Alt Left: Even Ghetto Blacks Are Not Doomed to Uniformly Bad Behavior

Polar Bear: Blacks on the other hand will steal your cheap plastic lawn chair. Blacks are always up to no good on my block.

I have a feeling this is more universal than we think. I was talking to a Brazilian woman I knew well. I told her,

“You don’t want to be racist against Blacks, but it’s hard.”

Meaning it’s hard for obvious reasons. She immediately commiserated and said,

Yes, it’s hard. Here in Brazil, we have a saying about Blacks. “If they don’t steal from you when they’re coming, they steal from you when they’re going.” (obviously in Portuguese).

In other words, “If they don’t steal from you when they come in, they steal from you when they leave.”

They don’t really act all that bad around here in my city except that they are ghetto as Hell. I made friends with one older Black man though. He hated Whites but I was able to get through to him. Later he saw me with a hot 23 year old part-Black woman, so now he probably likes me even more.

We just don’t have many Blacks in this town, period. Hence they cause few problems, and they tend to keep their heads down because they don’t have any numbers, which is what they ought to do anyway. When you only have a small % of Blacks in a city, they tend to act pretty good, mostly because they simply don’t have any numbers. They still cause problems. Blacks like that always cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem like they do when they have larger numbers, and the difference between problems and mayhem is all the difference in the world.

Further, they are surrounded by Whites and Hispanics who almost always act better than they do. To their credit, these typically ghetto Blacks imitate the Whites and Hispanics around them and act a lot better.

A lot of them still act like shit but still act a lot less shitty than they ordinarily would. They’re still antisocial but they are antisocial in petty, neighborly ways and not in serious criminal ways. Like always asking to borrow money and then you never see the money again. They see you with an expensive object and they “request” that you give it to them. Just typical ghetto nig shit, but they won’t menace you if you don’t fork over your property, and you can always quit loaning them money.

All the young women in their 20’s have at least one kid, obviously with no man in sight. However, these basically ghetto women are quite well behaved.

Also around here the better behaved Blacks dislike the more ghetto ones like I just described. So there are varying degrees of morality even among a hardcore Black population.

In addition, the Whites and Hispanics simply will not put up with any shit at all from these ghetto Blacks. They call these Blacks on their tiniest antisocial bullshit, so that tends to nip the usually mandatory escalation in the bud. I have often thought that if these ghetto Blacks around here were living in a Black ghetto, they would act a lot worse.

It’s so obvious to me that even ghetto Blacks are not doomed to any particular behavior level. It’s also painfully clear to me that their own kind not only serve as horrific role models but also don’t call these Blacks on much of any of their antisocial bullshit. They don’t call them on the little stuff, and they probably don’t call them on the bigger stuff.

Humans aren’t stupid. They’ll get away with just about whatever the Hell you let them get away with. White people act quite good, but we aren’t angels, and every White community has its scumfucks. We are only human after all. Living in White communities my whole life, I was told and learned the hard way that (White) people will get away with just about whatever you let them get away with. So this isn’t a ghetto Black thing. It’s a human thing.

The behavior of even ghetto Blacks can be markedly improved.

First of all, they need to be a minority, preferably under 25%. 25% Black seems to be a tipping point in many cities, after which things start to go seriously to Hell in a handbasket. Below 25% Black, you can look at the statistics of various pathologies, and they don’t rise that much from 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% Black. The city remains more or less livable.

But somewhere between 20-30%, most cities tip over. What follows is probably White flight, usually slow rather than fast, and worse than that is that the decently behaved Blacks (of which there are many – many millions!) start taking off too. Well-behaved Blacks aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sit around in some ghettoizing shithole due to racial solidarity. Sanity and safety trumps racial consciousness any day of the week.

This does not apply to wealthy Black areas like Ladera Heights in Los Angeles, and it probably doesn’t apply to small Black towns in the South where a remarkably decent authentic Black culture is often present.

Second of all, the small population of Blacks needs to be a part of a better behaved larger population, preferably White, Hispanic, or Asian. Ghetto Blacks act remarkably better even in majority-Hispanic cities because Hispanic pathologies are much exaggerated and they act better than most people think.

Third, the larger population needs to call these ghetto Blacks on their antisocial shit, starting with the most petty neighborly BS. Just shut it down before it even starts. Either due to this or due to the general environment, the better behaved Blacks start shutting down the bad actors too. People, even supposedly irredeemable ghetto Blacks, do respond to harsh correction at the societal level.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Would You Like to Have 20 IQ Points Fewer or More?

Do you sometimes wish you had 20 fewer Iq points? So you can relate to people better. Or 20 points higher? But you may think 95% of people are dumb and end up like Ted Kaczynski.

20 points higher would be very interesting. I love my brain, I love thinking. I’m in love with my brain. We’ve been carrying on a love affair for a long time now. It’s like the most wonderful toy you ever got to play with. 20 points more seems like a total blast, but no doubt it would alienate me from everyone even more.

At 147, I have a hard time (statistically, anyway) with everyone under 117 IQ, which is 85% of the population. So I’m already alienated from 8-9 out of every time people I deal with on some fundamental level. At 167 I would have a hard time with everyone under 137 IQ (statistically, anyway), which is 99% of the population.

What’s important here is the meaning of alienation. If you asked me if I were alienated from everyone with an IQ below 117, I would say of course not! Don’t be ridiculous.

But maybe that’s not what’s important. Maybe what’s important is that everyone with an IQ below 117 is alienated from me! I just now thought of it that way. Of course there’s no way to test that out without doing a very uncomfortable study that is very hard to do, but if you are asking me intuitively, yes, it does seem to be correct.

People just seem to be weirded out and disconnected from me on a fundamental level. That’s been much more the case as I got older, but maybe it was always the case on some level. It’s hard to describe but it’s like there’s some sort of a massive disconnect on some fundamental level. Like there’s a wall up between other people and me and can’t be breached no matter what. I have no idea what the wall or why it is there or anything about it or or whether it has anything to do with IQ.

Perhaps I’m just a freak, but I think it’s deeper than that. For instance, the smarter the person is, the more fascinated they are by me, the less they think I’m a freak and the more they think I’m an especially desirable and valuable person. They’re not alienated from me at all usually. The smarter someone is, the less of a wall or disconnect there is with them.

This is all boiled down to my intelligence because that’s what smarter people find fascinating. But I probably have other pleasant aspects to my personality too. I’ll never fight with you. I’m the least irritable person you will ever meet. I’m funny and I can be quite warm and loving if you ask me. I am actually very kind and  considerate. I’m the stereotypical nice guy.

I guess there’s more to that list even. The funny thing is most people just see that exterior and they say, “Damn, he’s weird,” and they never look under the hood to see what’s there. They’re just as capable as seeing how smart I am as anyone else is, and I probably ought to blow them away more than people near my level.

But it seems like the more you blow someone away mentally, instead of being fascinated by you, they’re either bored or repelled. The boredom and repulsion increases as IQ goes down. And people at my level who should be less impressed by my brain (because it’s near their level so it’s nothing special) are actually the most fascinated by it.

I have no solution to this conundrum. A theory suggests, however. Perhaps the only people who can appreciate the wonder of people with very high IQ’s – the most intelligent people of all – are other smart or very smart people.

Maybe I could have gone somewhere in life, but more probably I would have ended up like those people in The Outsiders – living alone at 40, no friends, celibate or incel, extremely introverted, job paying minimum wage. That’s the typical endpoint for a man with an IQ over 160.

20 points less would give me 127. I say now that I don’t want that but if I had been that way my whole life, maybe it would have been just fine. Most people I know at that level are happy, and people with 127 IQ statistically do much better than people with 147 IQ.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Undefined and Undefinable Feminist Definition of Rape

As I noted in another post, my Mom brought me up right. She taught me that under no circumstances was I to rape girls or women. She drilled into my head over and over that rape was force or the threat of force. Her message was, “Don’t do it, dammit!” She pretty much said everything other than that was fair game, which is the only sane view of rape.

My Mom’s a feminist, and a pretty bad one at that, getting worse as she ages. But nowadays feminists (most women) would call my Mom a rape apologist and a handmaiden because of the way the feminists have blown up the definition of rape and the fact that feminism gets increasingly insane every year, as is the case with all Identity Politics.

Of course the feminists and their fag “male” allies have no expanded the definition of rape to about the size of the Indian Ocean. Not only that but apparently no one can even properly define it as it’s as vague and  undecipherable as the Linear B inscriptions.

As it is, if a woman thinks she got raped, she got raped. That’s now the definition of rape!

Women actually believe that crap. When you put women in power, the first thing they do is  make vague, unenforceable laws to bring about their desired utopia.

Of course this never works, therefore all through space and time, whenever women are put into power over men, the result is simply complete chaos. People tire of it after a bit, and pretty soon, the sane people say, “Let’s have some sense here. Let the men take over!

And then some sort of patriarchy, benevolent or otherwise (typically otherwise), is reimposed. Society’s not fair after that, but it wasn’t fair under Female Rule either. Pick your poison. You will either be ruled by women or men.

Look around you at the Anglosphere, the UK, and Scandinavia to see the dystopian chaos of idiocy that ensues under Female Rule.

I’ll pick men any day. Women are incapable of ruling societies.  Women can do a lot of things,  but that’s not one of them. It’s fine really. Hey, women can’t do everything. Sometimes the ladies just need to step aside and let the boys take over.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: A Vignette of the Reasons for the Colombian Civil War

Claudius: How do you define working well? What distinguishes the top category from the bottom? Is present-day Colombia really worse off than Mexico?

Yes. Colombia is much worse than Mexico in our view. Colombia is so fucked up that they murder one civilian every other day or so. It’s deadly to be on the Left in Colombia. Colombia exists for the rich and only for the rich. Why do you think the Left took up arms?

The state has failed in Colombia. Genocidal fascists took over or maybe were running things all along. They never even did a land reform! There is no state in Colombia. Just an army and police structure that exists to support the rich and their dictatorship over the people.

Let me give you an example.

I read about a rural area in Colombia recently. The rightwing death squads (the government) rampaged through the area and confiscated all of the farmers of the small farmers. Just stole them at gunpoint. This goes on all over Colombia all the time. The rich own a lot of the land, but they never own enough, so they are always trying to steal more. A very similar situation was going on in Guatemala and especially El Salvador and was the direct cause of the revolutions there. The Colombian rich already steal every nickel in the country, but that’s not enough.  They have to steal even more. At gunpoint.

Any farmers who resisted would be beaten, tortured, arrested, imprisoned, or simply murdered. The state worked hand in hand with the death squads which are just the private armies of the rich. Really the police and the military are just the private armies of the rich too. Leaders and members of farmers’ and peasants’ associations got the same treatment above, usually worse. Many were simply murdered, especially the former. This was a slow process (it always is) but over 10-15 years,  the rich had taken over all the land and added it to their latifundias.

More than anything else, Colombia needs a land reform (one could argue that this is the basic underlying cause of the armed Left revolution in Colombia) but the Colombian rich will do anything to stop it, even kill hundreds of thousands of people as D’Aubussion suggested in El Salvador (200,000 in his case to prevent land reform or “socialism” as he called it).

All of the peasants shoved off the countryside moved into nearby large cities. All of these cities quickly developed large slums if they didn’t have them already. The slums were made up on displaced peasants, now relegated to proletarianism in the city. If you study Marx this is a classic method for the development of capitalism, and it is in fact how capitalism developed in England.

Back to Colombia. The seething slums lack water (water must be purchased on large containers in the city below and then carted back to the house), power, sewage systems (the sewage runs downhill in the gutters) or much of anything. The Colombian state of course does absolutely nothing for these people as they don’t want to part with any of the money of the rich to do so. A mysterious crime wave develops in the new slums and the US media is puzzled by what could possibly have caused this strange new crime wave.

In the slums, urban Communist guerrilla cells begin to form. One day you are shocked to see a 12 year old boy walking down a steep street in the slum.

“That’s it,” you think, “The revolution has finally come. I’m outa here!”

You had always known it was building because in a situation like this, how can a Communist revolution not develop? A Communist revolution is almost guaranteed in a situation like this.

There are still plots in the countryside owned by farmers. Guerrillas now invade the abandoned areas and take over a lot of the towns.

“We are the army of the poor,” say the guerrillas. “We are here to protect you from the rich, the death squads, the army, the police, and the state.”

The townspeople are happy to see them. Guerrillas in full uniform walk down the streets of these towns like it’s nothing. There are guerrilla checkpoints all over the countryside at the entrance to every town. The guerrillas recruit in the towns and many of the young people who saw their parents, siblings and relatives brutally thrown off the land or better yet murdered join the guerrilla, mostly out of sense of vengeance.

At night, armed guerrillas show up in  large forces at the haciendas of the rich, living on land stolen from the peasants.

“Hello,” the guerrillas say. “We are here to collect war taxes for the revolution.”

“But I don’t support the revolution, the landowner says.

“No matter,” say the guerrillas, “The country needs a  revolution, it is having one, it needs to be funded, and as a wealthy man, you are obligated to support the revolution. And if you don’t, we will arrest and incarcerate you for tax evasion or if you prefer kidnap you and hold you for ransom.

The rich landowner agrees. Once a year he and his rich neighbors drive to spots in the countryside where they meet bands of guerrillas. All of this is done in secretly. There they hand over war taxes for the year. Those that do not pay are kidnapped for ransom, but the guerrillas say they are just being arrested and imprisoned for tax evasion and will be released on payment of taxes.

Most just pay their taxes to keep the guerrilla off the land so they can live in peace. A few hold out, refuse to pay taxes, and are kidnapped for ransom. The rich usually pay to free their people, but the offspring of these rich men are furious at these taxes and kidnappings. They move to the city and become part of the fascist Right. Some even join the death squads to “kill the Communists.” If you ask them why they joined the fascist Right, they will say, “Well, it all started when the guerrillas kidnapped my father for  ransom. At that point, I had finally had enough of them. We need to exterminate these delinquents with a heavy hand!

