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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the people who killed Kennedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

The Mexi-Mart and the White-Mart

There are two supermarkets in town.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, like that.

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

My Mom thinks it’s funny though.

“Where’d you go shopping?”

“Oh, you know, the White-Mart.”

“Hahahaha!”

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

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

Alt Left: Rural Land Reforms: An Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A land reform was definitely done in Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The land reform was incomplete in Venezuela.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUA/Game: The Underage Girl Sex Scam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Yes, Islamic countries are just not like that.

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

No North African country is like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Alt Left: Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

James Schipper: Still, theologically, Christianity is not a capitalism-friendly religion. There is nothing in the NT which encourages wealth accumulation or expresses admiration for the rich. In earlier times, there were very rich monasteries but also monastic orders which are committed to poverty, such as the Franciscans. These monasteries were rich for the same reason that Harvard and Yale are very rich. They became rich through donations and bequests.

Sure, theologically it may be so, but in practice, capitalism, extreme inequality, and class hatred have been accommodated in Christian countries quite easily.

You can say that Christianity is against capitalism all you want, but it hasn’t worked out that way in the West.

Social democracy was an easy sell in Europe, but the US is worse classwise than any European country. In the US we almost have a celebration of inequality and that’s somehow been accommodated with the Christianity, which seems weird. The Gospel of Wealth the Evangelicals practice here strikes me as downright heretical though. If Jesus was around, he’d reject it.

Feudalism lasted a long time in Europe, and early capitalism in England was horrible from the 1300’s-1800’s. England is terribly classist even today, but there’s a huge backlash. Thatcher was burned in effigy all over the UK when she died. Can you imagine that happening with Reagan in the US? The class hatred in the UK is pretty raw.

Classism in France was awful, but they killed their rich, and now it’s socialist.

Germany never had a vicious capitalist class. The Kaiser put in the first social democracy in the late 1800’s. It went over easily.

Italy’s never been all that classist, nor has Greece. After World War 2 in Italy, Communists were set to win local elections all over Italy but the US CIA got involved and there was massive election fraud that cheated them out of a victory. But Eurocommunists have been running states in Italy for decades, especially in the North. They’ve had a heavy emphasis on small business at the expense of big business and it’s worked great. I had a commenter on here who owned a small factory in a northern state and he loved the local Communist government. And he was a capitalist! In Greece, the Communists almost won a revolution.

I don’t think Eastern Europe has been classist. Communism went over easily there.

Communism went over easily in Yugoslavia too, though it was a modified form. It was also very popular. I know people who lived there, and they loved it. They almost won in Turkey too.

The Baltics are not classist and neither is Scandinavia. That area is all based on egalitarianism.

Spain and Portugal were classist, but there was a civil war in Spain, and it’s a pretty socialist country right now.

There was a Leftist Carnation Revolution in 1974 that overthrew Salazar’s fascism and a Leftist regime was nearly installed. It was very popular.

Alt Left: Right and Left in Islamic and Catholic Societies

If you’re not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and cheering the people doing the oppressing.

Malcolm X

This is precisely the function of the media in a capitalist society. The Chinese media is not like this because, duh, China is not a capitalist country! Nor is the Iranian media because Iran is not a capitalist country. In fact, Iran is almost something like “Islamic Communism.” I’m not wild about Ayatollah Khomeini, but he did have a strong social justice streak.

The Revolution was populist, pro-independence, and anti-imperialist. Iran is almost based on a Muslim version of Liberation Theology or “the preferential option of the poor.” The social safety net is huge in Iran. Also, much of the economy is run by the state. It’s actually run by religious charities, often with ties to the military and the IRGC. I believe these religious charities do not operate at a profit. Small businesses are not bothered at all, as in all Muslim countries. I was reading Ayatollah Khameini’s tweets for a while on Twitter, and I could have been reading Che Guevara. Basically the same message.

Islam is just not friendly to neoliberal economics or radical individualism. It is a very collectivist religion in a very collectivist society.

Neoliberalism hasn’t caught on much of anywhere in the Muslim world other than Indonesia and the Southern Philippines, and they had to murder 1 million Communists in cold blood to get there in Indonesia and the Moros have always rejected Catholic rule in both a political and economic sense. it is notable that the Maoist NPA are also huge in Mindanao, home of the Moros.

Pakistan, too, has inherited the selfish economics and even feudalism in land tenure straight from Indian Hinduism. They even have caste, which would be considered an aberration in any decent Muslim society.

