The Teenage Girl Sex Panic and the Law Bullshit

As you can see, in Matt Gaetz’ case, the whole case is completely fake. The guy literally did nothing wrong. Furthermore, he lacked mens rea, or a guilty mind, so he’s innocent on that basis alone.

He committed the crime of buying a teen whore, except she lied about her age, and told everyone she was 19 when she was really 17. Actually it looks more like 17 1/2 now that I’m looking into it. By the way, she’s still whoring away. Once a whore always a whore. As soon as Gaetz and friends found out, they got furious at her and ended all contact.

Buying a Whore Means You are a “Sex Trafficker”

At 17, in most states she would be legal, but even there, if you pay her, you just committed “sex trafficking.” Yeah, if you buy a whore, you’re a “sex trafficker.” What a bunch of crap. Because the state, in the midst of an idiot moral panic, decided that all teenage prostitution is “sex trafficking.”

Not just the pimps. Indeed, one can make an argument that most pimps are sex traffickers.

Sex trafficking was supposed to mean women who were sex slaves and forced to prostitute themselves and were not able to escape. This is literally the case with most pimps, though most whores are quite willing to whore themselves out. But most pimps won’t let them leave.

So anytime you see an hysterical headline about “sex trafficking,” it just means whores and pimps, which is like, most whores. Whores have had pimps forever. So there’s nothing new going on here, just the same old same old.

But now all teen prostitutes are supposedly being “sex trafficked” too because that’s how they wrote the stupid law in 2012. Even if they’re doing it on their own, which I assume many are. In that case, apparently they are trafficking themselves! See how none of this shit makes sense?

And now if you’re unlucky enough to buy the services some teen whore is freely offering you, instead of just buying a teen whore, you’re a “sex trafficker”! Yep buying whores is “sex trafficking”! Isn’t that stupid? I would say if you want to make a crime out of it, calling it “Purchasing an Underage Prostitute.” It shouldn’t be much of a crime really, but at least the law would make sense.

In many US states, you can freely fuck all the 16 and 17 year old girls you want, but as soon as you hand her a dollar bill (or I guess a penny) for her services, you broke the law! You’re now a “sex trafficker.” Isn’t that stupid? And you go on the idiot Sex Offender List as a “sex trafficker.”

Also, don’t take a picture of her. You can have sex with all the girls you want as above, just don’t take pictures of any of them. Because if you do, you “manufactured and possessed child pornography.” You know, when we made the kiddie porn laws, I don’t think this is what we were thinking of. And you go on the Sex Offender List as a child pornographer.

Kids are getting busted all over the country for manufacturing, distributing and possessing child pornography when they do their sexting. I don’t have the solution to teen sexting but this insanity doesn’t seem to be it.

By the way, those lists are getting really stupid. There are now 3 million people, almost all men, on these stupid lists. Anyone feel any safer? Somehow I think when we came up with the idea for these lists we didn’t imagine putting 3 million Goddamned men on the list!

By the way, if you commit statutory rape, you go on the idiot list too.

And most states have Sex Offender laws that make it almost impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere except maybe under a bridge. Which is exactly where most of them end up living. I’m sure that’s going to rehabilitate them real good and I’m sure they won’t be more likely to commit new offenses! The worse you treat these guys, the more the offend. Well, that’s the case with child molesters anyway and even with non-offending pedophiles.

These Sex Offender Lists and laws have gone completely out of control. I don’t know what to do about this either, but this ain’t it.

Alt Left: Lousy People Make Lousy Countries

If you want to know just how shitty a group of people are, just give them their own country and see what they do when they get a hold of it. Israel is the nation of the Jews. It’s one of the worst countries on Earth. What does that tell you? Turkey is the nation of the Turks, the Gulf Arab countries are the countries of the Gulf Arabs, and India is the country of the Indians. Three of the worst countries on Earth by far, in the running with (((that shitty little country))).

Israel sucks because it’s full of Jews, and this is how Jews act if you give them a country.

Turkey sucks because it’s full of Turks, and this is how Turks act if you give them a country.

Gulf Arab countries suck because they’re full of Gulf Arabs, and this is how Gulf Arabs act if you give them countries.

India sucks because it’s full of Indians, and this is how Indians act if you give them a country.

Why does Mexico blow? Because it’s full of Mexicans, that’s why.

What other reason could there be? Every nation is created by the people who make it up. If the people suck, you get a crappy country. If the people are decent, you tend to get a pretty good country. The only times this might not be true is when the majority oppose the state, but that’s not the case in any of the above nations except Bahrain, where the majority Shia oppose the awful government.

Colombia sucks because it’s full of Colombians.

Guatemala sucks because it’s full of Guatemalans.

El Salvador blows because it’s full of Salvadorans.

Honduras sucks because it’s full of Hondurans (although to be fair, most of the people oppose the state).

Haiti sucks because it’s full of Haitians. Now, I happen to like Haitians in a political sense because 92% of them are Lavalas, and they almost all hate their horrible government, but it’s still true that Haiti is full of some pretty low quality people.

Brazil blows because it’s full of Brazilians, a half good and half bad people. Looks like the majority tips bad though because they just voted in a picture- perfect model of Mussolini.

And don’t give me this: “Oh the people are wonderful! It’s just their terrible government!”

But people aren’t set in stone. Germans and Japanese used to be the worst people on Earth, and now they’re some of the best. But I’m not quite so hopeful about some others. Haitians, for instance, may be problematic for a long time. But electing a Lavalas leader would sure be a step forward.

Alt Left: Quit Worrying about Being Replaced by Some Stupid Machine

I laugh when people tell me these stupid machines are going to replace all of us humans. Every time I go to the bank readyteller, one of the two machines is literally down. Most of the time I try to do much of anything new on the Net, especially involving money, it simply doesn’t work, often giving me “Unknown error.” See that?