Outside the city there is a military checkpoint. This is symbolic. It is there to keep the landless peasants in the slums holed up in the slums so they don’t try to take their property back. There are army checkpoints at the entrances of every city in the area. The military checkpoints start to be attacked by mysterious guerrillas who seem to appear out of nowhere, and the army takes casualties.

Interactions between the local urban poor and countryside peasants become at these checkpoints become increasingly hostile, as the soldiers suspect with good reason that these people are supporting and harboring guerrillas in the areas where they live. New death squads form in the cities, slowly murdering and torturing to death random poor people and especially leaders of community organizations which they army had now labeled as organizations of the guerrillas. In fact, a lot of them are the unarmed aboveground formation of the guerrillas.

Death squads return to the countryside, now picking off random peasants and leaders of community organizations on the basis of support for the guerrillas. In most cases it’s true. The people killed do in fact support the guerrillas. Hell, just about everyone out here does. The few that don’t are suspected to be army and police spies and are closely watched. Occasionally the guerrillas execute one of these people for the crime of spying for the enemy. In fact, they were usually doing just that, spying on the guerrillas for the army.

Intelligence shows that the guerrillas are coming from the urban slums and countryside towns, which are now full of guerrillas.

Back at intelligence headquarters, urban guerrillas have infiltrated this military structure and are busy giving fake intelligence to the army and especially telling the guerrillas what  the intelligence knows and about any upcoming operations.

The army launches operations only to find nothing but peasants and small towns full of civilians without a guerrilla in sight when in fact the guerrillas were seen everywhere there a few days ago. It is as if the guerrillas had vanished into thin air.

The army begins to suspect that the guerrillas always seem to be one step above them and seem to have precognition about the army’s behavior. The army suspects spies in its midst and conducts internal sweeps but finds nothing. Commanders grow increasingly frustrated and angry and begin to take it out on the locals in the guerrilla zones.

The officers look up and the cloud-covered jungle mountains surrounding the area of their operation and begin to wonder if the guerrillas are up there somewhere, hiding in the misty rainforest.

They are correct. That is exactly where the guerrillas are. Difficult operations are launched in these jungle mountains of Colombia but nothing is found. Soldiers get injured, bitten by insects, and come down with strange diseases during these jungle operations.

The operations end and the army retreats back to the valley. Now not just officers but rank and file soldiers are getting even more angry, and they take it out even more on the locals. Down in the valleys, mysterious new guerrilla formations with names no one has heard of seem to show up out of nowhere in response to the army’s abuse of the civilians. These formations start attacking the army, and the army takes casualties. The soldiers get even more furious and take it out on the people even more.

After every crackdown on civilians, more and even more young people join the  guerrillas. When asked why they join, they say,

Well it all started when the army invaded our home and killed my father at his dinner meal. He was a simple peasant. He wasn’t part of any armed guerrilla. I am here to get my revenge.

In some areas, deals are cut with the rebels. The army gets to control the city below but the guerrillas get to the control the towns above eight miles up the road. This is exactly where the guerrilla checkpoints start. In the other direction as you head towards the valley, army checkpoints start. The army and the guerrilla have cut a deal to let each control a bit of territory on the basis that they sign a ceasefire and stop killing each other. After a while of this, the army starts running short of weapons. It turns out a number of officers have been selling the army’s weapons to the guerrillas.

The revolution in Colombia has many causes but this is a good overview of some the main issues that are driving this civil war more than anything else. At the end of the day, it’s just another fight over land and bread. Ever heard that one before?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Fencing of the Commons: Why Displacement of Small Farmers and Theft of Their Land Is Necessary for the Development of Capitalism

In England, the poor and peasants lived off what was called The Commons. This was royal land but they didn’t have much use for it other than foxhunting, so they didn’t care. People had enough to eat and often made a lot of their stuff or bought it from nearby tradesmen. There was a small capitalist economy made up of selling agricultural produce, meat, and mostly the small tradesmen, most of whom didn’t even hire labor. There were hardly any hired laborers because everyone had all they needed.

The capitalists decided that they needed to develop a capitalist economy. They had a  problem. No workers. All of the workers were living off the land doing fine on their own. The capitalists would have to  drive them off the land, proletarianize and impoverish them in large cities, where they would make up the reserve army of labor Marx’s discusses.

So the Commons was fenced off. The people lost all their livelihood because they no longer had any land to live off. They moved to the cities as an impoverished, downtrodden, often starving proletariat, where they formed large miserable slums. Crime rose. The capitalists starated building factories in the cities. With this newfound reserve army of labor, the capitalists now had captured workers who had their livelihood tied to their job at the factory. The capitalists waved the threat of impoverishment and starvation over anyone who complained.

A similar thing actually happened in the American West and in fact this was how capitalism in the American West actually developed, believe it or not. Herders versus farmers wars, common in the West and still in many parts of the world (Sudan, Northern Nigeria) are similar in that they also involve driving farmers off the land but also quite different as the land is taken over to grazing by herders.  But now this new landless class or former landholders was proletarianized and stuck as a reserve army of labor for the development of capitalism in the West.

A similar thing was done with the railroads. The government was getting very worried about all of the people who were just living off the land on their own. At first, the state gave people small plots because this helped in the theft of land from the Indians which was essential for the development of the nation.

But by the late 1800’s this had become a liability. So vast tracts of land were given to the railroads before homesteaders could snap them up. In this way, the development of rural self-sufficiency in the countryside could be slowed and the creation of a large impoverished, hungry class of workers could form in the city slums to serve as the reserve army of labor for the development of capitalism in the West. Until recently, Southern Pacific had large landholdings in the West.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Face It: The Latest Riots are Multiracial Leftwing Antiracist Riots

Alpha Unit: I am responding to this narrative that all this destruction and violence is a “Black” thing. That’s not the whole story.

I would agree with you that the riots are not all a Black thing. Head on over to American Renaissance and see how these are being portrayed as Black riots. Well, there are Black riots in this country, but these don’t really qualify. In some cities, in these riots it is mostly Blacks rioting. Those are cities in the South like Atlanta, Louisville, Birmingham, and some other places that elude me at the moment. I believe there were Whites in the crowd in Atlanta though.

In general, the rioters were a mix of young Black, Hispanic, and White men, mostly antisocial and living on the edge of society, most without decent or any jobs or much to lose. I saw many young men rioting right alongside the Blacks. The Whites looked like skate punk and Antifa types. A lot of Whites were holding up BLM signs and chanting BLM slogans.

In LA, most of the rioters tended to be Hispanics.

In Las Vegas, the crowd was very mixed, mostly Hispanics with some Whites, even including White women, with a few Blacks in the mix too. The white rioters seemed to have more of the fancier materials you need to start a riot.

In Minneapolis, many of those smashing and setting things on fire were young White men, often skate punk types. In some cases, they worked right alongside inner city type Blacks. However, I did see an interview with a Minneapolis Black gang member who said that all of the gangs in the city (mostly Black) were working together in these riots to cause mayhem even though a lot of them were enemies normally.  So there is also a criminal gang element, but that shouldn’t be surprising.

The riots seem quite multiracial in New York, but it was hard to get a breakdown. There were a lot of Blacks but also some Whites.

There were many Whites in the Washington DC riots but also a lot of Blacks of course.

Rioters in Seattle and Portland tended to be young antifa type Whites.

Chicago seemed to have a lot of Blacks, but there were also Whites mixed in.

The truth is that these for the most part are multiracial riots. Yes, many rioters are Black, but there are quite a few young White and Hispanic men in the mix.

I will say one thing. It seems like most of the looting is being done by Blacks. I did see a few Whites looting in Minneapolis and New York. Hispanics are known to loot but I’m not aware of how many of them did. In the Rodney King riots, the looters were heavily Black and Hispanics. However, when they moved up to Hollywood, a lot of more or less regular young White men got in on, targeting high end items.

I was happy to see the stores of the rich looted and smashed up though. That’s who they should be targeting.

Looting does tend to be a Black thing. Hispanics don’t seem to loot as much, and it seems like a lot of Whites, even White rioters, are averse to looting. A White rioter will smash stuff up, set a building on fire but then refuse to loot other buildings. Not sure why that is, but I think Antifa doesn’t like looting. Plus a lot of Whites are afraid to steal or perhaps they even consider it morally wrong.

Alpha Unit: And leftwing people are not delusional for thinking there are rightwing people out there seeking to capitalize on these protests.

Correct, but I am seeing little evidence of this.

Three Bugaloo Boys went to a demonstration and tried to turn it violent, but the crowd did not buy it. Further, the Bugaloos are a mixed bag. Yes most are rightwingers, often racist ones. However, there are other Bugaloos who are on the left and a number of them are antiracists. So the Bugaloos are just a group of “tear it down” folks who are insurrectionists against the government for a variety of reasons – right, left, racist and antiracist. The only thing that unites them is the desire to smash it up and take down the state.

I am watching leftwing subs on Reddit, and all they ever say about these riots is that it’s White Nationalist racists and undercover police instigators who are setting off the  riots or even doing most of the damage. I went to the page of one liberal, and he said all the destruction was being done by White nationalists and undercover police instigators. He also said Russia was behind the riots.

Black people don’t want to think it’s their people rioting. That’s a typical human Dindu reaction. They are correct, the Black rioters are having a significant  amount of White and Hispanic help. That’s the better response. Pawning it off on cops and rightwing racists ain’t gonna cut it.

Leftwingers and antiracists object to the notion that these are leftwing antiracist riots. Once again this is the typical human Dindu reaction. Dindu reactions tend to be more of a human response than a Black cope. People don’t like to take responsibility when their group does bad things, so they blame it all on outsiders or better yet, their enemies.

Rightwingers are notorious for this but as we can see, leftwingers and antiracists are not immune to it either. The defenses are Denial and Projection. “Blaming other people” isn’t just something pathological people do. Most people go through life blaming other people in some way or other. I don’t object to blaming other people, but I think the less you do it, the better.

But that’s exactly what they are – these are indeed leftwing antiracist riots. And antifa-type and BLM (neither of which are organizations) elements do appear significant. The young Whites may be apolitical, or if they vote at all, they vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics just vote straight Democratic if they even vote at all. I think a lot of these rioters are apolitical in the sense that they are outside of organized politics and might not even vote.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Leftwing Dindus: Who’s Behind the Riots?

Alpha Unit: LAS VEGAS (AP) — Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas.

Federal prosecutors say the three white men with U.S. military experience are accused of conspiring to carry out a plan that began in April in conjunction with protests to reopen businesses closed because of the coronavirus.

More recently, they sought to capitalize on protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a white officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after he stopped moving and pleading for air, prosecutors said.

The three men were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press.

Make of this what you will.

So, did they spark any violence? No. What is the name of this group? Boogaloo Boys?

The vast majority of the people I see smashing stuff up, setting things on fire, and looting are young people. Many of them are young Black men who don’t exactly look like fine upstanding citizens. In the West many of the rioters are young Hispanic man who don’t exactly look like model citizens either. In all of these riots, and most particularly in Minneapolis, the smashers and burners were young White men who look something like antifa types or skate punks. Antifa has indeed had presence in these riots. Look at all the antifa graffiti.

The vast majority or rioters are young lumpen Black, Hispanic and White men. They live on the fringes of society and are estranged from mainstream culture. Many are anti-society. Most don’t seem to have much if any money. Many do not appear to be married or have children.

If these rioters vote at all, they may vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics will either vote Bernie or simply Democratic if they even vote at all. These are leftwing riots all the way. Not even liberal riots. Leftwing riots, as in to the left of liberal Democrats. No party is behind this. Almost all Democratic Party politicians are condemning the violence. There are no organizations called antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Of course people on the left do not wish to believe that these are leftwing riots. Left-wingers, like everyone else, are Dindus. I suppose Blacks also wish to deflect the blame, and Blacks are the original Dindus. Leftwing Dindus are saying that all the rioting is being caused by far right racist White nationalists and undercover police instigators. This is simply the natural human tendency to deny and deflect blame whenever members of your group do something unsavory.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Welcome to Karen World: The Carceral Society

Half of society are Karens or the male equivalent.  It’s Karen World. America is Karen World. Say hello to Karen everyone, our new Dear Leader.

Everyone’s got the cops on fast dial and the Meatspace ban hammer ready.

Do you really  have to call the cops on everyone for every pissant little chickenshit law violation you can think of?

Do you really have to ban people from establishments for basic human behavior like trying to talk to other humans?

Don’t you think you can sort out these disagreements among yourselves with being androgynous Karens and cucks and calling Mommy Cop every time the sun doesn’t shine your way?

Ever heard of people “working out the problems amongst themselves” without getting ban-happy, fire-happy, sanction-happy, or calling  the cops?

Must you ban, fire, and sanction everyone for every petty chickenshit transgression? What’s the point? Are you some authoritarian freak out to fire every employee or ban every customer or call the cops an any citizen who looks at you wrong?

Before you go psycho-boss and fire that employee for some chickenshit violation (90% of firings), maybe you could go talk to the guy? Talk it out? So maybe you don’t have to fire him?

Before you go ban-happy and ban your best customers because of silly airheads or Baby Karens, think maybe you could talk to the guy? You know, some Baby Karen woman-children are wetting their panties over your innocuous behavior, so maybe just be cool and try to watch it?

Oh, you got a bit of a problem with your neighbor! Maybe go talk to the guy before you call the pigs over your chickenshit beef like an overgrown baby?

People talk about the Carceral State. That’s not the half of it. We have a Carceral Society. We’re a society of narcs. And I hate narcs. We bitched about the Stasi, but now here we are. We are all Stasi now. SJW Stasi, sure, but Stasi nonetheless.

Doesn’t it feel great to be a pig, order people around and mess up their lives? It does?

