. And of course politics is dishonest by its very nature and its practitioners tend to be at least somewhat psychopathic. Politics is as sleazy and dirty as life gets. Once your science gets infected with politics, just kiss it goodbye. The quest for knowledge is dramatically slowed by all the lying and infighting if not arrested altogether. Karl Popper himself made some remarks along these lines in 1934 when he said that when science starts defending all of its paradigms to death, this is the end of knowledge creation.

So the problem with CRT is not that CRT is not true. Yes it is not true or at least it cannot be shown to be true, which is the same thing. But the problem with CRT is so much worse than that. CRT is such bad theory that it’s not even wrong.

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

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

Let’s look at some statistics:

Percentage          Whites   Blacks  Other

US                      62         13       25

South Africa        9           88       3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If This Is What It Means to Be Woke, Count Me Out

I figured it was coming to this. I know how these people operate. Wokeism isn’t just about liberation of oppression or whatever, it’s about the easing of any and all cultural restrictions on human life. Everything goes. Count me out.

I hang out on some pretty unsavory places on the Net like porn blogs for instance because that’s my idea of fun. Also, you can meet or at least talk to a lot of women there for at least some spicy chat. I’m sorry! I’m a degenerate!

Anyway, you can also talk to other straight men on there. I was talking to one guy, who does incredibly well with women by the way, and he told me that he was now woke, and to him that meant performing fellatio on other males!

Now I know a lot of straight guys have some faggy fun sometimes, but gosh! I thought, “If this is what woke means, count me out, brother!”

By the way, on the perverted sites I hang out on like Pornhub, I have noticing in the comments to the videos for years now more and more non-gay men having this type of sex with men. You can also see it in the Reddit sex subs. There’s one called Random Acts of Blowjob where people post about wanting to suck a cock or get their cock sucked.

Most of the commenters are straight men, and of course they get almost zero replies.

There are many gay men posting, often saying “Looking to suck straight men,” which is an extremely typical fantasy with gay men. If you look on the Pornhub top video searches for gay men, it’s all about seducing a straight man. It’s part of what the syndrome of being gay is all about.

But one thing I have been disturbed to notice lately is how many posts there are from “Straight Guy Looking to Suck His First Cock.” I can’t tell you how disappointed that makes me. But it makes sense along with everything else I’ve been seeing.

Women do post there and the average woman gets ~150 replies to each post, through which she has to wade and pick out a single man. Being a male is competitive! Quite a few straight men avail themselves of these offers because women don’t exactly put out for free very often, and it’s typically quite hard for a single man to get laid. If it were easy, why would a whore market exist? Of course if men could get sex as easily as women could, the prostitute market would evaporate. The prostitute market exists because there are many more buyers (men looking for sex) than sellers (women putting out).

Hence there is a permanent Vagina Shortage. It’s in women’s interest to drive up the cost of pussy by making it as scarce, and they work hard to just that. If you were assured of meeting a woman for sex anytime you went to a bar, men would be lined up for blocks before the bars open at 11 AM! Obviously that’s not happening.

Nevertheless, I keep meeting women who insist that all a man has to do is go to a bar, and he’s assured for free sex for the evening, no doubt with a hottie. I keep trying to set them straight, but they keep insisting they are right. Women will and can never understand what it’s like to be a man, and this forms part of the War of the Sexes. It’s a war the ingredients of which in part are sheer ignorance. One can argue that most wars are like that, but still. Women don’t get us men. They get us a lot better at 40 or 50 than at 20, but they still don’t really get us. Understanding men is probably like understanding psychopaths. You can’t understand one unless you are one!

It’s an ominous trend  – straight guys sucking dick – but I figured it was coming given the general thrust of SJWism.

If you tell straight men that there’s nothing wrong with having some faggy fun now and again, obviously a fair number are going to start doing just that. In fact, even worse, if you tell people there’s nothing wrong with doing just about anything, then quite a few people are going to start doing it. I’d say as a society we should be careful about what we tell people is ok and not ok.

That’s why I don’t like this idea that all sexual behaviors are acceptable if not wonderful choices. It leads to this crap.