That machine is just intelligent enough to recognize that it screwed up (hence smarter than half of humans right there), but beyond that, it can’t even tell why or how it screwed up! Most humans can do that at least if they’ve got the balls to admit they’re not flawless, a tall order, admittedly.

The machine says, “I screwed up! I’m a dumbass machine! I’m as dumb as a rock! I only know whatever you humans told me to know! But can I figure out how or why I screwed up or even what sort of error I made? Well, of course not! What do you expect? I’m just a stupid machine!”

Anyway, I’m laffin’. These machines are literally failed 50% of the time, and they’re going to take over all of our jobs. Ha ha. How bout first of all, before you machines take over all our jobs, you figure out how to not break down half the time? Just a request.

Think about it. How many times have you gone to the store and asked a worker a question, and the worker tells you, “I’m sorry! This worker is out of order at the moment! Please come back later when one of our human repairmen come out to fix me!”

I know, a lot of store workers probably should say something like that if they were being honest, but when do they ever? Never.

The humans are never broken. They’re never malfunctioning as long as they’re not dead or hooked up to hospital tubes.

Humans are better than machines. Machines aren’t any threat to any of us except in the depraved fantasies of the capitalists who would replace us all with these infernal metal machine objects in a New York minute if they had our way.

Machines are crap. Machines are shit. LOL. They don’t even work more than half the time!

Alt Left: Why Male Rule Works and Female Rule Always Fails

Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”

For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men have had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.

Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it. It’s what the weak do. The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools. In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place. And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.

So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen. Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.

So, “Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”

Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.

So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they usually start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos. Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.

So humans create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand, men are at least capable of fixing their fuckups. Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? Who knows? Who cares! Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working. So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while saying that they screwed up when they did it before. So now let’s do it right!

Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy.

Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud.

We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.

So Male Rule works and Female Rule fails.

Game/PUA: About That “Consent” Issue Again

I was on Twitter debating SJW’s – obviosuly a waste of time, or worse, actually dangerous to your health – and this dumbass yet earnest and naive feminist chick actually tweeted that if you want to flirt, you should just ask permission. The usual “Mother may I?” ask first gayness feminism has been demanding of us men. That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Remember how feminist idiots have been demanding that we ask permission to do anything with a woman like faggy little boys? It doesn’t work.

The Net is full of feminists saying that when some man asked permission to do something sexual, it turned her off and she left. She wanted him to just jump her bones, dammit.

“Can I flirt with you? Mother may I?” God that’s stupid! How dumb do women think we are? See above. Even women themselves hate it when we act like this, the very way that they demand that we act. So women don’t make sense. But they’re not really supposed to. They’re supposed to bear and raise children and keep the peace and keep us male motherfuckers in line by setting some damned limits on us. What happens when women don’t place any limits on us depraved men. Take a look at gay male society, if you can stomach it. That’s how men act when women stop being basic goalkeepers of male behavior. Women need to be protected from us men. And we men need to be protected from our own Goddamned selves.

I never really ask permission to do anything with women.

Basically, my attitude towards this “Consent” Psychosis that’s hit the US in the wake of the #metoo sewer overflow is:

I’m a man, dammit. If I want something I take it!

You don’t ask permission to do anything sexual with a woman, at least not the real vanilla stuff.

Want to hold her hand? Take her hand in yours.

Want to put your arm around her? Put your Goddamned arm around her.

Want to kiss her? Think about it very well at first. Then just fucking do it.

If you are unsure, put your chin in your hand and go in real slow. You can say in a barely audible tone, “Okay?” But saying with the most extreme confidence. Put this idea in your head when you do it.

“I’m irresistible to women. No woman on Earth can possibly resist me when I kiss them. I’m sexier to women than any guy on Earth.”

They’re all lies of course, in escalating absurdity, but it doesn’t matter.  You put those lies in your head and you believe in them and trust them like your car’s brakes. Don’t doubt them for one bit or they may not work as well. Life is about convincing yourself that the most ridiculous lies in the world are 100% true and infallible, and then convincing yourself of that with as little doubt as possible. It doesn’t particularly matter if what you believe is true or not. If it’s true but believing in it screws you up, what good is it? If it’s a lie but it brings you success to believe this lie, go ahead and believe it.

She’s in your car? Put your hand on her leg. Do it in a very casual way as if you are rolling down the window. If you’re not sure if she will like it or not, you can always look at her with this, “Ok?” look on your face. At the same time think, “Woman, if don’t think this is ok, you are the stupidest fool on Earth. So I know you’re going to say it’s ok.” I’m not sure if people can mindread, but when I think “brainwash” things like this, for some reason, they usually seem to work. Or at least they did when I was young and beautiful. Now I’m old and headed towards ugly fast, and all that stuff that worked great when young and fair is falling on its face now that I’m old and splotched.

On the other hand, the feminists are right in a sense when it comes to this consent thing. You do need consent from a woman to do sexual things with her.

But you don’t ask first, you just do it. Then she either likes it or not.

If she likes it, cool.

If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.

If she’s not into it but she likes you, she will say something along the lines of, “Not now, let’s wait a bit, ok?…Not so fast, ok. I just walked in the door,” etc.

If she doesn’t like you, she will bat you away, push you away, etc. And she won’t be very nice about it. That means not only are you not getting laid tonight. You’re also not getting laid by this chick ever. When this stuff starts out bad, it never turns around. Good turns bad in life but bad almost never turns good. Women are not like Coke machines that you can punch and hit until a can comes out. More like you’ll “punch and hit” all night and she’ll just get more and more angry. And you? Well, you’re being rapey. Which is, in my humble opinion, a dick move.