You asshole. No it doesn’t. No decent person likes being a narc or a pig. If you do, you’re a bad person.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: America Has a Wild Hair up Its Ass: The Culture of Perpetual Outrage

I get banned from local establishments for no good reason except I pissed some silly cunts off unbeknownst to me.

The world’s antisocial now: #metoo was the death knell for socialization, and now Corona put a stake in the heart of human closeness and commingling, never to let the gregarious beast of human intimacy rise again.

We are ruled by our fears. Of creeps, of horny guys, of dangerous people who barely exist, of weird diseases. Of everything. Of nothing. Mostly, of not much of anything important.

We live in an Outrage Culture or Culture of Perpetual Outrage where you’re supposed to be outraged about the SJW nonsense du jour. The Zeitgeist is Perpetual Outrage, and the expression on everyone’s face is “one minute away from outraged offense.”

Offended! Offended! Offended! I’m offended! You’re offended! We’re all offended!

Cool, now we can have an Offended Party. We can get drunk and call each other names until we all beat each other up!

Let’s go on the net. Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! That poster looked at you wrong! Ban the heretic.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Semantic Entropy Is Here: We Are All Lexicographers Now

Definitions of crimes, thoughtcrimes, or offenses against this, that, or whatever social norm creep steadily upward ever year.

Rape? It’s as big as the Atlantic Ocean now.

Assault? What is that? You looked at someone wrong. That’s assault.

Sexual assault? The definition spreads every year like a kudzu vine. In my opinion, sexual assault is simply another word for dating. It didn’t used to be, but that’s how the ladies have it set up now boys, and the girls make the rules now in this world, and don’t you ever forget it.

Battery? What’s that? I tapped a woman on the shoulder. That’s literally battery nowadays.

Sexual battery? What’s is that? Can someone explain to me what it is so I don’t do it because it sounds kind of fun, and I might try it. They want to get pounded anyway, and that’s kind of right battery now that I think of it.

Sexual abuse? What does it even mean? It means any time an adult human had sex with an adolescent human ages 13-17, the poor teenager got abused. Oh boo hoo. Not only that, but the little lass now needs 20 years of therapy for that time she got sexually abused by seducing that 25 year old man at that party and grabbing his cock. She seduced the guy, so I guess she abused herself. Oh well, self abuse is fun. I prefer to do it with some porn though.

But no matter. Abused she was, and abused she will be! The inevitable damage is already there. We can’t see it or measure it, but women tell us it’s there, so we have to take their word for it. Damaged how long? Forever more. Because of the scars that won’t heal.

All women are not only Permanent Children but they are also Permanent Victims.

The victimization starts on the first day when any men around, if there even are any that is, start misogynisting the newborn girl. Because that’s what males do to little girl babies. They misogynist them in all sorts of microaggressive ways. The microaggressions are hard to see or measure, but if you get an electron microscope, you can make them out all right. Wicked men. Turning their misogynist abuse into nanotech!

Because that’s what we men to do females. We misogynist them. Every day. All day long. Like a rocket barrage that never ends. Poor women! Poor babies! Women are crying! Women are babies!

Quick, someone get that lady a handkerchief to wipe her tears. That man over there walking away just misogynisted her, and now she’s going to cry for half an hour!

The misogynisting goes on all through the wretchedness we call the Life of Woman, even in those retirement villages where those evil old men who can’t even get a hardon anymore still misogynist those little old ladies all the doggone day. What’s a lass to do?

Grooming? What’s that? I guess you can groom anyone now. Men can groom 40 year old women. Who knew? Turns out I’ve been grooming females my whole life. And I had no idea! I heard lower primates like to groom each other as a show of affection, but I had no idea I had so much chimp in me!

Illegal looking! Watch those eyes! It’s illegal to look at women now in California! Stamp out that male gaze! We’ll put out your eyes and send you to Purgatory to stand on a cliff for half of eternity till you work it off!

Pedophilia? That’s probably 90% of all sex now, especially now that all women are shaved as bare as 12 year olds. It’s mass hysteria and a moral panic. So half the population are effectively psychotic at least on the issue being hysterisized.

Hitch a ride on the moral panic train! It’s a fun ride, folks. Full of thrills and spills and an outrage around every bend. You’ll be scared from the moment you hop on til the moment you disembark, if you ever do. But that’s the whole idea.

Pedophiles? Well that’s 100% of us men for sure because if you get turned on by 17 year old girls, nowadays you’re literally a pedophile. Well not all men. Dead men and gay men don’t count, but the rest are disgusting pedos!

Trespassing? What’s that? I don’t even know what that is anymore.

Breaking and entering? That includes reaching inside someone’s door to knock on their door now. You broke into their house with your hand to knock on the door. I got the cops called on me the other day for that. A cop came to my door and threatened to arrest me for putting my hand into someone else’s doorway, and thereby breaking and entering their residence. I tell ya, we got one Hell of a serious crime wave in this country!

Sexism? What’s that? Define it. Another word with either no definition or any definition, whichever you prefer. Take your pick! Or just make up your own definition. DIY!

Misogyny? It’s everywhere. How do we know it’s everywhere? Because it’s misogyny. How do we know it’s misogyny? Because it’s everywhere.It’s a great theory because it’s not even wrong. There! I just saw some misogyny crawl under the bed! Get a broom and stop it before it kills again!

Racism? What’s that? Define it. Ever notice that no one can even define that word? It’s literally a word with no meaning at all or a meaning that encompasses half of life, so it’s everything and nothing both at once.

Nazi? That’s 42% of the population now. Didn’t I know that? Silly me!

Hater? That’s half the population. Well, now you can feel better as you stew. Know you’re not alone.

Homophobia? Nowadays we are at the point where if you won’t suck another guy’s cock, you’re a homophobe. Another word with no meaning. Define it. If you’re going to accuse half of society of it, the least you could do is define it. Nope. No one knows what it means, or worse, it means whatever the person uttering the word thinks it means. Everyone gets to define their own words now. Fun, huh? We are all lexicographers now!

Sexual harassment? If a woman was made to feel uncomfortable, she got harassed. That’s literally the definition. Crazy, huh? How to avoid giving the crazy the lovely lass a wild hair up her ass? Easy, just read her mind. Easy as pie. Anyone can do that, come on!

Sexual harassment means whatever the woman who says it thinks it means. If the little lady thinks she got harassed, she did.

Rape? It’s all rape, baby! What is? Sex! All of it? Well, not all of it, sure.The vanilla stuff isn’t rape at the moment, but don’t worry, the feminists are hard at work on it. Inventing new crimes every year!

But most of the fun kind of sex is rape, or rapey, or grey rape, or acquaintance rape, or spousal rape, or rape by deception rape (otherwise known as “seduction”), or rape by handing her a beer before you  have sex with her rape, or regret rape the next morning or 20 years later rape, or coercive rape by talking or better yet arguing her into it rape (my specialty).

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: I Regret to Inform You That I Am Now a Rapist

I’ve just been informed that I’m a rapist. I’ve also been told I’ve been raping women my whole life. Well I admit I’m a bit befuddled. Never got accused of that but once. Never been arrested for it.

But no matter! Rape they said, and rape it was! Believe women! I know I sure do! If she said she got raped, she got raped. How do we know it was rape? Because she said it was.

Because words have no definitions now that Semantic Entropy has taken over, and we all get to make up our own meanings of every word! What’s wrong with you, you doubt the word of woman?  Women never lie! Believe women! I believe women!

I did get accused of rape. Well, she was 14 years old. I usually leave it at that just to troll the world, but I’ll let you guys in on the punchline. Come on: I was 16.

But that’s rape too, I got told. Because we were both underage! Well, she lied, like women do a documented 46% of the time they cry rape. We were drunk, both of us. Off our asses. She accused me of rape afterwards to keep from being a slut, I guess. Can’t think of any other reason.

I just got told by a bunch of women that I raped that girl. Because, they said, if you ever got accused of rape, that means you raped someone. An accusal is a fact! Well, damn. Why bother with trials then? Waste of time.

Anyway I had no idea I’d been raping these ladies my whole life, but I don’t plan to stop doing it. Because it’s the only way I know how to have sex. Because it’s fun. Because at the end of the day, when all’s said and done, and they’re ready to rest, every woman wants to be ravished. Asking permission is for pussies. Just jump her, rip her clothes off, and pound her. They all want it like that anyway.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: My Complicated Views on the Police

If you ever get arrested a couple of times, you will hate cops for the rest of your life.

I’ve said that a few times on this site. Most of you readers look at that and shrug because you never had those damn cuffs put on you. Fine, you’re high and mighty, good for you. But just you wait. You can get in trouble anytime for the least little bullshit.

If you don’t want to have to struggle against hating cops for the rest of your life though, please don’t ever get arrested. I’ve been arrested twice in my life for no particular good reason.

In a way, I have hated cops ever since simply because of the horrible way they treated me those six hours in jail. And so much of it was really unnecessary.

And the more “bad boy” you have in you, the more likely this is to occur because such men ride on the bare edges of legality (like me) most of their lives anyway. Plus we’re a bit antagonistic. And daring. And we don’t care. And we talk back. And you don’t mess with us. And we fight our girlfriends. And our women threaten to call the cops on us when when we hit them back.

What happened to me when I got arrested?

They went out of their way to try to provoke and  start fights with me. They continuously implied that the guy sitting in the car with me in that nightclub parking lot was my gay lover. They kept rubbing it in, essentially calling me a faggot.

They threw me into a wall in the intake room for no reason and laughed. They grabbed my head and smashed it up against the ceiling of my car. I complained about the cuffs being too tight, and of course when you do that, they laugh and make them even tighter.

Do you see what they were doing with all the verbal and physical taunts? They’re trying to provoke me. They’re trying to make me mad. And as soon as I got mad and verbally or physically aggressive, now they’ve got an excuse to beat me up? See? They’re bullies. The bully picks on his victim until the victim lashes out, and then the bully pounds him into the ground.

Cops are bullies.

Both of those guys were sadists. Sadistic psychopaths.

One time I was a bit agitated in my cell, and some  cop came by my cell and started dancing in front of me like a monkey, a pugilist in the ring, hands up like a boxer, challenging me to fight. He taunted and provoked me for a few minutes, and when I didn’t rise to the bait, he took off.

He was a sadist. A sadistic psychopath.

He was taunting me and provoking me, see? Taunting me into getting aggressive with him, so then he would have an excuse to come into my cell and beat me up? See?

I hate cops for the rest of my life in a sense. But it’s conditional. Conditional on their good behavior. If they act cool, I give em a break, leave ’em alone, and might even be nice. I like some cops because they are nice to me and seem like good people. They treat me like I’m one of them. And I am. We are both just citizens, trying to keep the peace in our own way.

But I have no illusions about cops. Seen too much for that.

A lot of them have elevated sadism, as it’s necessary for the job. A lot if not all of the rest have elevated psychopathy scales, probably once again because it’s necessary. But do you like to make psychopathic sadists a regular part of your life? Of course not. That’s why you should keep cops as far away from you as reasonably possible as often as you can.

There’s not much to be gained by inviting these folks into your life, and a lot of the time, it’s just crap.

I want a divorce from lots of folks, gay men primarily but also cops.

Cops, let’s you and me get a divorce, ok? You over there, me over here. You stay over there and do whatever you do, have fun, have a good life, live long, healthy, and happy, but just keep me out of it, ok? I’ll be over here doing my thing. It’s sad but we are best apart like many formerly married couples are.

I don’t care what cops do in my town. We don’t have systemic issues with them here.

I think they don’t like me. They see me and give me hate looks a lot of times. Like they think I’m a criminal, a scumbag, a bad guy. Not always but often enough.

I asked my Mom, and she said quietly, almost under her breath:

You look like a hippie. Cops hate hippies.

So I mostly have no issues with them, but sometimes they pull me over and harass me seemingly just because they don’t like me.

I was out driving at 3 AM one evening and a cop pulled me over merely because as he said,

What was I doing out so late?

That’s garbage. What was I doing out so late? Who cares?

How about:

None of your business. How bout that?

I will have to fight a BS traffic ticket if the courts ever open up.

Some cops have pulled me over and were nice. I met some while watching a fire, and they were quite calm to me, almost as a parent to a child. Maybe they felt sorry for me. I met a lady cop in a Starbucks, and she was extremely nice. I was wondering if she was trying to pick me up.

I got called in as a witness to a crime, and the detective who interviewed me was very nice. Another detective I talked to was a sexy babe. At the end of the interview, her supervisor came in and stood in front of us with a pair of the the coldest eyes I’ve ever seen. Just pure, homicidal, dead, pure hate, the hate of a killer. I have no idea why he did that. Maybe he didn’t like me. Maybe he’s just another sadistic psychopath cop. He wouldn’t be the first one.

But they weren’t dealing with me as a bad guy.

My rent check got stolen recently, and I had to deal with a cop as a mutual crime victim. To say he was kind was an understatement. Cops are incredibly kind to true victims of crime.

A couple of cops tried to pick a fight with me at an accident scene recently. I had to get into a store, and they tried to start a fight with me for wanting to do that. Half a minute later, they yelled at me for no reason no good reason. I guess they were paranoid. But it came across as hostility. They looked at me like they were going to run over and and beat me up.

I called them pigs and ducked behind a wall. Then  the pawnshop guy buzzed me in. But why pick a fight in the first place? I was cooperative and did nothing wrong. Maybe they were paranoid. Maybe they were just psychopaths. They wouldn’t be the first.

I wanted to talk to a cop recently, so I ran after a cop car in a parking lot and banged on the back. He jumped out ready to shoot. Obviously. I dropped everything in my hands and said I was sorry. He calmed down and he looked me up to see if I had a warrant as I requested.

But he never backed off that trigger finger hostility he had at first, even though I proved to be harmless. I kept apologizing. He finally said don’t worry.