I’m of the school that says certain sexual behaviors are not ok. And if you’re a straight guy who likes his faggy fun, you will not be my friend. I’ve met way too many of these characters for one lifetime, and I’m really  sick and tired of them. And you wouldn’t believe how many of them are ordinary married men with wives and even kids.

Alt Left: Francis Miville on the Need for a Do-over of the American System

He is commenting on my post here. Full Democracy in the US Will Be a Boon for Democrats and a Catastrophe for Republicans.

What I meant is an Alt Left notion of “The system is too far gone for reform. Let’s tear it all down and start over again from scratch,” which is exactly how I feel about my country.

However, I meant just the basic political system and culture. However, that would indeed take a “Cultural Revolution” if you will. And many countries had them. We had a huge cultural revolution in the 1960’s. It’s not all about Red Guards.

The sickness is baked far too deeply into the system. The State Department, the Executive and Legislature Branches themselves, the legalization of mass bribery and corruption via money-based elections, the Pentagon, the CIA, and even the FBI – they all need a wipe it out and start over again cleansing.

Look at how hard it will be to dismantle even US imperialism. Imperialism is baked into US society from top to bottom. 500 military bases overseas? Sanctions? Embargoes? Economic warfare? US control of the world monetary system via the dollar as fiat currency? The sickness of the weapons for oil deal with the Gulf Arabs, the alliance with fascist Turkey, NATO its very self (which is controlled by the US), on and on.

For instance, few know this, but the CIA is baked into all of US society at the levels of the elite class and the corporations. The elite class (the rich), the corporations, the powerful lobbies, ethnic and commodity-based, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department are all baked in with the national security state and its vast intelligence arm consisting of 17 different out of control agencies with a $30 billion budgets for scullduggery, lying, cheating, thieving, murder, and overthrowing other countries via coups of all sorts, including the fake color revolutions.

These are the people who killed Kennedy.

These are the people who run this country. The oil barons in Texas, the Silicon Valley uber-rich, the capitalist bastards on Wall Street and at the Wall Street Journal, the sick and twisted FIRE sector, the last of which basically a parasitic and non-prodcutive form of wealth creation via speculation or as I call it “a giant casino in the sky.”

That’s the US economy now – a giant casino in the sky for rich people. All the rest of us? We can go pound sand. That or get rich, which is usually accomplished by mass lying, cheating, and thieving on an individual level. We are now virtually governed by corporations and billionaires. We have billionaires taking over NASA for their own sleazy ends. We’ve outsourced everything to the billionaires and the corporations.

When you study the Kennedy Assassination, you realize that there was a vast group of people either in on it or supportive of it, and many of them have talked. A friend had lunch with LBJ’s attorney, who said Kennedy was killed by “the foreign policy establishment of the United States.” And that right there is the Deep State, and not only that, but the Deep State also encompasses all of the above via the support of the rich and the corporations for US foreign policy.

The Pentagon and the CIA work for Exxon and Elon Musk, not you and me. We overthrow foreign governments for the Richard Bransons and the Chevrons, not for you and me. How does it feel to join the US Army and become the personal army of and risk your life for Monsanto and Rex Tillerson? You died in a US war? Sucker! You died for Jeff Bezos and the Blackrock Group! You proud of yourself now, wherever you are, chump?

Because the rot and evil is so “baked in” to the system, it is going to be very hard to change. Look what happens in Latin America where they try to do similar cleansings of the oligarchies and diseased societies they created. You get coups, economic warfare, sanctions, embargoes, propaganda wars, assassination attempts, lockout strikes, color revolutions, stolen elections, lawfare, guarimbas, contra armies engaging on counterrevolution, on and on.

I am absolutely certain that at least some of those will happen if we try to do a do-over on America. The big guns are just not going to like it, and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am especially irked when I hear so many ne’erdowells whining about their beloved Trump having been defrauded of his sure win election by the evil globalists and America’s now being in great danger to suffer a Mao-style Cultural Revolution at the hands of the “ultra-Left”.