As with so many female societal proposals, they’ve got the music written perfectly, but they never know the words.

Alt Left: Life’s Not About Who You Like – It’s About Who You Hate Less

I basically hate cops.

Except I hate ghetto Blacks way worse.

So in the rather disgusting hierarchy of hatred that masquerades as modern life, by default, I end up supporting the police, who I’ve hated since my ill-fated adolescence! Note that I don’t mind some cops and I actually like some, so it comes down to an individual basis.

With the choices we had this summer, how could I not support the cops? It was the cops and the Republican fascists versus ghetto Blacks and the Cultural Left intellectual abortion that clings to them, remora-like – the BLM boneheads, the AntifaVirus, and the Woketard crowd, with an emphasis on the particularly insipid and dangerous Critical Race Theory gang, which is even stupider and more dangerous than most SJW passions.

Of course CRT theory isn’t falsifiable, so it fails right out the starting gate without even getting to the hypothesis stage, but all Woke SJW Theory is like that. I always say that in the Sciences, you are either doing science or you are doing Politics, or doing as I call it “A Politics” or “A Form Of Politics.” Parallel to that, you are either practicing Empiricism, hopefully including Occam’s because without Occam’s there is no empiricism, or you are doing Propaganda. Science and Empiricism versus Politics and Propaganda. Part of the reason that modern life is so infuriating is that in our quotidian lives, we get far too much of the former and a serious dearth of the latter.

Pretty soon you have a landscape where Critical Race Politics is lining up with Q, and there’s pretty much nobody in between, all others having been shoved into one moronic corner or the other. That’s modern US politics – a boxing match of fucktards, the booby prize being control of this bucking bronco we arrogantly call a country.

So to my very own shock I was rooting for police all summer! And for the first time in my life I saw cops as humans and felt sorry for them. Imagine my shock to read polls that showed that 57% of the population disliked cops more than I did! Frankly, even I was and still am appalled at the anti-police sentiment in the US. It’s ridiculous. I will say though that a lot of good has come out of this. Bodycams, attempts to be evenhanded, taking police brutality seriously, making cops accountable, on and on. Speaking of, how bout next stop jail? They beat people up all the time in there for no good reason and not one damn thing is done. Cops on the street are controlled. Jails are The Inferno.

Life’s not about who you like. If it was, there wouldn’t be much to live for.

It’s about who you hate less!

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

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

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

I don’t appreciate the standard SJW and Gay Politics trope that homophobes are all homosexuals. I’ve met many homophobes in my life, and it was correlated with extreme expressions of masculinity as in hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity, if you will. It’s also associated with straight men who are successful with women. In other words, it’s associated with hypermasculinity, including being a player, etc. It’s just reinforcing the fact that they are hypermasculine by attacking gay men to show how masculine they are.

I’ve never met a homophobe in my life who was actually gay. I’ve been unfortunate enough to know many closeted gay men in my life, and while most of them are unbelievably fucked in the head, I’ve never met one who was a homophobe.

The most viciously homophobic societies on Earth such as Jamaica where up 90% of the population think gay men should be killed actually have very low rates of male homosexuality, whereas according to this theory, 90% of men in Jamaica should be a gay. It’s not true. My father was a homophobe. According to this theory, he was a screaming queen. Going back even to the 19th Century and long before, the vast majority of men were extremely homophobic. Sodomy was often punished by prison or execution. Oscar Wilde went to prison. Alan Turing got castrated. According this theory, men from 19th Century to far back in time were a homosexuals. It’s ridiculous.

All men who are biologically gay or bisexual should be respected in that because they were probably born or at least got wired up that way, so it’s not their fault. You going to beat up people with cystic fibrosis? How about dwarves? No one is responsible for any biological condition they are born with and can’t be changed. On that basis, gay men must be accepted and even loved and supported in the sense that we want the best lives for them just as we want for everyone else.

On this site, we don’t like men who are voluntarily engaging in gay sex just to be groovy or perverted or whatever. And yeah, I might call them anti-gay slurs. Why are they doing this?  They don’t have to. Nothing is forcing them to be this way. They’re just choosing to engage in this behavior that we think is disgusting. They could stop anytime they want.  On the other hand, I don’t want to attack these guys too much because society is full of stupid straight men having gay sex for all sorts of weird and ridiculous reasons. They’re everywhere. I’ve even had some friends  who took that idiotic route.

On here, we use faggots to mean straight men “who are not men.” They’re with the feminists. I’m not really talking about gay men. I don’t think a gay man would have reported my tweet unless he was an SJW. Most of the use of that word and similar words is to describe SJW straight men, to attack their masculinity and say they’re not men.

Straight men use anti-gay slurs towards other straight men all the time. Those men are often male feminists and SJW’s are the enemies of the men, especially the real men, and so we are attempting to humiliate them, attack their masculinity and say they’re not men in an effort to shame them and get them to quit being our enemies. This site is anti-SJW, not particularly anti-gay.

Straight men also use anti-gay slurs to describe straight men who are pathologically unmasculine. We also call them pussies, wusses, little bitches, women, girls, girlymen, etc. We don’t use those words towards gay men. We use them towards straight men in  order to police masculinity, which I believe is correct. Straight men should be shamed over grotesquely anti-masculine behavior by other straight men. They should be called names to attack their masculinity. Maybe they will come to their senses and man up.

For instance there is a #metoo movement right now that is attacking straight men by saying that flirting with women is harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape. This is all coming out of feminism, and it is part of war on straight men. A bunch of pussy straight men are lining up with the women in that war. They are our enemies. In general, gay men don’t care what we do sexually with women, being libertines themselves. I really doubt if most gay men are trying to get us fired for talking to, flirting with, dating, and having sex with women. They’re mostly on our side in this issue. As sexual degenerates, they’re mostly of the opinion that it’s ok for straight men to be sexual degenerates too.