But he was cold as an ice chest the whole time. I was afraid I would catch a cold from the icy wind buffeting his body. What for? Why be so icy? Maybe he’s just another psychopathic cop. He wouldn’t be the first.

My brother was arrested recently and put in jail. As soon as they got him in the booking room, they started beating him up for no good reason. He was and never left the booking room the next few days, where he was beaten several more times for no good reason . He was placed naked in solitary for no good reason.

When he served his jail time, the guards and nurses were cold and evil.

The nurses had no empathy at all, just sheer hate. A whole jail full of Nurse Ratchets. They should have pulled their licenses.

You’re a nurse, right? You have no empathy for your patients, right? Well, guess what? We’re pulling your license until you start to act human again.

The guards went out of their way to make everyone as miserable as possible and seemed to be trying to push everyone to their limits. The guards threatened to beat him up several more times for no good reason. The food was inedible, made that way on purpose just to throw one more miserable thing into the mix.

The toilets stopped up and overflowed. The plumber accused him of flooding the toilet on purpose and refused to clean it up. He had a cell full of sewage for the next day. He and his cellie cleaned it up. With their clothes. Yeah. They cleaned up the sewage with their clothes as towels.

He was denied medicine repeatedly. Although he was in an active manic episode, he was denied all medical and certainly psychiatric care. That was almost malpractice. But the nature of medical treatment in our penal system is simply malpractice. That’s they way it’s supposed to be. It’s deliberately designed to be malpractice.

That jail was a torture chamber, mostly psychological, but still.

You readers say you will never go to jail. Fine. 25% of White men in my generation have been to jail. It’s not just a few people. Someone reading this post could end up in jail. It happens to lots of decent folks.

I see no idea why jails must be medieval torture chambers.

I see no reason why prisoners cannot be treated with basic UN levels of barely humane treatment.

I see no reason why cops have to beat people up, over and over and over, for no good reason.

I see no reason why jail guards should make things as wretched as possible and try to push everyone to their limits.

I see no reason why guards must try to push anyone to their limits.

Our penitentiary system is a Medieval hellhole. I’ve spent a whole six hours in jail, but I don’t have a dog in this fight. But this seems wrong on a level of basic civilization.

If you get those cuffs on you, you will see the evil side of cops real quick. So try to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Probably 50% of cops are psychopathic and sadistic. They’re scary, bothersome, and harassing, usually only once in a while.

A few are great people.

Most others are just neutral.

In general, it’s better to have a divorce between you and the cops. You over here, them over there. Any time you have cops in your life, it’s usually because something bad has happened. So have them in your life little as possible.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Libertarian Topics It’s Ok to Discuss On Here

If you want to talk about Libertarians on metoo, custody courts, affirmative action, and reparations, ok.

These are all areas of government (and corporate) overreach. I would particularly like to see critiques of the carceral system and carceral state, everybody calling the cops for every little problem, and the fact that about half of the things we want to do in life are now actually or effectively illegal. Every year I look at the new laws, and more things I have been doing my whole life are illegal.

Look at speech codes and hate speech codes. Every week I wake up and another word I’ve been using my whole life is banned. Every other sentence is now some sort of bigotry, offense, or insult needing an apology else your career is over.

It’s not the state that’s doing this. It’s our Sanctimonious Nanny State (a word I hate) Culture or Nanny State Culture that’s firing all these guys. Our culture is now run by Church Ladies (Church Lady Culture) and Stern Nuns with Rulers. No fun allowed! Fun is bigotry! Fun is hate! If you’re having fun, you must be hating, preying up, exploiting or hurting some poor vulnerable soul.

How about the increasingly Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian  Left, or Sex-hating Left. Of course all of this is coming right out  of Sex-Negative Feminism. I came out of the revolutions of the 1960’s. One of our mottoes was, “Do it in the streets!” So my whole life, I’ve been a Do it in the streets type guy. A Hugh Hefner liberal.

The Left is now as sex-hating as the Christian Right. Hell, the only sex-positive politics these days is on the Right! Pathetic! I didn’t sign up for this shit, this prudery. The Left is now championing everything we were opposed and fought against.

The whole carceral state (Mommy Cop) is out of control. I want to see it reigned in. Probably half of our laws should be flushed down the toilet. People can pretty easily solve most of their problems themselves without getting Mommy Cop (the Police State).

Any problem nowadays, snowflakes go yelling for Mommy Cop to come rescue them. “Mommy Cop! He hurt me! He called me a name!” Mommy Cop whips out her ticket book and writes a ticket for yet another of a growing list of citation offenses.

If you want to talk any of these things, go for it:

    • Our invasion of privacy or the fact that we have no privacy at all anymore.
    • #metoo, sexual assault and raaaaaaaaape bullshit.
    • The travesty of custody courts.
    • Affirmative action.
    • Reparations.
    • The carceral system or carceral state (Mommy
      Cop).
    • Legal reform, eliminating many stupid, intrusive, anti-freedom, and sanctimonious laws about personal behavior.
    • The fact that people can probably solve a lot of issues now dealt with by Mommy Cop amongst themselves without crying for Mommy Cop.
    • Hate speech and speech codes.
    • Cancel Culture or the Left’s war on free speech and increasingly even free thought.
    • Various sanctimonious party-pooper, no fun, turd in the punchbowl modern Left cultures that could be called such things as Nanny State Culture, Church Lady Culture, or Nuns with Rulers Culture, in other words the punitive aspects of the Cultural Left.
    • The prudish, anti-sex Left cultures variously described the Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian Left, or Sex-hating Left. Also Sex-Negative Feminism.
    • Anti-freedom, Carceral State Feminism.
    • Pedophile Mass Hysteria, the insane abuse of age of consent and statutory rape laws, and the moral panic around the sexuality of teenage girls.
    • The increasing infantilization of society where childhood is dragged out to the day before the 18th birthday and beyond.
    • Females demanding to be permanent infants when it benefits them and then permanent adults when that benefits them.
    • The notion that females are Forever Children who lack agency their entire lives.

Libertarians have excellent views on all this, which is really civil libertarianism. I am a civil libertarian, as in an ACLU-type liberal. Libertarians are with the old ACLU on civil liberties.

The ACLU is now a cucked, fagged-out Cultural Left Shitshow characterized by dishonest legal theory and the abandonment of (male) reason and logic in favor of (female) emotion and bias when it comes to legal matters. But the old ACLU was great, and the Libertarians line right up with the old liberal civil libertarians. So that’s a great commonality with Libertarians that we can talk about.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Australian Aborigines: Portrait of a Defeated Race That Is Not Adapted to Modern Civilization

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Are the Australian Aborigines really that bad?

Oh God. They make American Blacks seem like choir boys and Rhodes Scholars. Total clusterfuck. Sort of like the US Amerindians in that I feel that they are what I would call a “defeated race.” They have that “defeated” quality about them like the US Amerindians do. And they’re such huge fuckups and frankly depraved monsters when left on their own that the state has had to come into their autonomous zones and supervise them as if they were children. Dangerous, depraved children.

If you want to feel really good about US Blacks, go visit one of these “supervised villages” in Australia. You will come back shouting how lucky we were to get US Blacks instead of those awful Aborigines. I would even call them a “cursed race.” They’re frankly barbarians. They live in a state of what I would call barbarism. No way can they adapt to the modern world. Just forget it.

They’re just savages. I mean humans were savages as hunter-gatherers, sure, but the modern world is just not fit for that sort of savagery that they are adapted to. We’ve moved beyond that type of savagery and barbarism. They’re a human anachronism.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: A Chinese-Australian I knew would criticize Americans for being so racist against Blacks.

Considering that US Blacks act about an order of magnitude better than Aborigines, I almost don’t blame her.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Yet she would describe the Aborigines as hopeless drunks lying the street.

Yep, most can’t, don’t, or won’t work. They’re charity cases at best. Drugs are a problem too, often glue sniffing, which is the worst of all. Juvenile delinquency is rampant and they’re real bad delinquents, too. Yes, many are just drunk homeless bums on the streets. A lot of these types are picked up by cops on alcohol offenses or the petty crimes that they commit obsessively, hence the jails are full of Aborigines. They’re vastly overrepresented in the country’s jail system.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I thought she was just an anti-White hypocrite. But maybe not.

Go over there and check them out in the wild, and you will see what she was talking about. I forget if it was Darwin or Marx, but one of them said that the Aborigines are simply not fit for the modern world, and perhaps they would be better off if they just went extinct. It’s cruel and I don’t think we should help them along, but they’re doing a pretty good job of racial suicide anyway, so he was seeing into the future.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How About Voluntary Gay and Lesbian High Schools for Gay and Lesbian Teens?

Oli S: It’s interesting how often they make claims about pederasty/pedophilia from two angles. First they claim that gay people are more likely to be ‘molested’ into homosexuality and next that homosexuals themselves are more likely to engage in relationships with young people.

The critical flaw is that all the research on this shows higher rates, but it’s quite clearly attributed to the fact that gay teenagers don’t have many options their own age. They don’t want to risk being outed to their peers, so they turn to the Internet to find a sexual experience where they can be targeted by a predator.

Oli is apparently a new commenter here.

I have no idea his orientation and it’s probably not important, but how readers would feel about voluntary separate gay and lesbian high schools? They would not have to worry about peer pressure and being outed. You could even staff Administration ion with mostly gay and lesbian administrators and the teaching staff with gay and lesbian teachers, of which there are no shortages, trust me as I spent years working in the field.

Gay and lesbian teens could no longer complain about lack of sex partners and having to resort to sex with adults, particularly in the case of the boys.

However, I can see the sex scandals starting already.The gay teachers and admins will not keep their hands off the gay boys and girls. So this is the huge roadblock in favor of this plan.

They call me a homophobe. Fine. Now what sort of homophobe would support the idea of separate gay/lesbian schools – voluntary of course – to protect, nurture, and grow healthier gay and lesbian teens who hopefully transit into healthier gay and lesbian adults, which is something I very much support?

Because God knows the GLBT community definitely needs a dose of mental health. Gays and lesbians in general in the US and worldwide are not particularly mentally healthy. This does translate into societal problems, possibly feeding disease epidemics.

The suicide rate for gay and lesbian teens is not elevated, but the rate for adult gays and lesbians is off the charts. Up to 1/3 of suicides in some younger decadal cohorts (such as 30’s and 40’s) occur in gays and lesbians.

Only 2% of gay men are over 65. The % for straight men much be much higher. Where did all the rest of the elderly gays go? They never showed up at the Elderly Gate for check-in because they were already dead.

Gay men and lesbians see their lifespans shortened by an incredible 20 years. I don’t think being homosexual per se is a death cult, but the gay and lesbian lifestyle (especially the former) sure seems that way. Heck, it’s more of a deathstyle than a lifestyle.

The anti-gay Religious Right is actually correct in a lot of the charges they make about homosexuality. The critique is largely fact-based. The problem with these folks is not that they lie about gays and lesbians because for the most part they tell the sorry truth.

The problem instead is that they are haters. I agree with most of the charges the social conservatives level against homosexuality, but I don’t hate gays and lesbians because of it. That’s a choice the Religious Right makes, and yeah, they do hate gays and lesbians for the most part, though if a gay or lesbian gets into one of their fake conversion programs, no doubt Religious Right folks might be very kind to them. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: “White Socialism” and the Class Character of the Recent British Race Riots

Clavdivs Americanvs: Rank-and-file Libertardians might just secretly be White-Power Commies who like guns but know that any socialist regime will disproportionately tax them and give to the niggers. Oh the humanity!

There are more WN supporters of White Socialism than you think! And you would be surprised at who they might be. Majority Rights is headquarters of some of them, including Daniel, a major thinker.

There is a huge number of White Left types or National Socialists on Stormfront. There are whole large sections for them. Many are young Americans too.Tom Metzger always pushed some sort of White socialism or working class class-conscious populism. His racism is horrible, but I like his economics and the class character of his working class project against the bosses and the rich.

Of course almost all European WN’s are coming from a socialist viewpoint. There’s no such thing as conservative economics or Libertarianism over there. Everybody hates it.

The UK is probably the only exception since the specter of Maggie Thatcher appeared.

However the Left is huge over there, and they are quite militant and radical. Even those wild racial riots in the UK a while back over police brutality had a class character. Most rioters were Black, mixed race, and Pakistanis.

Only corporate outfits were looted or burned, and focus was specifically on the tax-avoiders which are well-known in the UK and are widely hated for that. Can you imagine a majority of White Americans being infuriated by corporations that don’t or hardly pay any taxes? Absurd. Hell, most US Whites would probably cheer those corporations on and wish there were more of them.

Small businesses friendly to the locals were generally unharmed. It’s amazing how much class consciousness the Blacks and Pakistanis have over there. Could you imagine Black rioters in  the US being that class conscious? I’d almost support more Black riots if they were.

When Thatcher died, there were riots all over the UK. She was hanged in burning effigy in a number of places. Fires were set, and there was quite a bit of ruckus. This happened mostly in the poorer, working class, and housing project areas. Could you imagine the US White poor and working class being this class conscious and burning Reagan in effigy? It’ll never happen!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Blacks Are Survivors, Have Common Sense, and Look Out for Their Own Self-Interest, Unlike Whites

Polar Bear: Blacks are big on their own survival. Look at Black African leaders living like rap stars while their people suffer/starve. The same mentality exists with a lot of Blacks abroad. If you watch prank shows, Blacks will often run away. Even the muscle-bound Jimmys will run if it gets too out of the ordinary. They will look out for #1 and survive.

Yes, they are survivors. They survived in Africa over 200,000 years and before that as relict hominids.

I think after a nuclear war, the only things left alive will be cockroaches, Keith Richards, and a maybe more than a few Black people.