Such a degree of abuse of words might terminate faster than we think, as English as an international communication tool fit for intelligent exchange of ideas. First of all, how come the Republican Party is “red” and any state refusing it “blue”: that seems to go together well with the US being the only country refusing to go metric.

Had America been endowed even with a tolerably good semblance of democratic system as used to be usual in Europe and still is here and there, Trump would have had no chance to be anything more than a backwater talk show animator and maybe the governor of Missouri or Louisiana turning that state into a laughingstock for the nation and triggering that state to go full radical Socialist Left the election after. Trump was imposed onto America thanks to its stochastic electoral system.

The system looks like that of the old Republic of Venice (which was more or less a kind of rigged from behind roulette-like game of chance, with the difference they claimed of chance and not of the people’s will) against a definite majority’s will by both the financial forces revolving around the Goldman Sachs bank and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is Trump’s alter ego in the Old World (Russia playing a subsidiary role in that enterprise). He was actually a kind of Israeli governor directly imposed at international level against America’s own Zionist, but still to intelligent oligarchy just as a reminder to the nation that they are no longer sovereign and are to be treated like any African dependency where no intelligent people need apply from now on.

Alt-Right fell for that trap, bar very few thinking people. In a certain sense, Trump has been America’s first real “black” president.

They fear for a Mao-style Cultural Revolution to happen by the American ultra-Leftist forces. For the time being I see nobody on the American horizon still trying and succeeding in part to impose the cult of his personality as a kind of savior or Emperor Cyrus rather than Orange-Hue-Tan.

He is in the real position (though not in mental capacity, and probably not in mental disposition neither, as he doesn’t give a damn for his adoring crowd) to head a Cultural Counterrevolution to be followed by a Great Leap Backwards leading to the transformation of the US into the Neo-Medieval Republic of Gilead as described by Margaret Atwood in Handmaid’s Tale.

Actually I have also come on my own to your own conclusion: The US is indeed in great need of some Mao-like Old Far Left Cultural Revolution that should do away with all “olderies” and force all conservatives to acknowledge at last, through violent behavioral psychiatric techniques if need be, that there is absolutely nothing worth conserving in the US and that all has to be rebuilt from zero, and preferably from Ground Zero.

There is no single historical non-fake monument worth preserving except North Harlem’s Cloisters: the few other ones of decent colonial style have been all demolished to make room for cheaper and cheaper built and dearer and dearer sold condos, except a few that were built by slavers still having descendants caring for their property, but that kind of historical monument is rather to be classified with Holocaust Museums in my opinion.

The general infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair that bombing it all first would probably come out cheaper than getting back a working one. Most cities of the Rust Belt are already kind of bombed, so why not finish the job? There is nothing worth fireworks in the background; instead, there is everything worth fireworks in the structure.

As it is a Cultural Revolution we are talking about here, my opinion is that at the present moment no university is worth preserving. That is an euphemism: There is rather an emergency case for burning them all down, while what needs to be taught could be taught for free on the internet, preferably from as far overseas as possible. The diplomas emitted by them should be all declared void as has been done with Trump University sheepskins. Showing one in order to get any job should be an offense.

Among the olderies to be done away with first are the American religions: they are 100% crap. Their buildings should have one use – lodging and feeding the homeless. If they are no good for that purpose, they should be used as quarries for construction material by the homeless. As a general rule a new Homestead Act should apply: the first who sees a university building or a religious building that doesn’t serve the poor, let him take the ground and material for his own physical needs as if it were a vacant lot in conquered territory.

By what kind of economic miracle has America, which used to be the chief manufactured goods exporter of the world and won two world wars as such, turned into a chief exporter of only religion and mega-churches only (if we except the military sector from our equation, which is concentrated in the former Slaving South)? Has America so many saints, sages, and masterworks of timeless wisdom to be exported to the planet?

There should be only one single tax: Henry George ** 2. His equation was by the square of the value of real estate owned per owner or co-owner, which would make collectivization the only survivable solution while preserving personal liberty.

Activities not resulting in the production of physical goods, including religion, law, education, and medicine, should be declared out of reach of any lucrative enterprise and the attempt to make them lucrative classified together with prostitution. That is, either they are practiced for free as leisure, or they are charities (for real needy ones), or they are public services.