For instance, we call Starbucks Fagbucks not so much because it is all that gay, though there are some gays working there, including some most idiotic and obnoxious ones who are basically SJW’s. Mostly it is because Starbucks has gone insane on feminist SJWism and #metoo crap. They are banning men from stores for looking at women! They are banning men for trying to talk to men in a completely nonsexual manner, as in just saying hi or talking about the weather. They’re basically banning straight men’s expressions of sexual behavior towards men. We would call them “homos” for doing that.

So we call it Fagbucks to shame them. Any man trying to prevent straight men from having sex is a “fag” because it’s “gay” to try to stop us from getting with women.

Keep in mind that most times you see anti-gay epithets on here that they are directed mostly at straight men and at gay men only to the extent that they are SJW’s. Mostly we are not referring to gay men at all – just our SJW straight male enemies.

I try not to use fag and faggot and anti-gay slurs on here towards gay men because I think it is a bit shameful, and I don’t want to hurt gay men’s feelings by attacking them just for being gay. They can’t help being gay so we should not attack them on that basis. Granted, all straight men hate male homosexuality, the idea that they themselves or their friends being that way, and gay sex itself, but we should not be attacking gay men just for being gay because it’s not something they could control, and it’s not their fault.

If I ever use anti-gay slurs, it will just be towards some particularly unpleasant gay men or to over the top public expressions of male homosexuality, as in I might say, “faggoty gay pride parades” because I think those parades are gross and disgusting outrages. Gay men are not gross and disgusting outrages, but those parades sure are.

I apologize to the feelings of any gay men reading on here, but when you see an anti-gay slur on there, keep in mind that I’m attacking feminist and SJW straight men who are waging war on their brothers. It’s part of a tactic to attack their masculinity for attacking brothers and basically going over to our enemies.

We’re not talking about you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There Is No Society

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

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

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

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

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

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

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

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Gangster

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

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

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

Jewish Hypocrisy on Race Is Astounding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we’re all Nazis so we deserve it.

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

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

Alt Left: TThe SJW Left Is the Fake Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

All IP people are angry. They’re getting a raw deal! And paranoid. All IP people are locked into war with some binary “enemy identity.” Whites are the bad guys. Men are the enemy. The enemy is keeping us down!

With all IP, curiously, the more the groups realize their goals, first, they keep moving the goalposts, insisting its not enough and inventing new demands, and oddly enough, they get even more pissed off!

Remember the Second Liberation of Blacks in 1964? How did Blacks react to the greatest freedom from shackles since the First Liberation in 1863? For the next half decade, they rampaged though America’s cities with deadly riots, killing people, fighting cops and firemen, getting themselves killed, and most stupidly, burning their own hood, and then complaining their living in the embers of the ash heap. I’ve got a theory about why this curiosity exists. It actually makes complete sense.

I’ll give you a clue? Though they were in shackles, the source of all of their misery was not to be found in the shackles. A lot of it was but a lot of it wasn’t. So the shackles came off and they looked around, and they still weren’t equals. They felt ripped off by a shapeshifting enemy and exploded with frustrated rage. And it continues to today.

As racism declines with each year, Blacks continue to have their usual Black problems. Their ideology tells them that their problems are all caused by racism, so if their problems persist even after all these years of work, racism must truly be insidious, evil, and even possible mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the antiracism and Black IP to defeat this racist monster once and for all!

We liberated women, and they still had most of the same old woman problems. Liberation didn’t fix their troubles, so obviously they didn’t do it hard enough. So they double down.

We liberated gays, but of course they’re still all screwed up. They’re far nuttier than straights. Both sexes of homosexuals live 18-20 years less than straights. All of the problems of gay men (Remember Boys in the Band?) remain. All of the problems of lesbians (Remember The Well of Sadness?) remain. All the wars of homophobia didn’t work. What to do? Double down on the anti-homophobia campaigns.

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

Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a comment from our illustrious co-blogger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screw that noise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: A Look at Partial Drug Legalization Efforts in the US

Rambo: I wonder what percentage of these murders are in some way drug-related? I’ve never seen actual numbers but would have to guess those numbers would be pretty high. It just seems that in so many of these cases drugs were at least the “chain of events” starter that led to alot of these murders; an ever present link in the chai

RL: Most of these Black on Black shootings in our big cities these days are gang warfare. And what sustains the gangs? The drug trade. Legalize the drug trade and for what purpose will the gangs exist? How will they make money? They may just fold up altogether. Those gangs are primarily money-making operations.

So since most of the shootings are gang related and the gangs exist because of the drug trade, I would say that probably the vast majority of these murders are drug-related in that sense. Not so much related to the consumption of drugs as in people getting high and crazy and blowing each other way but more related to the sale of drugs.

Rambo: Which brings up the question once again: should all drugs be legalized? A lot of Libertarian types say it’s the obvious solution to halt murderous gangersterism, but since Libertarians never get elected to anything, aren’t they just banging their heads against the wall? If all drugs were legalized, how would hardcore drug addicts get the money to acquire the narcotics they desire? Would drug-related crimes increase? Since addicts aren’t likely to be long-term job holders, how would this affect the society at large? It’s not an easy issue to address.

Good question.

This has already been tried in a sense in Seattle and in some ways, it is being tried in other places like the city of Fresno very close to where I live.

In Seattle, possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine are legal. However, drug dealing is still illegal.

In Fresno, meth addicts state that police are not prosecuting meth possession crimes of under a certain amount. So users are carrying precisely this amount with them and possibly dealers are delivering packages in this precise amount. It’s not a tiny amount of meth either.