Whites strike me as suicidal. It’s like the Suicide Race. Look at how many Whites keep blindly pursuing an ideology that isn’t working, isn’t in their best interests, or is even harming or killing them. Lots! Look at how many are supporting this Trump rolling clown car. This epidemic response has been a huge clusterfuck, the laughingstock of the world, but the White guy keeps supporting it because muh ideology even though it just killed Grandpa and his own damn wife.

See, Blacks don’t do that stuff! Look at Black people’s politics. Say what you want about it, but Black politics clearly serve the best interests of Blacks. Blacks don’t care about ideology. They say, “Screw ideology. I want to know what’s best for me and mine. That’s called ‘the ideology that I support’.”

Blacks know who their enemies are and who their friends are. That’s why ~90% of them vote Democrat. Democrats are pro-Black. Republicans? LOL don’t think so.

That’s smarter than White people. White people can’t even figure out who their friends and enemies are. They oppose their friends and support their enemies, and they’re so stupid, they think they are pursuing their self-interest by doing so. And they vote on stupid stuff like racism. “I’m voting Republican because I hate niggers even though that is bad for me and mine!”

Blacks aren’t that dumb. If you had a politician promoting Black racism against Whites who was at the same time opposed to the interests of most Black people, Blacks would see right through him. They’d chuckle, “I ain’t falling for that!”

The Republicans tried to pitch Colon Bowel or whatever his name was to the Blacks. “Look! Vote Republican! Vote for Colon!” Black people gave that a sidelong glance, thought about it, and said, “I don’t think so!” He never had more than 30% support among Blacks. They knew that Bowel was not good for Blacks.

They didn’t care if he was Black. If you said to a Black person, “But he’s Black like you! You should support him!” a Black person would look at you like, “Yeah right! What do I care if that silly Tom- house Negro is Black! Lots of idiots are Black. I ain’t supporting someone just because he’s the same race as me!” They’re too smart to fall for that.

The Ghetto

You could argue that Black people have gotten themselves into self-defeating situations via behaviors that they continue to perpetuate. Fair enough. But Whites revel in their self-defeating behavior and think Lose means Win somehow.

Blacks aren’t that dumb. Blacks look at that that ghetto mess and aren’t deluded into supporting it! That’s what a White person would do. Support the very thing that’s dragging him down and jump up and cheer about it.

Black people look at that ghetto mess, and a lot of them, if they can put aside their useless pride BS for a while, say, “Well, yeah, that’s a total clusterfuck. I don’t care if it’s our fault or not, all I know is it’s a mess, and I don’t want any part of that. That’s definitely against my self-interest. I’m moving out, sorry. I ain’t stupid!”

Furthermore, they can see that it’s obviously a Fail and not a Win. And a lot of Blacks do blame their own kind or at least a certain type of their own kind for that mess. They are smart enough to figure out that, “We (our race) are fucking up in those ghettos,” doesn’t necessarily mean “I (myself, a member of our race) am fucking up in those ghettos.”

That’s right smart, basic, low level practical thinking. A 5th grader could probably figure that the members of her group misbehaving is not synonymous with her own self misbehaving.

The Burning House

A house is on fire. A Black guy and a White guy are inside. The White yells, “Hell yeah! This is what I voted for! Win win win! Muh ideology! Muh emotions! Muh racism!”

The Black guy looks at him and says, “Fuck this, man. I don’t care about muh emotions right now. My only emotion right now is called, ‘Get the fuck outa here!’ Last thing I need is muh racism right now. And I don’t even know what muh ideology even is, but I know it ain’t gonna do me no good right now! Hey White man, you can have all that muh stuff. Let me know if it helps you get out of the fire, ok?”

Then the Black guy thinks, “This damn house is on fire. The only thing I am thinking right now is how I am gonna get the Hell out of here. Ain’t nothing else matters now. Take your book smarts and keep em on the shelf right now. I’ma get the Hell out of this burning building and save my ass, and I don’t care about one other thing.”

He desperately runs for safety, dodging some flaming boards crashing down and trying not to get overwhelmed by the smoke. Pretty soon he’s out and barely singed. He says, “Whew! Close call! Time for a beer!”

As he walks away he looks back at the house, now collapsing even further in flaming timber. Last thing he hears before it all comes down for good is the White guy, “Win win win win! This is what I voted for! Much ideology! Muh emotions! And especially muh racism!” With that last sentence the building comes down once and for all with a deafening crash, and the White man is heard no more. The Black guy walks away shaking his head, “Damn fool White man,” he says.

Lost in the Jungle!

I’ve got this fancy gold medal White brain, but a lot of good it would do me if I were stranded in the middle of the jungle in Africa! I’d be dead awful quick. My souped up brain would be absolutely worthless.

Anyway, I’m lost in the jungle like a fool, about ready to keel over, and I spot a Black African dude over there in the jungle. “Hey man! Come rescue me!”

Lucky for me he speaks English.

“Hey man, I’m lost in this jungle, and I’m about ready to die. Help me!”

The African comes over and says, “Yeah, I’m lost too but I can show us how to survive out here a while, and in the meantime, I’ma try to find my way out of here because I know how to get to safety when I’m lost.”

Now this guy isn’t real smart. God knows what his IQ is. 75? That’s borderline or low IQ. Won’t help him much in New York City, but it doesn’t matter out here. That 75 IQ Black brain knows how to survive in the jungle and get us to safety, while this genius IQ White brain is effectively “retarded” out here because it can’t figure out how to survive or get back to civilization.

The Black dude helps us survive a few days living off the jungle, eating fruits and roots, and even catching a few animals somehow, don’t ask me how, which he cooks over a homemade caveman fire he made somehow or other, don’t ask me how he did that either.

He had no idea where in the Hell he was, but he knows how to find his way out of being lost. In several days, we’re back to civilization stuffing our faces, getting drunk on palm wine, and having the doctor look us over.

The White Supremacists yell, “Black  people! Low IQ! Low IQ! Low IQ! Inferior! Fail fail fail fail!” Then they rant on about their high IQ and about how much superior it is. Well, in this case the high Win IQ did fuck all for me would have left me to die because it doesn’t know how to survive in the wilderness. But that Low Fail IQ got both of us out of a life-threatening situation.

So in terms of sheer survival and adaptiveness, that 75 IQ might as well be Genius IQ on the “Surviving in the Jungle” scale. And that’s all that matters  here. Numbers don’t matter. Even science doesn’t matter. Facile definitions of superior and inferior don’t matter. All that matters at the end of the day is what works. If it works, it works, and numbers be damned.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Massive Fail: India Is Actually More Messed Up Than Sub-Saharan Africa!

You don’t actually believe that Africa is somehow better off than India?

Yes, I absolutely do. Less outdoor shitting, lower malnutrition and starvation, fewer women dying in childbirth. I was appalled. India is even more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa! Talk about pathetic. You need to stop defending your shithole, man. Face it, it’s a shithole. SHI is right. Embrace the fact that it’s a shithole, drop out of Indian society, and be done with it.

Many Africans haven’t even come out of the hunter gatherer lifestyle

This is absolutely false. The White Nationalists (in other words, the nigger-haters) say this all the time. I went and did some research on it, and nope, there are only a few hunter-gatherer societies left in Africa. Almost all sub-Saharan groups are agriculturalists, either tending small plots which is the norm or growing crops on large plantations.

Africans in fact may have been the first to invent agriculture 12,000 YBP in the Gambian Highlands. As with so many things human, once again, Africans did it first. Africans have had plantation agriculture since 1,100 YBP. It started in East Africa around Tanzania and places like that.

Africa overall, may also have more land but probably has less habitable land than India, so putting all these things into perspective, I don’t see how India could have a higher rate when there is no open defecation in South India, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, there may be very little in Jammu, none in Kashmir/Ladakh, and very little in Northeast (I’m assuming Assam is the only one where it may be common).

They do. 60% of Indians shit outdoors. Highest rate in the world.

Dude, stop. Defending India is a fools’ errand that leads nowhere, and you end up lying all the time because the only way to defend India is with lies. Come to think of it, that’s pretty pathetic right there.

I would also like to know where these stats are from and how did they actually manage to conclude that this number of Indians are openly defecating.

A while back when organizations were promoting the war on open defecation, I did the research. And yep, India was worst. 60%. Pakistan had 34% though, which is also pretty bad. Indonesia also had a pretty high rate, surprisingly.

And when I did my research, not only was Africa lower (I think 25-30%, though it seemed to vary), but African people and governments seemed to think that open defecation was a bad thing. The people themselves seemed embarrassed and disgusted by it. This made me think a lot of better of the Africans. At least they think it’s messed up!

In contrast when I looked into India, I found that a lot of Indians simply didn’t care or else actually preferred to be streetshitters. I don’t know what to do about India. Sometimes I think India needs Maoism. Total Cultural Revolution. Not The Cultural Revolution , which definitely had issues, but the cultural revolution that the CCP initiated as soon as they got in and which they pursue to this very day.

I am so sorry. But when you are actually more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa, of all places, man, you got problems. When even some of the worst failos are beating you, man, that’s fail with a capital F.

And while it may be difficult to have pride if you are a Sub-Saharan African (though I think they should anyway), Black Africans can at least take  pride in the fact that so many of the biggest milestones in the development of Homo sapiens that left us able to be this civilized were actually initiated by Africans.

All the way up to agriculture. Yep, Africans did it first once again. They started smelting iron awful early too. In fact, Africans were smelting iron even before Europeans were 2,900 YBP! Sure, Africans didn’t advance much beyond that, but still, being the first to reach so many of humanity’s milestones is pretty cool. And Africans can also be proud of the fact that they are more socially advanced than Indians!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Your Enemy Doesn’t Exist? Create Him! Your Enemy is a Nice Guy? Force Him to Act Bad!

Jason: There’s not much the small can do but be a bitch of the strong, and the Cubans figured Russia was way nicer to get along with and far away enough.

Sure, what are you going to do? Keep kissing your enemy’s feet and pleading with him to be nice or tell him to fuck off and go ally with anyone else, even his worst enemy if the new guy is offering the peace pipe at a ridiculous discount? Humans aren’t stupid.

I can’t believe we blame Castro for going Commie. We pretty much shove Castro into Communism. By the way, we did that to a lot of places. You want to demonize someone but they don’t act bad yet? Simple. Deviously manipulate them to make them act bad and turn them into your enemy.

All shitty countries and people do this. The US, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf Arabs, the EU, the Latin American Right, and fascists and capitalists (same thing) in general name it. If your enemy doesn’t exist, fucking create him, dammit! If your enemy acts good, force him to act bad, dammit!

And then in your shitty controlled propaganda media, demonize your newly created enemy as your enemy, meaning he is out to screw you, and watch the hundreds of millions of Normietards eat it right up. The biggest joke in the whole world is that human beings are smart. LOL! Come on. If we were really as brilliant as we crow that we are, there is no way that we would ever fall for this nakedly and embarrassingly transparent dishonesty, but nope, we fall for it all the time.

An intelligent species is relatively inoculated against most basic scams on the account of its brains alone. Obviously we ain’t very smart at all if we can’t think our way out of these scams on our minds. I think that is why they are trying to shut down the Dissident Net.

The Dissident Net is tearing away the curtain, revealing the wizard at the helm as nothing but a scam artist, and is showing that the emperor’s arguments in his state and media are as naked as his garb. The Dissident Net is showing Westerners how to think. Since we absolutely do not have any sort of freedom of press at all in the West, this is the only thing that they fear more than anything else: the day their propaganda just doesn’t work anymore.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: An Overview of the Early Years of the Cuban Revolution, 1954-1961

transformer: What do you think of this article Robert? I don’t trust right wing sources but how literate was Cuba back in 1959?

That website is falsely named. It is not an “intellectual” website dedicated to the intellect and the pursuit of knowledge. Sure, it is an erudite, bright, and educated website, but the only intellectuals it appeals to are hard rightwingers. It’s basically the philosophy of your average American conservative Republican. Those sites are run by ideologues, and they are not very honest.

I will try to take apart this argument as best as I can, but if you Google these questions, there are many leftwing websites who offer far better rejoinders than I offer here, especially with more facts, figures, and dates.

That argument is not good because there was vast poverty in the countryside along with terrible health and dental care. There was vast inequality in Cuba. There was quite a bit of wealth in the cities, particularly in Havana, but the conditions in the countryside were awful, pure 3rd World.

To give an example, I believe that there may have been no doctors in Cuba outside of Havana. All of the doctors and dentists lived in Havana serving people with money for cash so they could make a lot of money. The Mafia owned Cuba, and Havana was a sleazefest full of criminals, gangsters, and prostitutes.

Blacks had essentially no rights at all. They actually lived under a strict Jim Crow-like segregation that was as bad as what existed in the South. The Blacks in Cuba were fucked.

The whole country was owned by foreign, mostly US, interests, including the sugar cane and tobacco fields, the cigar and nickel industries and the casinos and bars. A few country-sellers latched onto the large US corporations that ran everything in Cuba and got their fair share of the loot.

But the Cuban people as a whole, meaning the Cuban state, barely saw a nickel of profits from any of those foreign-owned fields and industries. There also was little or no trickle down effect from the foreign-owned industry. Most Cubans felt that Cuba had once more become a colony of the US. After all, it was more or less owned by US companies, right?

Cuba used to be a colony of the US. We stole it from the Spanish after the Spanish American War. US rule was not popular. Jose Marti is known as the liberator of Cuba. He led an insurrection in 1898 in which Cuba gained its freedom. The Philippines was also rebelling at this time.

But after the US left, in 1911, a new law was passed called the Platt (?) Amendment that basically said that the US still ruled Cuba and had a right to intervene in Cuba’s affairs anytime it wanted to.

Even the most rightwing anti-Castro Cubans are not particularly pro-US, and if you bring up that amendment, they’ve all heard of it, and they act angry about. After all, most anti-Castro types are Cuban nationalists. Cubans are very nationalistic and proud people. That amendment remained in place until Castro won the revolution in 1959.