Slurs! Let’s Talk about Slurs!

Slurs! Let’s Talk about Slurs!

Fags, Faggots, and Dykes!

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

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

Niggers, niggers, and niggers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexicants? +1.

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

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

Spics? Old.

Beaners? Old and tired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dotheads and Curryniggers!

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

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

Chinks, Gooks, Slants, Chiggers, and Japs!

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

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

Seaniggers!

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

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

Abos and Lucys!

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

Prairie Niggers!

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

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

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

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

There are two supermarkets in town.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, like that.

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

My Mom thinks it’s funny though.

“Where’d you go shopping?”

“Oh, you know, the White-Mart.”

“Hahahaha!”

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

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

Alt Left: Rural Land Reforms: An Overview

What’s odd is that imperialism went along with land reforms in a lot of other places such as Europe and the Middle East. All of the Middle East has done a land reform.

That was one thing the wave of Arab nationalist leaders who came to power in 1950-1970 did right away, including the Baath in Iraq and Syria, Yemen, Nasser in Egypt, the FLN in Algeria, Tunisia, and Qaddafi in Libya.

I believe there was some type of land reform done in Palestine too. If you read Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian Leftist, in the 1930’s, he talked about how terribly exploited the Arab fellahin or peasants were in Palestine.

If you went to Yemen in the 1960’s, there was a portrait of Nasser in every house.

I’m not sure if a land reform was ever done in Morocco. It’s been ruled by a fairly rightwing king for a long time.

A land reform was probably done in Lebanon, but I don’t have details. Likewise with Jordan.

Nothing grows in the Gulf anyway, so there’s no need for a reform.

I’m not sure about Sudan or Mauritania, but I doubt much grows in Mauritania except date palms.

In all of these places, land reform was a very easy sell for whatever reason, probably because neoliberal capitalism seems to be antithetical to Islam itself. The feudal lords of the former Ottoman Empire had tried to justify feudalism on the basis that in the Koran it says something like, “Some are rich and some are poor, and this is a natural thing” but that never went over too well.

The idea that in an Islamic country, the rich Muslims were viciously exploit the poor Muslims is nearly haram on its face. You just can’t do that. All Muslims are part of the ummah. All the Muslim men are your brothers and all the Muslim women are your sisters. Also individualism never made it to any part of the Muslim World other than the Hindu variety in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but that’s not really the same radical individualism that we have in the West. It’s just an ancient caste based system.

The first thing the Communists did in Eastern Europe was to do a land reform. You will never hear it here in the West, but until 1960, the Communist regimes in the East were very popular with industrial workers and also with the peasants.

In most of the world, peasants and rural dwellers are leftwingers. This is even the case in Western Europe in France.

The US is odd in that it’s farmers are so reactionary. That goes against the usual trend.

Yes, farmers are said to be conservatives, but that usually just means social conservatism. In most of the world, peasants are literally Alt Left: left on economics and right on social and cultural issues.

A land reform was definitely done in Iran.

Obviously one was done in the USSR, and the large landowners have not yet consolidated themselves in the former USSR, mostly because everybody hates them. Large landowners have taken over some of the state farms in Russia, but for whatever reason, they are not very productive. In fact, many of the state farms are still in existence. I am not sure what sort of arrangement they have now.

50% of the food in the Russia comes from small farms, typically grown on dachas. Dachas were vacation homes that were given to all Soviet workers. They were also given a bit of land, enough to grow some crops on. After 1991, all workers were allowed to keep their dachas and small plots. This was a great idea because most of the produce in Russia is coming right off of these farms.

After World War 2, the US supported land reforms in some places as a way of heading off a Communist threat. This is one great thing about the Communists. So many great steps of social progress were only done out of fear or terror that if these were not done, the Communists would take over. Now that that threat is gone, one wonders what motivation the oligarchs have to give up anything.

In particular, land reforms were done in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They went over very easily. And in fact, the subsequent economic growth occurred right on the back of these reforms. There is a good argument that you can never develop a proper economy without first doing a land reform.