Legalizing possession of hard drugs in Fresno and Seattle has not led to a decline in drug use, of course. And since drug sales are not targeted and remain illegal, the problem of drug trade-fueled gangsterism obviously carries on regardless.

Legalization of cannabis promised to put a stop to all cannabis-related crimes, but now illegal street sales of cannabis are somehow competing with legal cannabis sales in cannabis shops. I’m not sure on what basis the illegal sales are competing. But legal cannabis is very heavily taxed, possibly taxed so highly that the price has become noncompetitive, and street sales can beat the cannabis shops on price. Border Patrol agents are still seizing huge amounts of marijuana at the border and arresting people for trying to smuggle it across, but this strikes me as absurd considering that restricted use and sales of the drug are already legal in much of the US.

In Seattle, police were arresting street people and the homeless, the vast majority of whom had either mental illnesses or drug addiction issues, regularly for all sorts of petty crimes. The local jails were overcrowded and typically they would be jailed for a month or two and then released. Police complained about a revolving door involving these petty offenders, but it’s hard to see what else could be done. This situation is very much ongoing.

Since use is legal, entire sections of downtown Seattle streets have been taken over by mostly homeless addicts using meth, cocaine, and heroin right out in the open. Low level drug dealing is also ubiquitous.

As a result of all of this, Seattle has become a magnet for homeless people all over the country who are flooding there due to the good treatment the homeless receive there. Nevertheless, downtown streets are now full of homeless people sleeping rough on the sidewalks. People going to work have to step over these human eyesores as they negotiate their way to their jobs very morning. Mentally ill homeless people regularly act loudly and frighteningly crazy right on the sidewalks and streets, creating huge embarrassing and scary scenes. Not much seems to be done about these lunatic ravers.

Perhaps most importantly, now that drug use is legal, addicts have swarmed to the city, and petty theft rates in local businesses have skyrocketed as addicts steal goods to pawn to buy their dope.

So, sure, partial legalization solves some problems, but it also creates a whole  lot of new ones.

As usual,  I have no ideas on how to ameliorate this situation. I’m going to throw up my hands on this one like I always do.

Alt Left: What Is US Conservatism About?

Excellent post from commenter Brian, a fine new writer, about the meaning of US conservatism. No conservative will believe this but that’s a pretty good definition of it. There’s also a fake populist angle to it. I know a lot of Republicans who insist that this ultra-right politics of the bosses, an ultra-anti-worker philosophy, is good for workers! They have all sorts of crazy reasons why this is true, mostly boiling down to Supply Side Economics, which has been endlessly proven to be a lie in praxis if not in theory.

There’s also a social side to it. Racism, sexism, and even transphobia. I’m no tranny fan either, but I will grant them basic civil rights. Trump won’t even do that. And that’s bigotry all right. Trump is also said to have been bad for gays, though I can’t single anything out. There are the other social issues. The continuous genuflecting to Christianity, especially in the ability to discriminate and lately, to spread deadly viruses at will. The abortion issue, the classic wedge issue. The guns issue. The Democrats are coming to take your guns.

The crime issue.

Novocostello: I don’t really understand US conservatism, what exactly is it trying to conserve? Is it just classical liberalism mixed with some Northwestern European type of ethnocentrism/racism?

Brian: US conservatism is about conserving and enhancing the status of those already high up the ladder and mostly those at the very top. It’s really not so much about conserving their position as it is about increasing their wealth and power while decreasing the wealth and power of the rest of society.

It’s not just disparities in wealth and power that US conservatives want to increase but disparities in what we might call “cultural standing” or social perception. So they want most people to be increasingly looked down on and to be made to feel crummy about their lives while getting ordinary people to look at those up top as superhuman and godlike.

“Traditional” Burkean conservatism was about accepting the system as is on the assumption that it developed this way for reasons we might not understand and that altering it too much too quickly could be very dangerous while also allowing for slow change to address the needs of the masses.

So there was a progressive leaning in that kind of conservatism, but it was deliberately meant to be slow progress. And this type of traditional conservatism was always largely just a way for those at the affluent to keep others in their place despite its theoretical grounding which many adherents probably didn’t care much about. However, those conservatives were more willing to yield and compromise.

Today’s American conservatism, which has become the mainstream since Reagan, aims not only to preserve privilege and inequality but rather to exacerbate them. What’s called “conservatism” in the US is a form of reactionary politics. Or you can think of it as a kind of radical conservatism: a radicalism from above instead of from below.

Alt Left: America Is Now an Exact Replica of a Latin American Rightwing Authoritarian State

The US is now a Latin American country. This is the perfect model of a Latin American extreme rightwing regime. The only thing missing is the death squads. I’m sure they’ll be coming along soon enough now.

Otherwise it’s a complete replication, all the way down to a very White rightwing ruling class who lord it over the browner proles.

Corrupt/stolen elections? Check.

Corrupt judiciary? Check.

Culture of lies? Check.

Culture of extreme militarism? Check.

Culture of violent anti-Communist fanaticism? Check.

Both an armed Left (leftwing guerrillas = antifa) and right (death squads/brownshirts/guarimbas = Proud Boys) engaging in violence against each other? Check.

Bread and circuses in the ruling class controlled media? Check.

Distracting the workers with fake divisive issues like abortion? Check.

Threats of rightwing coups, military or otherwise? Check.

A rightwing that literally believes that the Left has no right to rule? Check.

Frequent street violence and rioting? Check.

Sense of living in an alternate reality of nothing but lies? Check.

State rule by big capitalists? Check.

Increasingly militant, radical, and even armed Left? Check.

Increasingly radical and even militant educational sector, especially at the university level? Check.

Fake leftwing parties that only mask the rightwing authoritarian state = Democrats? Check.

Politicized, very rightwing military? Check.

Increasingly incendiary political discourse on both sides? Check.