Batista’s army collapsed without even much of a fight because at one point in the revolution, even the middle classes in the cities went over to Castro. When the middle class supports a revolution, you are out of power. Previously the middle class had probably been mostly neutral.

Batista was also horribly corrupt and no one was happy about that. As Castro overran Havana, Batista and his government flew out to the US on airplanes. The US lifted them out. There are still quite a few pro-Batista Cubans in the Cuban community in Cuba. That’s why the Cuban exiles are not popular in Cuba.

A lot of Cubans in the countryside were not literate. Even schooling was bad out there. And Castro did run a literacy program that got the country to 99% literacy very quickly.

Castro was middle or even upper-class himself. He was Galician of almost pure Spanish blood (Cuba is full of Galicians). He had just graduated from law school, and he was in fact an attorney. So he was a very smart guy.

Che was actually a physician! He graduated from medical school in Argentina and was granted a license to practice medicine. I’m not sure if he ever actually practiced medicine. He was also a very smart guy.

Che took a motorcycle tour around Latin America, and he was appalled at the poverty he saw there. He had grown up in Buenos Aires in a moneyed family, and this was a hidden secret about the continent for him. A book called The Motorcycle Diaries was later published using the notes he took as he traveled around South America.

He became radicalized by his bike tour. He heard about the Revolution in Cuba, and he went there to help them out pure idealism with stars in his eyes. Che was also White like Castro and came from old Buenos Aires money. He probably had Italian and Spanish blood at the least, like most Argentines.

He married in Cuba and had a couple of kids before he was murdered by the CIA in a hospital in Bolivia in 1967 after being arrested in the nation for rebellion. He was very good to his wife and young children. The wife and children are still alive. You can even go see his son if you go to Cuba and have the right connections.

His wife and kids remember him very fondly. Che was a selfless and altruistic man. There is a slogan in Cuba: “Be like Che.” It is very popular. It means to be selfless and idealistic and sacrifice for others, to not be selfish and greedy. The slogan is popular among university students in particular. If you go to Cuba, you will hear Cuban university students, male and female, saying that their philosophy is to “be like Che.”

There must have been something wrong with the Batista system because a lot of university students, teachers, etc. took part in the early demonstrations against Batista. At some point, the Left went to the mountains and took up arms.

Either before or after, Batista ran death squads that rampaged through Cuba’s cities, murdering teachers, students, and the unarmed Left in general. They murdered thousands of defenseless and unarmed Cubans this way.

The army would not even fight for Batista. That’s how corrupt he was. In fact, many of the anti-Castro Cubans fought with Castro in the mountains to get rid of Batista, but they turned on him when he went Communist. They felt betrayed. I don’t mind these exiles so much. I have spoken with some of their children. At least they fought with Castro. But they tend to be very bitter. They think they got double-crossed and backstabbed by Castro.

Castro was originally simply a social democrat, and the initial revolutionary program was a social democratic one.

However, it was a very nationalistic revolution, and they started seizing foreign-owned businesses very quickly. The Cubans offered to pay off the owners for the market value of the businesses over a 30-year period. That offer it still in effect. 100% of the people and corporations who got their property taken turned down that offer, possibly out of pride and certainly out of ideology.

So their businesses didn’t really get confiscated. Castro offered to pay full value for them, but these stubborn reactionaries turned down the offer. It’s their own damn fault they lost their businesses.

The seizing of the foreign-owned property went on for a couple of years and was extremely popular among the extremely nationalistic Cubans. So you can see that Castro’s revolution, like Mao’s and Ho’s, was also and perhaps primarily a nationalist revolution.

Castro went to New York soon after he took power, and he was greeted with large crowds of cheering supporters. Castro talked about how much he loved America and Americans. I believe he was sincere. A lot of the US ruling class – the rich and corporations – were very suspicious of Castro from the start. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t hate him. They were just very leery of him.

Castro asked for US support and aid to help rebuild the country, but the US had turned hostile  by then due to the business confiscations and refused to give him a nickel. This went on for a couple of years with each side getting more hardened until Castro finally turned to the USSR in desperation in 1961 for support since the US was flipping him off.

Castro’s argument was that he tried to have a relationship with the US, and we told him to go to Hell, so we forced him into the arms of the Soviets. He sealed an alliance with the USSR in 1961. The US promptly imposed a cruel embargo on Cuba which has been there ever since.

The embargo’s official justification was to cause so much poverty and misery in Cuba that the people would rise up and overthrow Castro. Here it is 60 years later, and we still give the exact same reason for the embargo. If the embargo is intended to cause the people to overthrow Castro, when is it going to start working? So far it’s been 60 years of utter failure, but we keep chasing the White Whale.

Over the next year, Castro grew increasingly radical, and by 1962, he abandoned social democracy, his originally ideology, and took up Marxism-Leninism. After Castro went Communist, a lot of his old comrades turned against him along with many others who were not happy with his turn to the hard Left. These contras took up arms, formed guerrilla bands in the mountains, and waged a brutal civil war that went on until 1970.

Yes, the Cuban government executed 10,000 people between 1959-1970, but almost all were for “rebellion,” typically armed rebellion. There have hardly been any executions since.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Social Democracy Only Works in Homogeneous Societies Is Often but Not Completely True

RL:

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it.

A commenter responds:

Mithridates: Yeah, I suspect much of this attitude stems from the ethnic divisions within the US that no one is ever allowed to talk about in any sort of frank or intellectually honest manner. Of course the Pluto/Mammon-worship inherent in the American mythos is a influential factor as well.

But let’s explore the first:

Basically, Ethnos A, the group responsible for most of the country’s productivity, is forced at gunpoint to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Ethnos B (and C in some regions), and a good portion of Ethnos B takes that money, pisses it away on all sorts of stupid instant gratification fuckery and doesn’t add much of anything to the country’s overall productivity; in fact, a sizable minority of Ethnos B behaves in public like zoo animals.

And then A’s gets called horrible bigots if they object to this, and especially if they object to being forced to live within shouting distance of B’s.

Most of the countries with working social democratic economic arrangements tend to have been ethnically homogeneous for most of the period when these systems were in place. And now these countries have tried the mass immigration experiment, and the same sort of shitty results is happening in those places that we here in the US have been experiencing for many decades now.

Natural Law says that humans are extra-clever social primates who are predisposed to be open to sharing among others they consider to be kin. There’s a certain other Ethnos I won’t mention by name or even a single-letter set of punctuation marks that exemplifies this principle very clearly.

Anyway, expecting all members of an Ethnos to consider the entire planet’s population of clever hominids to be a part of their kin group is quite an aberrant expectation; only weird ideologies can invert what to everyone else is a common sense understanding of Natural Law principles. And finally, loving one’s own kin does not necessarily mean hating other kin-groups.

Of course everyone has always known that this is the dirty little secret for Americans’ hostility to socialism. This is why all of the American White Nationalists are also hardline economic Rightists, Republicans and Libertarians despite this being bad for most Whites. Race trumps economics for a lot of folks. Whereas in Europe, most of the nationalist groups, even the White nationalists, are explicitly socialist.

You’d be pissed to, eh?

Actually I am fully aware of this argument, but I’m not pissed at all. For one thing, I have never been part of the wealthy White group, so Whites with money can go pound sand. They are my class enemies. I think in terms of economics. Screw race. Do the rich Whites want to help the poorer Whites? Of course not. So why should I support them. Also I know quite a few low-income Whites who use those redistributive programs that Whites hate so much.

On the other hand, I am not a typical White person. I am very hard to the Left; in fact, I am an out and out socialist.

Many countries have health care for all despite being ethnically diverse. However, in a lot of these countries, public health care and education is simply underfunded, so the dominant group, whoever they may be, simply goes to private hospitals and schools. India is an excellent example of this as is much of Latin America.

All of the Arab World has social democracy under the rubric of Islam, or in the case of Lebanon, ethnic peace, and Lebanon is unstable for ethnic/religious reasons. And some Arab countries with prominent religious of ethnic minorities are very unstable or at war.

All of North Africa has social democracy except Morocco, although minority Berbers are dealt with by denial of their existence and roping them into the main group, Arabs. Ethiopia has tremendous ethnic diversity and some religious diversity, but they have a good working socialist system. Eritrea is the same but the main divide there is religious rather than ethnic.

Zimbabwe has a good working system although it has many tribes. Argentina and formerly Bolivia and Ecuador has or had working social democracies, although all three countries had serious instabilities; in all cases the rich objecting to sharing with the poor and with a racial element in Bolivia. A number of countries in Latin America do have social democracies, but they don’t work very well because the rich don’t want to share with the poor.

In a number of those countries such as Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Haiti,and Mexico also have an ethnic element in that the dominant rich group tends to be Whiter or lighter-skinned though not usually White per who don’t want to share with the poorer, darker, folks who are more mixed with Indian and in some cases Blacks.

A number of countries in Latin America have homogeneous populations, but the rich still don’t want to share with the poor, so that doesn’t solve everything. And historically speaking, most nations were quite homogeneous, nevertheless the rich still shared just about fuck all with everyone else and needed an actual revolution to be convinced to do so.

Russia and China has very good working social democracies although they have many minorities, although China and to some extent Russia has some ethnic warfare. Ukraine has a good system despite minorities and ethnic warfare. Vietnam, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Laos have good systems despite having anywhere to a couple to many ethnic minorities. Malaysia has a working social democracy and it has a large ethnic divide. Japan has minorities with an excellent social democracy.

Most of the former Soviet republics probably still have working systems although most have large minority populations.Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran have social democracies and minority groups. However, in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran are currently embroiled in ethnic separatist wars.

Most of the countries with non-working systems are not only rightwing but also quite poor. Hong Kong is an exception. The government is very rightwing, but there are not ethnic problems. It’s all one ethnic group, but the rich ones hate the poor ones, just as it was traditionally.

Some are just poor. Most of Africa has social democracy, but it often doesn’t work well due to poverty. To some extent this is true in Pakistan, Mongolia, Yemen, Moldova, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. It is also true in Ecuador, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean, Chile, and Paraguay. In these places, social democracy doesn’t work more due to poverty than to diversity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: Women Always Want the Best

“Women always want the best.”

– Oscar Wilde

There it is, hypergamy in a nutshell.

Female hypergamy will always exist, as it is simply female nature biologically to be hypergamous. Only societies that seriously restrict it in the form of more or less mandatory marriage (Arabs, Muslims, Russia and Eastern Europe, Latin America, tribal groups, etc.) escape this doomed path.

Women are basically “cavewomen” once you unleash them, just as men are pretty much “cavemen” once women stop controlling us. It is to the advantage of each gender to put in some serious controls over the other gender. Otherwise each gender simply pursues the zero-sum game dictated by its biology.

If you somehow had a hypothetical society where all of the men were named Chad and 8-10’s on the looks scale, I don’t think women would act much different.

Granted most men would be a lot better to look at from a woman’s point of view than most men are nowadays, so at least for women the scenery would improve a lot.

And women might be a lot less likely to freak out and creep-shame the lesser Chads for giving them attention because after all, they are named Chad, and women do give goodlooking women a break when it comes to flirting, making passes, and asking for numbers and dates. They tend to be a lot more gracious about it. I’ve experienced this myself endless times although that era seems to be over for me now.

But let’s think about this seriously for a moment. In a society of Chads, women would constantly be meeting men who are hot enough to turn them on. So women would be seeing tens or hundreds of thousands of men who turn them on in an average lifetime.

What’s a girl to do? Now do you honestly think that your average women is going to end up with lifetime N-counts in the Wilt Chamberlain territory? Would your average women really fuck 10’s or 100’s of thousands of men in a lifetime? Are you kidding?

I am certain that in a society like this, women would simply put the top 20-25% of Chads (the 10’s) in the Alpha Chad category and try to monopolize them.

They would resign the 65% average Chads (9’s on the Looks scale) to the Beta Chad category and treat them as women always treat Betas.

And for the least goodlooking of the Chads who would nevertheless be 8’s on the looks scale, women would simply designate these Chads as Omega Chads and treat them the way women always treat Omegas.

*********

Let me tell you a story. This is a true story, but I made up the part about all the rock stars being named Chad for obvious reasons. A friend of mine knew a lot of rock stars and used to hang out backstage and a lot of events with big name groups. Once he was backstage with a band.

All of the men in this band were hot, sexy, very goodlooking, and also had Fame, Power, Money, and Status. Furthermore their Game was spectacular, having been honed by countless interactions with literal swarms of groupies.

There were four guys in the band backstage (all named Chad), and the groupies had arranged themselves so that ~1/4 or 3-4 of the groupies were surrounding each man. So the women had arranged themselves equally around these extremely high-value Alpha rock stars, all coincidentally named Chad.

Yet one man was missing. He was the lead singer. By a strange trick of fate, he was also named Chad. He entered the room. He was more famous and well-known than any of the other men, and women (and men) everywhere swooned over him and talked about how much they wanted to fuck him. He was a huge sex symbol, much more of one than any of the rest of the band.

Then a remarkable thing happened.

The 3-4 women who had equally distributed themselves among the four super-stud rock stars quickly left the rock star they were arranged around and all migrated over to the biggest stud of the rock star super-studs, the lead singer. Why? Because he was an ultra super-stud rock star and the rest were just mere super-stud rock stars. See the Wilde quote above for an explanation of this phenomenon.

Nevertheless, I still think that in such a dream world, the bottom 80% of these Chads would be getting more sex than the bottom 80% of men in our present setup simply because these are so attractive. After all, remember that every man in this new society is named Chad. And I definitely think that despite the depressing scenario above, most men nowadays would benefit from acting more “Alpha.”

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: We Men in the West Lost Control of Our Women and Let Them Run Wild

Pantheist: What if you convince women to stop acting like children the same way we convinced some Blacks to “Whiten up”. Transcend their nature.