First of all, you need to get rid of the problem of rural poverty.

Second of all, you need to feed your own people. Large landowners in these countries typically grow food for export or simply fallow the land and keep it as an income base or a source of wealth.

When crops are grown for export, there is a problem in that the nation does not grow enough food to feed its people. This is a problem in Cuba and Venezuela right now, and it should not be. These are very fertile countries and there is no need to import food, but they have gotten hooked on some sort of “crack” of importing their food for whatever reason, possibly because most of their farmland was being used to grow crops for export.

When a nation can feed itself, this means it can feed its urban workers. This is extremely important and it is part of the reason that Stalin went at such breakneck speed in his collectivization. He had to feed his urban workers so he could industrialize because even back then, he was looking into the future and seeing that he was going to have to fight Hitler.

I’m not quite sure why, but no country seems to be able to properly industrialize and develop as long as the problem of rural poverty exists.

And once you are feeding your own people, you have solved a lot of other problems. Money that would be wasted importing inferior food from the West, especially the US, can now be spent on actual development of a national economy. The elimination of rural poverty gets rid of a constant revolutionary bur in the side of the state.

The US has always opposed land reform in Latin America because large US corporations are usually involved in growing foods for export down there. See Dole Pineapple in Guatemala. We want all of their agricultural land to go for export crops so US corporations can grow those crops or make money importing them. And we do not want them to grow their own food. That way there won’t be so much land for export crops which we need to make money off of.

Also, we want them to spend all of their food money importing lousy processed food from the US. So we make money on food both ways – importing food from crops grown for export to the US and in exporting processed food to the Latin America. This processed food is not very good for you and it is implicated in a lot of health problems in these places.

This is why the US opposes most efforts at land reform in the Americas.

An exception was made in El Salvador. After 200,000 people died, the US and the Salvadoran oligarchs were forced to the negotiating table and a land reform was one of the first things they pushed. I recall a piece written soon afterwards where the reporter went out to the rural areas and interviewed recipients of the land reform. They basically said, “Well, at least we can eat now. It wasn’t like that before.”

In semi-feudal countries, there is debt bondage whereby large landowners rent out their land to sharecroppers or peasants who never seem to get out of debt. This is a very primitive form of development.

The Philippines is notable that there has never been a land reform. And of course they have a vicious Communist insurgency.

Nor has there been one in Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Paraguay, Honduras, or Argentina. The first five countries are horribly screwed up. Colombia and Paraguay have active armed leftwing guerrillas, and Guatemala did for many years. Haiti is a disaster. Honduras has a vicious rightwing dictatorship that has murdered over 1,000 people.

Argentina is mostly urbanized, but the landed rural elite still runs the country. Any talk at all of land reform or even taxation of large estates as was done recently under Christine Fernandez, and the ruling class starts making ominous threats of a coup. I assume something similar is going on in Uruguay. Those countries are urbanized though, so large landownership is not such a problem.

I’m not sure if there has ever been a land reform in Brazil, but there is no dearth of large landowners.

The fact that Colombia, Guatemala, and Haiti are so backwards is largely because there has never been a land reform.

The land reform was incomplete in Venezuela.

It is interesting that every country that fails to do a land reform seems to end up with a Communist or Leftist insurgency at some point or another. It’s almost without fail. This goes to show you that most Communist insurgencies in the Third World are over the most basic things dating all the way back to French Revolution: land and bread (food).

As far as land reforms go, they were done in Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru.

I’m not sure about Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Jamaica, Belize, the Guyanas, Chile, and most of the Caribbean.

And I’m not sure if one ever got done in the Dominican Republic after Bosch.

In El Salvador, 200,000 had to die in order for a land reform to take place. Roberto D’Aubission, the godfather of the Salvadoran death squads and the most favored visitor at the US Embassy, once said that “We will have to kill 200,000 people in order to prevent socialism in El Salvador.” What he meant by socialism was land reform.