Economic war waged against left governments in order to destroy the economy? Check.

Extreme and irrational conspiracy mindset on the part of the Right? Check.

Extreme rightwing that pretends to be populist and pro-worker in order to get elected? Check.

Frequent death threats against politicians? Check.

Belligerent, pro-imperialist foreign policy? Check.

Police/surveillance state? Check.

Absence of legal leftwing newspapers, newsmagazines, TV/radio stations? Check.

Some Factors in Bullying: Human Sadism and the Desire to Go along with the Group

A nice comment from commenter Tamerlane, expanding on my posts about bullying.

This reminded me of your posts on bullying and in many of them you justified that it is simply human nature, therefore you will never get rid of it. Yes, that is simply a fact and people need to accept it.

However, you overly emphasized that bullying had to do with either the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors. Which I remember thinking was true, but way too myopic. There were simply more factors. Perhaps those other factors did not share as large a percentage in terms of the causes of bullying as the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors, but nevertheless there were more factors that were too significant to dismiss or overlook.

I think with this post you have identified a second major factor. It is sadism. All humans are sadists, just not equally. Like everything else in nature, there is a bell curve distribution with regards to this trait.

To wrap things up, there is a third and final major factor. It is the behavior of humans in groups, i.e. human sociology. One is inclined to go along with the group lest one also becomes a victim. One is inclined to go along with the group if the pack leader (Alpha/most popular individual) is the instigator, lest one risks incurring his/her wrath due to the refusal to conform and therefore loses status in the group.

One is inclined to go along with the group and perhaps even show more cruelty and sadism than what would be considered average in that specific situation in order to gain more social status in order to move up the social hierarchy of that particular group and gain acceptance, and or more power. One is inclined to go along with the group in order to avoid being identified with the bullied and therefore lose group membership and be kicked out and thus become vulnerable to other groups.

So to put it all together:

1) Bullying is caused by the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors. These norms and behaviors can range anything from ethnicity, height, weight, socioeconomic status, social skills, already-perceived lower social status, etc., etc. In this way a target is selected.

2) Humans have a tendency to lord over perceived inferiors and take pleasure in their pain, i.e. sadism. This is a major motivating factor which makes the bullies act on the perceived differences of the target. Sadism gives one delight; makes you feel “big” and “tall”. It boosts your ego.

3) Humans go along with the group even if they may not individually agree with what is taking place due to group dynamics and uncountable other concepts that one can find in a sociology book. Or to put it more bluntly, most people are cattle and will moo with whatever intonation seems right/true/convenient at the moment.

Alt Left: Sadism and Creativity in Society Are Related to Economic and Societal Structure

Another interesting post from commenter Brian. He ties societal sadism and Social Darwinism into economic changes and ties societal creativity into societal structure, in particular its degree of flexibility.

I completely agree that there is a sadistic tendency in people that is expressed toward those deemed socially inferior. I’ve seen it and, having been in foster homes for a time growing up, experienced it.

I’ve often wondered at what seems to be a mean-spiritedness of the culture in general during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and if this mean-spirited character was linked to industrialization and to the growth of severe inequalities in society, both class and race based.

Those inequalities existed before the industrial revolution, but industrialization marked a new level of complexity in social organization, and the rise of many “new men” as elites. In the transformation of a society toward a new economic system and set of social relations, old inequalities are exacerbated, and the new elites who have risen to the top seem eager to shore up their position by waging a reactionary crackdown on dissent and calls to moderate their avarice.

The Social Darwinist, let-the-undeserving-poor-rot, bootstrap mentality of the upper class was encouraged in the general population by those who had risen to the top as a way to justify their behavior, and it had the effect of drawing out the worst tendencies in human nature in society at large. It was a bully’s ideology and encouraged ordinary people to let out their inner sadism, which ordinarily – without authoritative encouragement – would have been more repressed.

This is how you get gleeful lynchings, the hanging of elephants from a giant chain, the proliferation of freak shows where people can satisfy their inner monster by laughing at folks with severe genetic deformities.

I wonder if this witches’ brew of inhumanity cooked up by the propagandists of the new robber baron class was a factor precipitating World War I. Indeed the displacements of industrialization along with repression of the working class by disconnected and haughty elites and the whole toxic culture this gave rise to poisoned Europe just as badly as it had the United States.

The periods of the cruelest treatment of ordinary people tend to coincide with episodes of great economic expansion, the rise of new men and new families to positions nearer the top of society, and the complexification of society in general.

Another example is a century earlier in Britain, around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the very beginning of the industrial revolution – or the first industrial revolution, as opposed to the second which I was referring to above – and began with the Enclosure Acts that forced peasants off the common lands so they could become the new urban class of industrial laborers.

During this time the Bloody Code reached its bloodiest extreme and more than two hundred crimes could be punished by death, even as a number of minors were executed for rather petty crimes. These were the classic Dickensian times, and they are marked by great new opportunities for moneymaking that attracted a class of people willing to subject other humans to appalling degradations for their own profit.

When we think of the medieval period, we often think of brutal tortures. But in fact such tortures, while they occurred in the medieval period, were used far more extensively in the Renaissance and early modern times than in the medieval period as was the death penalty in general.

Once again, what we find at that time is a transformation in the socioeconomic system, specifically moving away from feudalism in Western Europe and the rise of a new middle merchant class across much of Europe, starting in Italy. Perhaps the use of such punishments is meant to break the spirits of those who suffer most during such transitional periods so they are less of a threat to the elites, especially the new and very insecure/paranoid elites.

I suspect that what we see today, with the mean-spirited attitude of the neoliberal age – the expansions of the prison system going back to the 70s and 80s (the very dawn of the neoliberal age) and the electronics and digital boom – is another such period of social complexification, economic transformation, dispossession of whole sections of society and even of regions in general like the rust belt, and the rise of many new men (and women now) into the ranks of the ruling class.