Sure, they did it in my Mom’s time, but that time is over. All women are feminists now, and most of them are feral.

We’ve let our women run loose by not controlling them like we should have. The results are not pretty and are all around us.

The new generations of women do not want to transcend their nature. Feminism has told them that it’s cool to act crazy and attack, fight, scream at, hate, humiliate, and emasculate men.

Modern women like to do all of these things, and feminism has even encouraged them to act crazy because when they act crazy, it’s never their fault. It’s all the fault of men. So women have permission to go completely crazy, fall apart, act wild, and wage war on men. Modern women actually enjoy doing all of these things because female nature wants to act like this.

Women in my Mom’s generation were taught that you didn’t do these things unless you had a damned good reason.

In answer to the commenter’s question about women acting like children, women wish to act like children because this is their nature. Also, feminism completely infantalizes women and treats them like children who lack agency and can be convinced by evil men to do just about anything.

How many times have we heard “that’s not consent?” We say that teenage girls are too young to consent to sex because they are not mature enough (which is bullshit), but we treat grown women in the exact same way.

Feminism says women lack agency and are just puppets or marionettes that can be manipulted by evil men into doing things they don’t want to do even though they say they do because these nonhuman muppets are incapable of saying no or stopping sexual advances.

That’s why we have crazy new cases where

  • where we men have to read woman’s minds to figure out if she wants to have sex or not
  • where women consent but they didn’t really “mean it,” so it’s not consent
  • where women can be talked or pressured into sex despite their consent which means that they lack agency and it’s not consent
  • where drunk or loaded women are not responsible for anything they do, so any sexual decisions they make are not consent
  • where women consent to sex but then regret it the next morning so that’s not consent retroactively
  • where women get to decide 10-20 after they consented to a sex act whether they really and truly and for real consented and they can decide that it wasn’t really consent

and all sort of other crazy nonsense.

In all of these cases, women are being treated like children who are too immature to consent to sex and hence lack agency.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

President of Ecuador Drops a Truth Bomb about Why #Metoo Is Mostly Nonsense

Here.

Ha ha. He’s guilty of one thing. Saying the quiet part out loud.

The rest of us have been saying this forever now and all anyone does is scream misogynist and woman-hater every time we say it. If the truth is misogynist, then, Hell, I guess I hate women, right? I mean I believe in the truth, not lies.

This is why this bullshit was going to fail from the start. Women are weak and they make decisions based on emotions, not logic and reason like us men. The latter is fine as that’s just the way they are, but to put inherently irrational and over the top emo human beings in charge? Bad, bad, bad idea. But that’s what we geniuses in the West did.

Then we gave weapon this huge weapon and said, “Hey gals, here’s an awesome deadly weapon you can use against any man you dislike for any reason. You can really hurt them with this. But don’t worry. Unlike most assault with a deadly weapon charges, you can use this weapon on any man you don’t like and no cop will ever arrest you! Ha ha. What about it, ladies.

Women are weak so like all weak people, in fighting and wars, they will fight dirty. They have to. If weak parties play by the rules, they’re obliterated. The only way they can even stand a chance of surviving is to fight dirty. It’s fight dirty or die, literally.

That’s fine too but it basically turns weak parties in conflicts into maniacal terrorists who don’t play by any rules of war. Which is ok. That’s the way it is. But we geniuses in the West decided to put women, who are weak, maniacal terrorists who attack people for no good reason and can’t think rationally, in charge of society. I can’t overemphasize how brilliant that was! sarc/>

Give a woman a weapon and she will abuse it, like any weak party in any conflict. That’s why we have to be careful what weapons we give women and not give them carte blanche to use them at will.

Chad walks into a room, engages in a behavior, and says a few things to a female stranger. He’s a charming, handsome, wonderful guy. All the women love him.

A man with low SMV (sexual market value), an unattractive man, an Omega or typical incel if you will, walks into the same room and walks up to a female stranger and engages in the same behavior and says the same things  that Chad did. The woman is furious, screams #metoo, and threatens to call the police. She screams at the man, calling him a creep. The woman in the store go to management to try to get the guy banned.

Both men did the exact same things. They engaged in the exact same behavior and said the exact same things, but they were punished completely differently. According to US law, all such punishments are invalid due to the Equal Protection Amendment (Amendment 14) in the Constitution. Instead this is somehow completely appropriate.

Most women defend this bullshit and say that men should realize that high SMV men can get away with the same shit that gets a low SMV man #metoo’d. It’s all  perfectly logical and we men need to do quadratic equations in our heads every time we walk into a room full of women to figure out the obvious!

I’m not saying that there are no legit cases of #metoo but the fact that women enforce the rule with extremely prejudiced unfairness and unequal treatment means that the whole #metoo thing more or less needs to be trashed in favor of a new standard. You can’t enforce laws and rules one way against someone you like and another way against someone you don’t like. US democracy doesn’t work that way.

That’s why I have been saying this #metoo crap is toxic garbage since it started. Come up with a new standard or trash it altogether and live with the damage.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Fuck the World: Die With a Smile on Your Face and a Middle Finger in the Air

I’m not here to bitch, but at my age, life sort of blows in so many ways. Every day it’s another indignity. And next year will be worse. The year after that, even worse than that. All you can do is make the best out of a bad situation.

Sure if you have friends of loved ones, it can be real nice. Most of the people you meet day to day, whether they know you or not, are sort of shits. All women of most ages are pretty damn cold. That’s if they don’t openly hate me. A lot of young men in their 20’s are awful damn cold or shitty. Older men, 35+, are usually pretty damn nice. I meet males that age I have never talked to much in my life before…and…guess what? They’re my best friends!

Some women my age are pretty nice, but a lot of them look like shit. Anyone who mostly speaks Spanish is probably pretty cool.

Kids? Just forget it. I wave to them and smile and they don’t even wave back.

I dropped someone off at the homeless shelter the other and drove by the junior high. It was dark. I didn’t want to talk to girls, so I saw three boys. I asked them what the crowd was for, if there had been a game. They told me yes, there had been a basketball game. But one kid acted like there was something terribly wrong with talking to them.

Obviously I was a homosexual child molester who was going to molest their pubescent asses. Don’t mind that I’m not even gay and I don’t fuck guys. It’s still true anyway.

Young women. Ha ha. I’m not even allowed to look at them, much less talk to them. If I smile or wave to them, I get a cold stare of hate back. If I say hi or hello, they act like they’re going to call the police. They’re not all like this, but a lot of them are. Like way too many.

Most of the conversations I try to have with women under age 50 fall flat on their face in some way or another, even if it’s not obvious. Subtly, yeah, it’s true.

I just don’t want to believe you. You talking to someone, right? You want to think this person likes you or this person hates you? I’m anti-paranoid, so interpret most stuff as this person likes me. Which means I overlook a lot of stuff that a paranoid might pick up on. Except it’s dead on true.

Life doesn’t really get older, guys. Have fun when you are young and other humans are still willing to talk to, make friends with you, and date you. Someday if you are lucky you will be my age. Congrats but steel yourself.

I’m not here to bitch but if you’re life is shitty, go ahead and bitch away. If you’re life’s not that shitty, maybe tone it down.

This is it. This is life, boys. And every year from now on, it will just get worse and worse. As they say on the incel boards (and those guys are damned right about a million things), the Age Pill is the hardest pill of all to swallow.

I try to eke some happiness out of life so I don’t say fuck it all and buy it.

See that mixed drink over there next to my computer. That glass is your friend, Bob.

Fuck the world anyway. It’s been my motto my whole adulthood anyway, happy and sad, sunny or the darkest night. Fuck the world. Take that attitude, put it in your head and walk around with it for a day.

Don’t let it get you down. If you think about the implications of it, just laugh. Laugh every time something shitty happens to you. Laugh even harder when something good happens to you. But quit caring. That’s the secret, right there, at your damned fingerprints. All you have to do is take that idea and put it right snug in your head. Don’t worry, it’s a nice fit.

Anyway if you want to try this mind-wear on for a day or so, let me know how it goes. If you’ve already been wearing this mind garment for a long time, congratulations.

Try to have some fun. Do fun things. Do fun things that you like. Don’t do, as in procrastinate, shitty things that are no fun. You do fun things all day and the rest of your life doesn’t mean shit.

Party amidst the ruins.

The Titanic is going down real slow, and you’re on board with everyone else. You have a drink in one hand and a joint in the other. There’s a gorgeous woman on top of your hard cock, bouncing up and down and moaning. You’ll be dead in five minutes, but it doesn’t matter because you’ll die happy.

Which, in case you wish to know, is another prime goal in life. You can’t usually die an interesting death. That’s the ulitmate goal, the home run. But if you can’t, at least die with a smile. That’s right. One of the goals in life is to die with a smile. And your middle finger in the air, flipping off God for this last indignity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most Identity Groups Don’t Like the “Other” Criticizing Them

They can take it from their own kind (maybe), but they can’t take it from outsiders. This is actually fairly normal behavior, and I’ve even been subject to it myself. It’s probably related to tribalism like so many things we humans do.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs? Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews? Sometimes the villain is stronger. These influential negative outliers are shit for everyone. As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks. Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nice.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs?

No, the good Blacks will not control the bad Blacks. And I wonder if they should. If a non-White told me, “Why don’t you police all those White thug criminals in your community?” I might tell them to fuck off.

It’s not the responsibility of well-behaved Blacks to police the others. They might want to do that but they have no obligation. The Blacks that are well-behaved have their own lives to think about. They need to think about themselves. They’re not the problem. They need to get that through their heads. If they wish to be racial ambassadors, that’s their choice, but their first responsibility first and foremost is to themselves, not to their damned “community.”

Nevertheless, I agree that we Whites police our communities to an extreme degree. I don’t think Blacks police their own  kind very much. They just seem to let them get away with murder and don’t hold them to any standard.

Polar Bear: Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews?

Orthodox Jews are often scammers or white collar crooks of some sort or another, but when they do that, they often explicitly state that they were only trying to rip off the Gentiles and not trying to rip off their own people. Honestly, they actually say that. I have heard Hasidics in upstate New York say those very same words.

Polar Bear: Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nevertheless a lot of Jewish white collar crooks are just thieves, scammers, and con artists. It’s hard to imagine how you can be a white collar criminal and steal millions of dollars while not stealing  from your own kind.

I’m sure a lot of Jews get taken by these guys too. These crooks do not have the ability to look at every mark and figure out if they are Jewish or not and refuse to fleece the Jews. So Jews do probably get screwed over heavily by Jewish white collar crooks, but no Jew will ever condemn those people.

You can’t. Jews don’t condemn their own kind. That’s treason and siding with the enemy. There’s this paranoid attitude of “we all hang together or we will all hang alone.”

Also there is a tendency to hush up the crimes of Jews to avoid antisemitism. In the early part of the century, the Jewish slums in New York often hid Jewish criminals on the run not because they thought what they did was ok but to avoid setting off a pogrom. To this day, Jewish crooks can usually run to Israel, and that state will protect them against  extradition to the “Gentile enemy.” Even child killers have done this.

I was on newsgroups full of Jews at one time, and when a Jew would start attacking a bad Jew or pointing out a bad thing that Jews did, the others would rush in to shut him up:

What are you trying to do? Start a pogrom?

Those were the exact words.

My mother went to a very heavily Jewish high school. She said whenever the papers talked about the arrest of some Jewish criminal, the Jewish students would all say:

Oh! This is a bad day for the Jews!

Like this crook getting arrested was going to bring it down on the rest of them.

So a lot of this is just self-preservation. A lot of what looks like wicked, sleazy, behavior on the part of the Jews can often be explained away as efforts at self-preservation and attempts to insulate and defend themselves against their enemies. That’s paranoid, but it’s also smart.

Polar Bear: As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks.

Black criminals absolutely nuke their own people. Their own kind get the vast majority of the onslaught from the Black crime epidemic.

Honestly, it really doesn’t effect the rest of us much, at least at the rate that we associate with Blacks (considering there is probably a lot of avoidance). As I pointed out, Blacks are 13% of population and 16% of the murderers of Whites. Black violent criminals effect Whites at close to their rate in the population which would be expected if they were any average human being. So Black violent crime does almost nothing to White people.

On the contrary, Black people get absolutely Hiroshima’d by Black violent criminals. 89% of the victims of Black murderers are other Blacks. Black women are 25X more likely to be raped by a Black man than a White woman. If Blacks single out anyone, it’s their own.

Yet when we bring up Black crime (which overwhelmingly effects Blacks and doesn’t effect non-Blacks very much), we get shouted down as racists or we are met with hostile silence.

Now, I understand that people don’t like others criticizing them. When we Whites criticize Blacks saying, “You all are getting genocided by your own violent criminals,” the average Black will respond by saying, “Fuck you.” People can take criticism from their own kind but they can’t take it from others.

I am the same way. Some Chinese started attacking Americans and I actually got my back up. And I’m the biggest America-hater out there. It’s just that it was insulting to be attacked by an outsider. Considering how little Black violent crime effects Whites, when we Whites bring it up, frankly, what we are (potentially) doing is showing massive empathy for the Black victims of these criminals because they pretty much only attack their own kind.

Now a lot of Whites just bring this up as a club to beat Blacks over the head with. But not all of us. We aren’t really dissing Blacks at all. Nevertheless, most Blacks will still say, “Fuck off,” because it’s insulting to be pitied by Whites. Also they will take the attacks on Black criminals as an insult to themselves and their people. They will ignore our sympathy towards the victims as insincere.

Nevertheless, you would think Blacks would talk about it among themselves. Do they not want to admit that anything is wrong? I agree it’s difficult to say, “Boy are we fucked up. We need to do something about this.” But sometimes you have to.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Do Blacks Single Out Whites for Ill Treatment?

Kit: The author of the OP says he meets more Black people who mistreat him or whatever, than Whites – that’s because he is White. Those very same kind, wonderful White people would treat him very differently if he were Black. As a White person I have experienced this and witnessed it.