All of the Arab countries are basically socialist at least in name, and that was never a hard sell there. It’s true that 100 years ago, the Arab lands were mostly feudal in nature, with big landowners and peasants in debt bondage. They rich had co-opted the religious authorities like they always do, and the mullahs preached that Islamic feudalism was right and proper because the Prophet had said, “It is normal that some are rich and some are poor.” But it was always a hard sell, and it had a very weak foundation.

After independence, socialism was instituted in most if not all Arab countries at least in name. In particular, huge land reforms were done in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Palestine. I assume something like that was done in Algeria too. It was a very easy sell, and everyone went along with it without a hitch. The mullahs quickly changed from support for feudalism to support for socialism.

Hamas rules Gaza and I was shocked at how huge the social safety net is. The many religious charities run the safety net, which is distributed under the rubric of Islam. This is done instead of the state doling it out.

Mohammad himself didn’t have much to say about economics, but he wasn’t a neoliberal capitalist or a feudalist.

In Christian societies, the rich have utter contempt and hatred for the poor, who they regard as little more than human garbage. If you want to see this philosophy in action, look at the classism in Latin America. As all Muslims are part of the umma, and hence, as all are brothers and sisters, it is simply unconscionable that wealthy Muslims would be able to openly hate poor Muslims. You simply cannot treat your fellow Muslims like that. It’s not officially haram but it might as well be.

European Style Fascism in the Middle East

It is instructive that the only place in the Arab world where neoliberal economics and in particular Libertarianism took hold was in Lebanon, and even there, it was only among Catholic Maronites. Most Arab Christians look east to Antioch (and before that, Constantinople) to the Eastern Orthodox church, which is really just the eastern wing of Catholicism.

The Maronites, though, deride Antioch and instead look to Rome. They see themselves as European people instead of Arabs. Many deny that they are Arabs and instead refer to themselves as “Phoenicians.” It is interesting that the only real classical fascism in the Arab World  took hold in the Lebanese Maronites, where the Gameyels imported it from Europe in the 1930’s.

The Jews of Israel also developed a very European form of fascism starting with Jabotinsky and his book The Iron Wall in 1921. This man was an open fascist. He is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party. During the 1940’s, the armed Jewish rebels split into leftwingers who were almost Communists and rightwingers who were more or less fascists.

The Kahanists today look a lot like a European fascist party. And in fact, the entire Israeli rightwing around Likud, etc. looks pretty fascist in a European sense. So Israeli Jews are really Jewish fascists or fascist Jews. It has never been an easy ride for liberal and secular US Jews to support the Orthodox religious fanatics and rightwingers if not out and out fascists in the Likud, etc. in Israel. This was always completely unstable, and after that latest war, it’s finally starting to fall apart. But the seeds of destruction were already there.

But note that the Jews of Israel very much look to the West and see themselves as Europeans (which many are for all intents and purposes). They align themselves with the Judeo-Christian European society that many of them came from.

Half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi Jews from the Arab World, and they have always had a Judeo-Islamic culture. However, when they moved to Israel, this was dismantled by perhaps not entirely. They rejected it due to the association of Arabs and Islam with the enemy, which is correct.

Economics and Catholicism

This radical classism and near-feudalism in Latin America was supported by the Catholic Church, which was always a very rightwing institution because they were always in bed with the rich. There were always Left splits in Catholicism like Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker. The Catholic clergy in the US has tended to be quite leftwing.

There is a long history of “Catholic Communism” in the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the Basque Country, France, Italy, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay. The IRA was a leftwing Catholic armed group. A lot of priests were caught hiding IRA cadre. So was the ETA in the Basque Country of Spain.

Catholic Leftism never caught on in Poland and Lithuania due to hatred of Russia and the USSR. Nevertheless, both are more or less socialist countries.

Even today there is an active “Catholic Communist” movement in Cuba that is very lively. In Honduras and Colombia, Catholic priests actually led guerrilla bands. Liberation Theoloy is something like “Jesus Christ with an AK-47.” The Leftist who recently took power in Paraguay was a former Catholic priest.

The ELN was founded by a priest, Camilo Torres, and many Catholic clergy even supported the Shining Path! Edith Lagos, a 20 year old woman, was the leader of a very early Shining Path column in Peru. She was killed in 1980 and the entire town of Ayacucho, 30,0000 people, came out for her funeral which was held at midnight. The lines of mourners stretched through the whole city. All of the priests in town blessed her body, and she was given a proper Catholic funeral.

