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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closets Are for Clothes

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

Taboo Subjects are Crap, Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know that’s got to be worth something.

Outside of the homeland, there is nothing.

– A famous Baath Party intellectual from Iraq

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

SISP Conference 2021, Online, 9-11 September 2021

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

Grigoris Markou

Postdoctoral researcher, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Psychopathy and the Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Race Realist View of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter from India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Porn: What’s Legal? What Illegal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RL: What was on the video?

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

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

Nudity Is Not Necessarily Child Porn

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

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

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

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

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

“Lascivious Display of the Genitalia”

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

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

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

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

Erotic Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sad Saga of the Black Cat Scans

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

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

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

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

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

Art Photography

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

Nudist Photos

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

Nude Beaches

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

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

Medical Text Photos

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

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

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

I’d like to keep it like this.

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

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

Sexting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see what they are doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anti-CP Argument Mutates Again

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

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

And the Argument Mutates Again!

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

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

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

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

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

Teenage Girl Sex Panic: I Was Banned from Reddit

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

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

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

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

And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not. Those conditions are not really willed actions as in I can decide to go to the store right now.

Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions. I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.

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

Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 16% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 16% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.

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

So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree.

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

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

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

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

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

But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is interesting in a philosophical sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s Talk Social Skills: Conversations with Strangers

“Social Skills” Is a Sick Joke

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

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

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

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

Punish Bad Service

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

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

You have to discipline people sometimes.

Staring

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

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

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

Until I started getting older.

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

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

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

I also learned a few other things.

You Can’t Look at Kids Anymore. At All

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

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

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

How to Talk to Kids Or Adults with Kids

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

This is to show you how to do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Ask How Old a Kid Is

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

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

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

Talking to Female Minors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Can’t Just Go Up and Talk to Anybody

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Subconscious Cope”

I call it “the subconscious cope.”

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

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

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

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

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

I started noticing some other things too.

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the people who killed Kennedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.