First of all, I would like to welcome our new commenter to the site.

I’m not sure what the argument is here. If the commenter is arguing that White people have been nice to me because I’m White, and they might have treated me a lot differently if I had been Black, I don’t have any answer to that question, but I’ll grant that there might be something to it. I can’t change from White to Black, so it’s hard to test the theory.

On the other hand, if the commenter is saying that Blacks treated me poorly because I’m White and they would have treated me a lot better had I been Black, I’m not so sure that that is true?

With all due respect, I don’t believe this. My brother says this too. He says they treat you badly because you’re White. They’re all out to get back at Whitey, and they screw us over any chance they get. I don’t believe this but there’s no good way to prove it one way or the other.

If this were true, they’d be very nice to their own kind, and that’s not so. The overwhelming majority of Black crime and no doubt shitty Black behavior in general is directed at their own kind. Blacks are 13% of the population but 89% of the victims of Black homicides. Blacks are going way out of their way to select their own kind for victimization.

As far as White people being nice to me because I’m White, well, maybe so. But a lot of those same people seem to be pretty nice to Black people too, though I don’t usually get the opportunity to test that out. I’m not Black and there are not many Blacks around, so I don’t see how they get treated.s

There are other things. I lived in White towns. I lived next door to some of the worst people in town. But their bad behavior only hit a certain level. It was mostly self-destruction and being total slobs. And these were poor Whites or White trash as people like to call them. The lowest Whites of them all. And even they did not act all that bad.

Then I moved to an Hispanic community and their bad people were much more frequent in number, maybe three times more, and they acted far worse than the White bad people did, maybe three times worse . It’s like they were setting the bar lower for bad behavior. But keep in mind that these were barrio Hispanics, and a lot of Hispanics don’t act like that.

Then I noticed the Blacks around here. Well there probably eight times more of them per capita than Whites! And their behavior is much worse than Whites, maybe eight times worse. It was also a lot worse than Hispanic bad behavior, maybe three times as bad. Now granted these are ghetto Blacks, ok? A lot of Black people (maybe half?) don’t really act like that in a major way.

And although not for the first time in my life, after having seen the different races in their native habitat like that and particularly living in a White town and then living in an Hispanic town and noticing the dramatic difference, I started really thinking about race and behavior in a huge way. It was like a door slammed right in my face. And this was when I was in my 50’s, mind you.

I also taught school. I taught in White schools, Hispanic schools and Black schools. Same thing. The Whites act best, the Hispanics are somewhat behind (though Hispanics act pretty good in school for some reason, maybe because they are taught to respect authority), and the Blacks were way worse. Like way, way, way, way worse.

Keep in mind that the Hispanics were barrio Hispanics. I also taught middle class Hispanics, and they absolutely acted way better. High school is probably about the same. They might even act better than Whites because of the respect for elders I discussed earlier. Junior high is pretty nuts, probably a lot worse than a White junior high. But junior high kids of any race don’t act real great.

Keep in mind that these were ghetto Blacks. I also taught middle class Blacks at a junior high. They drove me crazy and didn’t act good at all, but they weren’t really aggressive, hostile, and evil. Mostly they just would not sit down. Especially the girls. I used to think that there was a buzzer on their chairs, and after they would sit down for 30 seconds, the buzzer would buzz their butts and make them jump out of out of their chairs and start walking around and chatting.

And there again I saw all three races isolated, each in a majority group environment, and I saw this over and over for a number of years. After a while, you really wake up and start smelling the coffee.

However, I would say to be fair that there is a huge behavioral difference between middle class Black schools and ghetto Black schools.

There is a similar but not nearly as large difference between middle class Hispanic schools and barrio Hispanic schools.

With Whites, interestingly enough, there does not seem to be much difference between poor or working class White schools and middle class White schools.

All three of the cases for the three different races are quite different, and I am not sure why that is.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Revolution (and Peasant Rebellion) Is Not a Picnic

Peasant rebellions have been going on forever and took place even during the Inca Empire! They probably took place before then but we don’t have good records.

The self-soothing notion of reactionaries that now that history is over (Yeah right.), peasant rebellions have ended for all of time because Communism is supposedly on the ash heap of history is ridiculous. These are like guys who are smugly smiling before a smiling squad thinking all the guns have blanks. I don’t think so!

Newsflash to reactionaries: Peasant rebellions took place long before Karl Marx even existed. Peasant rebellions are a natural feature of civilized man. You simply can’t get away with treating other humans like shit.

Reactionaries like to laugh and say now we can get away with treating the hoi-polloi as horribly as we wish, I suppose even denying us even food to eat, and we peons can’t do a thing about it because Karl Marx is buried for all of time. These arrogant pricks don’t get it.

#1 rule of human civilization: You really can’t get away with treating other humans like shit. A few rich people can’t get away with lording it over everyone else, stealing every nickel, and leaving the vast majority without a pot to piss in while the rich laugh all the way to the bank. Sorry. Homey don’t play that.

Corollary to the #1 rule: You hit a man enough times, and he might just start hitting back. I mean, most 5th graders can figure that out, but reactionaries think rules like that are like 2 = 2 = 5. They laugh at them.

Bad idea.

Here’s what happens in a typical peasant rebellion: The poor, oppressed, enslaved, helots, serfs, or whoever finally have enough of their oppression at the hands of elites, slaveowners, royals, lords, priests, citizens or whoever is fucking them over and they rise up against their brutal oppressors.

The problem is that peasants are usually so pissed off in these rebellions are none too smart, quite ill-educated, and they don’t bother with niceties.

The end result of a peasant rebellion is that the peasants try to kill every single one of their oppressors. In the Desallines Rebellion in Haiti, the Blacks rose up and killed every single White person in Haiti. All 25,000 of them. They didn’t spare a soul. This is a typical peasant revolt.

In the 20th Century, most peasant revolts were called “Communist revolutions.” Everyone acted like it was some new thing or some bizarre form of evil, but it was just the same old peasant rebellions, now with a newfangled theory behind them.

And logically, the Communist revolutions of the 20th Century tended to be quite bloody. The first thing they did was a land reform, and ion a number of cases, the landlords were simply killed. That’s how it went down in North Vietnam and China anyway. 10,000 were killed in North Vietnam.  They may have killed 3 million in China. Probably every single one of the Chinese ones was a horrible criminal, so they all deserved it, but still.

It was actually the local peasants who put these landlords on trial. The Communists simply captured the landlords and gave them to the peasants and said, “Here, you guys try ’em and convict them of whatever punishment you deem fit.”

Well, in most cases, the peasants voted to execute these bastards. The local Communist Party cadres were alarmed at the brutality of the peasants, and they reported this to their supervisors. So many landlords were getting killed that word came back around to Mao, (a diabolical, mass murdering monster, remember) who actually freaked out and thought things were getting out of hand. He put a stop to these killings. 300,000-3 million landlords were killed.

But remember what Chairman Mao said?

Revolution is not a picnic.

– Chairman Mao.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Nope, Sexual Harassment Was Not a Big Deal from 1975-2005, Sorry

In Jason’s recent article, he says that gawking and crudeness (sexual come-ons) have never been acceptable at school or at work at any time going all the way back to the 1950’s. Well, I was around in the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s. I do not remember even one case of a woman complaining of sexual harassment back then.

I do not remember one case of a woman complaining that a man was staring at her. I do not remember one case of a woman complaining that a man made a crude remark to her. Certainly I cannot remember one case when I was ever seriously accused of any of these things.

I didn’t start hearing about it until 2005, when I was 48 years old. I was told that I was staring at the baristas and making them uncomfortable. But I was doing the same thing I’ve done my whole life, not even 1% different.

It’s just that I had gotten older, and as you get older, suddenly the behavior that they tolerate without batting an eye when a young man does it is somehow illegal when an older man does it. It took me a while to figure out the new rules of middle aged man and young women, which is something I am still figuring out by the way.

Wasn’t SJWism getting going pretty good around 2005? Anyway, it is only in the past 14 years from 2005-2019 that I have heard one thing about staring, sexual harassment, harassment period, illegal talking to other humans, or any of this insane bullshit.

My conclusion is that this is a modern phenomenon of the Current Year being brought on by Peak Modern Feminism, which gets nuttier and nuttier every year like all forms of Identity Politics. So in any given Current Year, modern feminism will be a bit more insane, weird, and demanding in the previous year.

It seems like I have been looking at women my whole life. I never gave any thought to whether I was staring or not, so I have no idea if I was doing it! But women and girls have been staring at me most of my life since age 17 or so. Often I stared at them and they stared back at me. Or they stared at me and I didn’t stare back. Or I stared at them and they didn’t stare back at me. It wall no matter because no one cared.

I remember in college, one friend of mine said, “I know you like to rape women with your eyes, Bob.” He said it as a joke. This was before feminists made it illegal for most men to look at women at all, much less stare at them.

So all through my whole life, I looked at women with absolutely zero problems. And they stared at me a lot, I mean a lot.

Once I was in a library at Santa Ana College in 1985 (age 27), and I looked up and every single woman in the whole damned library in front of me was looking right at me with those weird blank zombie robot stares.

Once I walked into the Roxy nightclub in 1982 (age 24). As soon as I stepped in the door, I swear to God, every single woman in that club stared at me. It actually frightened me a bit, and I sort of shuddered. I don’t know why I found it frightening, but it is a bit unnerving. Try it sometime. Walk into a nightclub and if every woman in the club looks right at you, see how it makes you feel. You might find it if not unnerving, at least somewhat frightening.

I worked at all sorts of jobs all over the place, and I never heard one complaint of me staring at women or being creepy or any of that crap. I was at college and university for many years, including advanced degree study, from 1975-1984, then 1991-1994. That’s 12 years post-secondary education. No one complained one time that I stared at women or acted creepy around women. Not even one time, ever.

When a woman stares at you, generally speaking, it means she likes you. If a woman doesn’t like you, she simply ignores you. Women who hate you usually do not stare at you.

Now and again a woman who hates you may stare at you. In that case, the stare would look hostile or like “What the Hell is the matter with you anyway?” This doesn’t happen very often.

Generally speaking, the blank dead robot stare means she likes you, like really likes you, like wants to do something sexual or romantic with you. A woman in love with you often stares at you for long periods of time with an utterly blank look on her face. Often a little Mona Lisa mystery smile, almost on the edge of bare laughter, appears.

I remember having staring contests with girlfriends.

We would be in the front room of a house she was house-sitting at. For 15 minutes we just sat there and stared at each other with funny little smiles on our faces. Neither or us said one damned word and the room was quiet as a mouse.

It was actually a nice experience, rather pure in the way that religious novitiates try for silence, work, and prayer. Life bared down to meagerest sensory output. Silent and looking. Praying and meditating into each other’s eyes. And not one word. Pure as a monastery.

So staring is quite helpful for men. It tells us when a woman is interested in us. I hate to think that women would stop staring at us because then it would be hard to tell if they liked us or not.

Gay men are extremely creepy and they stare at each other in very creepy ways constantly. And they stare at straight men they like in that same creepy, unnerving way. They also harass each other constantly with rude, crude, sexual remarks and often a lot of out and out grabbing of other men’s bodies in various ways.

In other words, gay men treat other men exactly the way straight men treat women, except 5-10X worse. This gives the lie to the insane feminist idea that sexual harassment is based on sexism, misogyny, aggression, hostility and even violence against women. Yes, these lunatics actually say that sexual harassment (guys trying to get laid or get a date) is a form of violence against women. It’s as bad as hitting her over the head.

Obviously then gay men’s sexual harassment of other gay men is based on hatred of men (misandry), hostility, aggression, and even violence against other gay men. Gay men harass each other because they hate other gay men, or they hate men, or something, or this or that, or whatnot, or whatever. Does that even make any sense at all? Of course not. Yet this is the only logical conclusion we can draw from feminism’s lunatic definition of sexual harassment.

Obviously all of this is complete nonsense. Men sexually harass women for the same reason that men consensually flirt with women and for the same reason that gay men sexually harass each other in epidemic fashion. Men do these things because they’re horny. They do them because they’re horny and they’re trying to get laid. They’re trying to attract a woman for dating, sexual activities, or romance.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Why Identity Politics Gets Crazier Every Year, and Why It Has To

Every year things get a little bit better for all of these groups, so they are less oppressed. Instead of throwing a party like they should, they jump up and down even harder and yell that they are oppressed more than ever.

And all the while the move the Oppression Goalposts a bit further away and declare a number of behaviors and  speech forms which were previously harmless now forms of hate and hate speech. The need to continually be oppressed even while their lives get better and better is the reason that IP gets a little bit more insane every year.

Do you follow?

Obviously feminism in the Current Year is more insane than it’s ever been. Black IP is nuttier and more extremist than it’s ever been. Gay IP has never been crazier. Pretty soon we will be homophobes if we refuse to put a cock in our mouths.

I’m already seeing a few signs of this mindset here and there with Gay IP people saying that being a heterosexual man is inherently homophobic in and of itself. The only way to stop being a mean homophobe gay hating Nazi and be nice to teh geyz is to go find yourself a nearby penis and put it between your lips, I guess. That way you’re bisexual which is now the only way not to be a homophobic bigot, I suppose.

Of course the trannies are more nuts than ever. Their particular form of IP is new, so the goalposts are flying away faster than you can run. This is typical of any newly created IP which needs to go into overproduction mode to catch up to all of the more advanced forms of oppression who have gathering grudges and insults for decades.

It’s true that the older fave oppressions don’t grow nearly as quickly because they’ve already concluded that half of daily life by the oppressive Other somehow oppresses them in some way or other. In other words, they’re running out of things to complain about. The only solution is to start complaining about nuttier and nuttier things, to get even more sensitive, and to increase the crazy demands on the evil oppressor Other a bit more.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20