I believe that the PT or Workers Party of Brazil has a large Liberation Theology component. The Catholic clergy had an excellent relationship with the FARC in Colombia. Of course, the Catholic clergy played a big role in Venezeula, and Hugo Chavez himself was a practicing Catholic. The FMLN Salvadoran rebels were explicitly Catholic, as were the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One of the Sandinists’ top leaders, Tomas Borge, was a Catholic priest. Jean-Paul Aristide in Haiti was a Catholic priest. Catholic believers are now allowed to join the Communist Party in Cuba, and near the end of his life, Fidel Castro said he was a “cultural Catholic.”

After Vatican 2 and Liberation Theology began to spread out via the seminal documents written by Gustavo Gutierrez in Brazil, “A Theology of Liberation,” otherwise known as “exercising the preferential option for the poor,” it began to spread in Latin America. It started with local priests and especially Catholic lay workers in impoverished areas and then slowly spread. Even today, Catholic layworkers and especially seminaries are very leftwing, while the Vatican itself is not. A lot of seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality, and the gay priests and lay workers are quite open about it. It is estimated that 15% of Catholic priests are gay.

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Alt Left: Liberal in the Diaspora, Fascist at Home

RL: It’s always been odd that Jews are the most liberal group in the US, yet they’ve been supporting what is obvious Jewish ethnic nationalist fascism all this time. Israel has been a far rightwing country for a long time now. The disconnect is jarring and it was probably always unsustainable.”

Rishi: You can say this for pretty much most ethnic groups. Indians are notoriously liberal in the West and far more conservative than any group when it comes to India and the BJP. They’re ethnic nationalists who are hardwired worse than the Nazis (and that’s saying something).

This is excellent. Thank you to Rishi! He just pointed out that Jews are not unusual in this regard and that this tendency is somewhat true of ethnic groups in general. I had thought of this before but never quite so explicitly. You learn something new every day! One thing he did not mention is for these same groups to be liberal when in the minority and conservative to fascist when in the majority. That’s not just true for these particular groups but it is true in general. Minorities tend to be liberal as they tend to be at least somewhat oppressed or at least feel different and a bit unwelcome or not truly a part of things.

Majorities tend to be more conservative as power creates bullies and a particularly arrogant type of bullying and domineering chauvinism.

They also tend to have privileges which they do not wish to give up. When you have nice things there is legitimate fear of having them taken away from you. When you have nothing, you have no such fear. Instead, you envy and hate everyone who has more than you to the point where you want to steal their stuff either covertly at night or openly with weapons. This the basic revolutionary spirit wired into all of humanity and ruling classes and groups are correct to fear it and worry about villagers with torches and their heads being put on pikes. Marx was absolutely correct when he pointed this out and it has always been true and always will be true. A peasant rebellion is a brutal thing.

A revolution…is not a picnic!

– Mao Zedong

It also causes them to fear weaker majorities taking power over them in their own homeland, which is particularly disturbing. Like if you live in a huge apartment complex with 100 people like you and 10 people from a different ethnic group move in and start lording it over the majority. This is what the Arabs go through in the West Bank. This is what Kurds go through in Turkey and Iran. Any time that happens, it’s pretty much just colonialism.

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

Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.

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

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

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

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

So, as request:

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

Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.

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

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

Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.

So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong and are at least capable of fixing their fuckups.

It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.

Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.

So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought  this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!

Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.

Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.

Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.

We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.

The difference is in what you do afterwards.

We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.

So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.

Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.

You have a choice:

Injustice and function.

Justice and chaos.

Pick one.

The Teenage Girl Sex Panic and the Law Bullshit

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

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

Buying a Whore Means You are a “Sex Trafficker”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Lousy People Make Lousy Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colombia sucks because it’s full of Colombians.

Guatemala sucks because it’s full of Guatemalans.

El Salvador blows because it’s full of Salvadorans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game/PUA: About That “Consent” Issue Again

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

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

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

I never really ask permission to do anything with women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If she likes it, cool.

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

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

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

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

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

I basically hate cops.

Except I hate ghetto Blacks way worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s about who you hate less!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re not talking about you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There Is No Society

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

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

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

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

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

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

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

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Gangster

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

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

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

Jewish Hypocrisy on Race Is Astounding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we’re all Nazis so we deserve it.

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

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

Alt Left: TThe SJW Left Is the Fake Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a comment from our illustrious co-blogger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screw that noise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.