It is notable that no land reform was ever done in India, nor in Pakistan or even Bangladesh. I had a friend whose parents were large feudal landowners in Pakistan who rented out land to farmers who ended up in debt peonage. In 1986, 14 million people a year were dying of starvation related diseases in the capitalist world. Most of that was in South Asia in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Most of these deaths were attributed to the problem of the private ownership of land.

There is a problem with the private ownership of land. In the US, we think this is sacrosanct, but on a worldwide basis, it doesn’t work very well. What do you need all that land for? What do you need more than, say, an acre and a house? Nothing, unless you are a farmer.

In China, all land is owned by the state. All homeowners lease the land, often on 100 year leases. I’m not sure how it works in the countryside.

In Mexico, much of the land is owned by the state also, a product of the land reform that occurred after the Revolution. One of the major demands of the Revolution was land reform. Pre-revolution, most peasants usually lived like serfs. The state land in Mexico is called ejidos.

If you ever can’t make it in the city, if you become unemployed or homeless, you can always go out to the countryside and take up residence in an ejido, which are something like communal lands that are formed by the group that makes up the ejido. You join this group, work the land, and get a share of the crop. At least you have enough food to eat. So in Mexico the ejidos are a stopgap measure.

In China too, if you can’t make it in the city, you can always go back to the rural areas, take up residence, and work the land. At least you will have enough to food to eat. It is illegal to be homeless in China. If you are homeless, the police pick you up and put you in shelters, which are something like college dorms. They also encourage you to go back to the countryside if you have relatives back there. In recent years, many people have moved from the countryside to the cities to make more money. Those that don’t make it can always move back to the farm.

There was debate a while back about privatizing state land, but it ran aground on the idea that the state ownership of land was necessary as a stopgap measure in the event of urban poverty. In addition, state ownership of land has prevented the development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been adamant that the  development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy must be prevented at all costs. Once they develop, they are sort of like an infection in that they soon spread and take over society. The CCP has billionaire party members who are members of the People’s Assembly.

Guess what these “Communists” are advocating for? Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy. I think this goes to show you that billionaires are the same everywhere. Whether in a Communist or capitalist country, a rightwing or leftwing country, billionaires always have precisely the same class interests that barely vary at all. It’s usually something like this:

Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy.

This goes to show that class interests of various classes are nearly a  law in a mathematical sense and not even a theory of social science. This was what Marx was getting at when he spoke of the laws of economics. They are so predictable that we can almost class them with the laws, theorems, and corollaries of mathematics instead of the typical “true for now” theories of most of the sciences.

I have a feeling that a Hell of a lot more things are laws, too, especially in terms of basic human behavior. So many of these things seem almost unchangeable. Of course they would never apply to everyone, but it’s pretty obvious that they are general tendencies.

Alt Left: A Black Person Wrote This

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUA/Game: The Underage Girl Sex Scam

Dating sites are full of these scammers in the last few years.

A friend of mine almost got nailed for this. Admittedly, hers was a little different.

She out and out told him that she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. AOC in California is 18. Well, to a lot of men, “two weeks shy of my 18th birthday” means you’re 18 years old. I don’t care that he did this. In fact, I worry if I would have enough self-control not to.

However, several years ago, a miracle happened, Jesus came back down to Earth briefly and dropped an 18 year old girl in my lap to be my girlfriend. Then he flew back to Wherever.

Truth is she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday when we started dating or hanging out. We held hands, put our arms around each other, hugged a bit, and kissed pecks on the lips, but that was it. We figured that was legal, but I was really scared to take it any farther at all. But she kept bugging me to take it further and it was really hard to say no. She ended up falling head over heels on love with me, wanted to marry me, have my kids, the whole nine yards, then three months in, she dumps me. Anyway, dating’s not illegal. Anybody can date anyone. It’s having sex that might be illegal

They figure, “Fuck it, she’s basically 18.” I have no idea how the pigs would treat it nowadays. I assume the FBI pigs would probably put you on the Sex Crimes most wanted list for doing it with a girl two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. That’s how deranged the pigs and the system are nowadays, all thanks for feminists.