For around forty years I’ve been seeing among the upper middle classes and above is an increase in callousness, selfishness towards and even dehumanization of various groups of people, from Blacks to working class (now often poor) Whites and anyone who isn’t at least upper middle class.

To address the idea that such periods help to breed out criminal genes from a population, I do not doubt this is true. These phases of societal transformation seem to yield a more docile population on the other end of them. But I think this process will eventually eliminate the spark of genius in our population and in the West in general.

It largely has eliminated this spark already. At least in the realm of the social sciences of fundamental thought like philosophy, modern European philosophy having seen its best days some two to three centuries ago. Other fields that are downstream of basic thought have been able to flourish since then, but they will stagnate, and some are stagnating already.

Going back to civilizational and race theory, the difference between White civilization and Asian seems to be that White civilization has been far more creative for centuries now, despite Asians having higher average IQ’s. The spark of genius requires a high IQ but also creativity and originality, which mostly comes from people who are off-kilter and don’t easily fit into a very conventional, static society that looks down on new ideas or unusual behavior.

You, Robert, have mentioned before that many very intelligent and interesting people work in odd jobs and have little to show for their talents. I think such people have struggled in any society, but they struggle more as society becomes more closed-minded and starts distrusting anyone who isn’t stable, conventional, and predictable; in other words, someone who fits ready social expectations.

A lot of academics are very bright, but few have that special spark of brilliance in them, and if anything, having that is a detriment for someone in academia today.

As our society stiffens we will likely become less creative, whereas in the past few centuries, we’ve seemed to be able to accept originality even if many geniuses are not exactly paragons of stability. I am not saying that Asians are without creativity or the spark of genius, just that as their populations became more controlled and regimented, they exhibited fewer instances of real inspiration.

We are moving towards greater control and the consequent heavy formalization of life which sucks the naturalness out of life. We should probably expect relative cultural stagnation, at least compared to what we’ve been experiencing for centuries in the West.

The problem with African peoples and societies is an excess of naturalness or primal behavior, which, while it is energetic and creative, lacks the mental and social channels to develop it.

Higher intelligence on the other hand takes that same primal energy the Africans have in excess and focus that energy into socially accepted interests and goals. The problem with Asian societies is there is a serious lack of primal behavior, though I suspect some genetic potential for creativity remains in their populations and could be freed up if they loosened up a bit.

As to our current period of neoliberalism in the West, I think whatever good it did in juicing the development of the new electronic and digital economy is already finished and have been since probably 2008. At this point neoliberalism’s effects on society are very detrimental and could even touch off serious convulsions across Western society if it isn’t moderated.

Continuing on this path can only benefit a small handful of elites and only if they are able to maintain control. But they are gamblers, so they will try, and they seem unlikely to concede much to the population for the sake of reconciliation.

Alt Left: Civilized and Less Civilized Cultures: Differences in Impulsiveness, Forward Planning (Thinking Ahead), and Deferment to Higher Orders of Logic

Polar Bear: Of course, letting women dominate men is worse. Men should play the role of loving father to women but be damn sure not to let her hold the reigns.

Men have to dominate. Or at least they have to be seen as dominant. Or at the very least, as masculine. One thing I will never do is seriously insult a man’s masculinity. I won’t call a man gay either. I never do that. I don’t call men faggots, even if they are. If they are, it’s just mean, and I don’t torment homosexuals. If they’re not, no matter how wimpy they are, they might attack me. Any man, if you call him a homosexual or attack his masculinity and say he’s not a man, is liable to hit you, or perhaps worse. It’s a perfectly natural, normal, logical, and sensible reaction.

That it’s illegal doesn’t matter. A lot of perfectly normal and sensible reactions are highly illegal. Quite a few of them might land you in prison for life. That’s why you don’t act normal and sensible all the time. At times we must submit to a higher law or at least a higher level of logic. Of course it’s logical to assault or even kill a man who attacks your masculinity or calls you gay! What could be more reasonable than that? On the other hand, if we do that, then a higher level of logic comes in – the logic of the law and society.

And in this case the logic of the law and society trumps the logic of the primal man of which we are no longer. The higher logic says that if we do that, we will probably get caught and sent to jail or possibly prison, maybe for a long time. So in this case, the higher logic predominates.

Probably the main difference between civilized societies and less civilized or uncivilized societies is that the more civilized societies, men tend to defer to the higher law more often.

In a more primitive society a man simply acts on his whims as the primal man inside of him demands. There are few or no higher orders of society or law to constrain him. This is why you see so much crime, violence, homicide, and general disorder in such places. Too much primal, low-level thinking and not enough civilized, higher-level thinking.

This also has to do with impulsiveness. In less civilized places, people are more impulsive. One of the best things that civilization brings is a decrease in impulsiveness. Instead of just getting an impulse and acting on it, people in more civilized places tend to think it over, at least a bit, before they decide whether to act on it or not.

They think, “Suppose I act on this impulse, what will happen then?” If something bad will happen to them if they act on the impulse that is worse than acting on the impulse, then they often will not act on it. This is called forward thinking, thinking ahead, planning, or thinking for tomorrow.

The less civilized people are, the less they think of tomorrow. They can think maybe 24 hours ahead and that’s it, if they can even think for that long. Increased forward planning and thinking ahead is associated with more civilized peoples. Perhaps the most civilized people on Earth, the Asians, think ahead not just in terms of years or even decades, but in terms of centuries or even millennia! Compare that to an Amazonian jungle tribe, perhaps the least civilized people on Earth, where no one thinks beyond the next 24 hours, if that long.

Alt Left: SJW’s Are Trying to Create a New Version of “New Soviet Man”

You can only tilt at windmills for a while before a lot of people will figure out that it’s futile. Of course some keep trying to bail out the ocean and denying reality forever. We call those people Identity Politics types or SJW’s.

The problem with SJW’s is that they refuse to acknowledge that humans are humans. Most of the things SJW’s are screaming about are simply humans acting like humans or God forbid, men acting like men. Why have all of those men been getting fired lately for #metoo garbage.  They were fired for acting like men. I’m afraid all men can do is act like men, just as all Mexicans can do is recreate Mexico. Perhaps as a higher version of itself, but nonetheless…

SJW’s and IP types remind me of the Soviets trying to create “the new Soviet man” or “the new man.” As a Leftist, that’s all fine and dandy of course except when it runs into the wall of human biology and human nature. In which case you are just building castles of sand.

No matter how much time you spend building them, they wash out with the next tide. Since humans can’t do anything but be human and men can’t do anything but be men, Identity Politics is doomed to fail. You can only re-engineer, or try to re-engineer, humans so much. At any rate, humans and men will keep relapsing back into humanness and man-ness despite any and all efforts. It’s a fool’s game.

I think also people resent being told they’ve been evil their whole lives. I know I do. I know I resent it when I wake up and find that with every new week there’s another damned word I’ve been using my whole life that is banned as evil bigotry. At some point I’m afraid we’re going to run out of words to ban. Blacks are already complaining about “blackmail, blacklisted, black holes,” etc. Let me know when we stop calling out the language police.

Worse, I wonder  how any of this matters. If we stop saying “blackmail” because it hurts Black people’s poor widdle feelings, what is that ultimately going to do for the issues that plague Black America? And how many Black people stew every time someone says “blacklisted?” And suppose we do ban the word at least somewhat? What will happen? SJW retards will beam and feel a swell of accomplishment in their chests.

Ok. And then? Then the next weekend another several dozen people will be shot in  Chicago in only 24 hours, that’s what. Another year will close where Los Angeles sets a new record for homicides. Another seven year old girl will get shot coming home from school. Another funeral will get shot up. Almost all of the people shooting these guns and getting hit by these bullets will be Black people.

You clowns actually thought that Black people in those cities are massacring each other because they’re mad that we use the word “blackmail” that makes them look bad? You morons actually thought that by banning a few perfectly good words that no one but idiots worry about anyway you were going to stop the ongoing Black bloodletting in our cities?

Alt Left: Female Rule, November 2020 Edition

Polar Bear: I’ve tried talking to the tranny I knew as a man. He always used to laugh at my jokes, but now that he’s in a woman’s body, she’ll he seems distracted. A part of him seems not with it or even there.

Female hormones? A lot of women act like that. I call the mindset of the pure, primal Female Character as “dream state.” Not that that’s a bad thing, but you know, someone’s got to take out the trash.

There are societies on Earth that are Matriarchies. I can think of one in Africa of all places.

It’s almost a Utopia. There’s little crime, aggression, or violence. I don’t know if the women doling out sex to calm the guys down or what, but the men are pretty neutered, in a good sense. Everyone’s happy, kicks back all day, endless party and good times, except…not a whole lot gets done. But no one cares about that either because, you know, they’re too busy having fun. Party people would rather play than work. Also, oddly, education is very much de-emphasized and not a lot of learning or progress occurs. But no one cares about that either because, you know, in Utopias, people tend to be irresponsible.

I guess this is what Female Rule looks like in its raw, natural, benevolent form. You can see that it kinda doesn’t work though, even when its pleasant.

I figure Female Rule was tried at various times in the past. Men don’t want to do all the work. I figure a few times they just gave it up and said, “Fine! You ladies don’t like it? You do it!” Hence they had Female Rule. It’s particularly chaotic and dysfunctional in its negative form, and the men start getting pissed off because they’re not allowed to be guys anymore, so it’s really Nature Herself getting angry, not the men themselves.

But it doesn’t even work in its benevolent form. Instead of chaos, it just causes stasis. Men’s brains aren’t likely to cotton to either one.

Hypothesis: Female Rule may well have been tried numerous times in the past. Present day experiments indicate that it clearly doesn’t work, even when it’s kindhearted. Every time in the past, the men probably said, “All right ladies, party’s over! Sometimes you need a man to step in! Now you all hurry along now. We’re taking over. You women got a problem?”

The women all said, “Hell no,” because otherwise the men would have killed them.

And the group went back to Male Rule, whether in its negative or benevolent patriarchal form, because even though Patriarchy doesn’t work that great, it works better than all the alternatives, as they say about democracy. The group developed a tradition that women were great at a lot of things, but running things wasn’t one of them. Hey, women can’t do everything. So Patriarchy, pleasant or not, was instituted and came to be unquestioned.

Here we are the damned 21st Century, probably repeating the same retard experiments of our more primitive past, and we’re doomed to experience the exact same failures of History. Some people never learn.

There are only a certain number of ways to run a human society, and most of the functional ones have already been tried. Yet every new generation thinks it invents the wheel all over again. History is a process. It tends to proceed down paths already trod by our ancestors. Maybe it was done first in Babylonia 3,000 BC,  maybe in 1500’s Venice, or maybe in 1835 New England, but if it’s a form of Politics, no doubt it’s been done before. Forms of Politics tend to proceed in the same way every time every time they play and to the same conclusions as before. Hence their predictive nature.

The Joycean “cyclic view of history” springs from this endless, clockwork-like repetition. Historical processes are as formulative as the seasons and tend to proceed in a familiar and similar cycling form.

There’s nothing (more correctly: not much) new under the sun. Your forefathers were a lot smarter than you think they were. And we’re a lot dumber than we think we are.