I grew up in the 1970’s, and no one gave two shits about jailbait teenage girls. They were known as “dangerous” because they’re horny as Hell, don’t have a lot of experience, often think boys their age are immature, and not a few of them love men. Not boys, men. College age men dating high school girls was an absolutely normal back then, but at some point, you might want to knock it off.

They let you get away with it for a few years, but as the man got older, they started cracking down. I remember a case of a divorced 53 year old man who had with  a number of 15 year old high school girls in trade for pot and coke. Of course the little sluts knew exactly what they were doing. Most of them love to fuck and they were freely screwing this guy for dope of their own free will. No girl ever got harmed by this nonsense, which is consensual anyway.

Well, he got caught, and even though people were notoriously laissez-faire about this stuff back then. I don’t even recognize this planet anymore in regard to this issue as it seems like I’m living among pod people who are barely even and probably not human. That’s how different things are from 40 years ago. Anyway, this guy got three years in prison. Nowadays he’d probably get beat up as a “chomo,” but back then, prisoners were sane, and he’d probably be the hero of the prison for being an old dog and banging all those hottie JB’s. Yep, even prison convicts have gone insane. Back then, you were marked if you went after little girl children, but no inmate cared about jailbaits.

The interesting thing is that everyone in my family, including me, thought the guy deserved it. Three years seemed about right. There wasn’t really anything wrong with what he did, but we thought the age gap was too extreme. 18-23 year old guy and 15 year old girl, no one really cared. 30 year old guy and 15 year old guy would raise eyebrows, as it was very uncommon, but no one cared about that either. But 53 and 15? Not just one 15 year old girl, but several? Hey, wait a minute. There was something unseemly, disturbing, not quite right, etc. about it. Society has a right to any sort of reasonable morals it wants, and even back then, a lot of people thought 53 and multiple 15 year old girls went over the line.

See, back then, people were sane, not like nowadays when everyone’s a shithead. They believed in degrees and sliding scales and continua and extenuating factors and the spirit of the law, not the letter. Now everyone’s a black and white dipshit twitching with mass hysteria and wild-eyed with moral panic.

Here’s the write-up of the scam I found on the web. It matches what my friend went through.

1. You are on some kind of adult dating or chat site — either heterosexual or gay– where a person says they are over 18, and either sends you (or lures you into sending them) sexy pictures.

2. Then they say that they are actually 16, or 14, or some other age under 18.

3. Next, the “father”, the “mother” or a “detective” calls or texts you and demands money to keep them from filing charges. Often, the money is supposed to replace a “smashed phone”, “computer”, or something else… even a car that the “minor wrecked while going to meet up with you”. Sometimes they “send the minor to a juvenile military boot camp”.

4 The tip-off is that they want payment by Western Union, MoneyGram, iStore credit, Paypal.Me, Snapcash, Zelle, CashApp, money order, or gift cards BUT NOT by cash or checks. 5. Don’t buy gift cards and give them the numbers. Don’t Zelle or CashApp money. There is no minor child, no father, no mother, no detective, no wrecked car, no damaged garage door, and no ruined computer.

6. You are not alone. Questions about this scam come up several times a week here on AVVO.

7. Just to be clear: THIS IS A SCAM. THIS SCAM HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO FATHER, NO GIRL, NO FBI, NO DETECTIVE, NO COUNSELING, NO THERAPY, and NO EARLY TERMINATION FEES ON THE PHONE, and the “girl” does not have a hospital bill from “her” suicide attempt.

8. The best thing to do is block their numbers and ignore them. You can report them to the police for fraud and extortion, but without an ID that is a dead end. They use “burner” phones and spoof caller ID to make you think that it is the police number.

9. If you want to fool around with them, offer to send a check, or offer to meet them somewhere with cash. They WILL NOT give you their name or address, and will not meet with you. Green Dot cards & MoneyPak, Western Union, Target and Walmart gift cards, Cash App or Zelle, Bitcoin ATM machines, eBay, Google Play, iTunes, and Amazon prepaid/reloadable cards and the like are all ANONYMOUS ways to receive money, and the scammers will not identify themselves or they would risk being arrested for EXTORTION.

 

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

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

Yes, Islamic countries are just not like that.

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

No North African country is like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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