Mexicans Are Mostly Indian

A graph showing Mexican genes. As you can see, Mexicans are predominantly Amerindian.
This photo is being linked to on the web with the argument that most Mexicans don’t look like Italians or Spaniards. Instead, they look like Indians. They say this because the photo shows that Mexicans are majority-Indian on genes. The problem is that that photo only applies to Mexicans in Mexico. Mexicans in Mexico itself have long been more Indian than Mexicans in the US, who have long been more White. This is changing lately as more Mexicans pour in here from deep inside Mexico, particularly Jalisco, Michoacan, Guerrero and Oaxaca. Mexicans in the US have traditionally come from the north of Mexico – Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas. These areas are the Whitest parts of Mexico. Monterrey is the Whitest city in Mexico. So, sure, most Mexicans don’t look like Italians or Spaniards. But a Hell of a lot of them do. Anyone who says that hasn’t been around many Mexicans. Local Mexicans (the Whiter-looking ones) are constantly telling me how people always think they are White. Many Mexicans have fairly dark skins, but if you look closely at their faces, their features could only be said to be Caucasian. That is, Amerindian features are scant to nonexistent. Many others are predominantly Caucasian, yet they do have a bit of Amerindian features, often in the eyes. If you look White, you’re White. If you look Caucasian and have no obvious features of any other race, you’re Caucasian. I imagine some of these folks must have some Amerindian in them, but for some reason, it’s not showing through. Among the lower, predominantly Spanish speaking classes here in the US, a good 80-9 Gene charts only tell you so much. A photo of a forest is a nice thing to look at, but it doesn’t tell you everything about every tree in the forest. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

The Dilemma of This Website

You see, due to the race stuff, my site attracts mostly rightwingers or mushy Centrists who vote Republican half the time. They then are repelled by my liberalism, especially on economics. This is a Left site, a socialist site, but my readers are a bunch of rightwingers and spineless Centrists! And I hate my rightwing readers (well not all of them), look for excuses to ban them and then end up banning them, which pisses people off. I really want Leftwingers to read the site and fill the comments section, but most Lefties despise my site due to the race and gender stuff. I’m a sexist and a racist! This really sucks. The real problem here is that the Left and liberals are out of their fucking minds on race and gender. Another problem is that as soon as Whites start getting racist or even race realist or racially aware, they automatically start moving to the Right and voting Republican. Like clockwork. Same with males disgusted by insane feminism. They automatically move to the Right and start voting Republican. Just like that. US politics is pretty retarded. FrankBD has been touching on this subject lately in the comments. I agree with everything he is saying.

The Problems of Media Ownership Under Capitalism

Savvas Tzionis is an excellent new progressive commenter from Australia. He comments on how US style Republican Party conservatism is attempting to colonize a progressive country, Australia:

You may be interested to know that the Chief Editor of The Australian newspaper (or as we on the left call it ”The American”) is a virulent Right Winger whose mother is from one of the Baltic states.  The Australian (owned by Murdoch) likes to think of itself as the most high-brow newspaper in Australia. But since 2001, and especially since the election of the ALP (nominally left wing) in 2007, it has lurched to the right (so much for left wing bias in the media). Also in the past, it never bothered with Latin America, but now with Leftist’s taking over this region, it has decided to print articles from a right wing Latin POV. Shameless.

Yes, this is important news. The rightwingers are making a play to take over Australian media and thereby use the rightwing media to brainwash Australians into making it the new USA, or Colombia or Latvia, or whatever. This is how capitalism works. That’s why it’s important to make the media democratic under capitalism. Under capitalism, the top There is almost no way to keep the Far Right ultrazillionaires from taking over say 9 It’s also important to note that the Baltic bastards (some of the most reactionary people on Earth at the moment) are leading the charge to replicate the cancer of US conservatism across the globe. The only real rightwing governments in Europe, the Baltics implemented radical neoclassical economics and were rewarded with horrible economic depressions that have ruined their countries and caused 2 I talked to a woman from Estonia recently. She said that she and her family where without any money and without any food. She has two small kids. I asked her if there weren’t any social problems to help with such matters and she started laughing. Since when do we hear of such things in Europe? This is the US model that the Baltics are trying to implement. I suppose mass homelessness is also on the agenda. The Baltics is a sorry case. They were not treated well by the USSR and did not have a good experience under Communism. They overreacted and become fanatical anti-Communists and as a result, radical rightwingers, since all hardline anti-Communists become rightwingers. Now they are paying for that delusion dearly. Tough shit. Chew on it hard and good. Let me know how it tastes.

Limited Government Now!

The Republican plan is to cut taxes that are used to fund education. Here’s a sample of some patriotic Americans who are determined to take their country back from the socialist Kenyan Muslim, and their views on the socialist education system*: Very Unskilled Laborer Bill Grunting of Sticky Fence, Oklahoma: “Learnin’ din’t help me none. ‘Sides, Papa says school is the devil!” Former President George W. Bush: “I’m a idiot, and I was the president.” Pastor Phil Felch of @# *Note: All people interviewed below were White. What other race could possibly be this retarded?

Obama Signals Move Towards Dipshittery

Idiot. A majority of Americans oppose efforts to let the rich keep their tax cuts. And in terms of deficits and the economy, it’s simply insane. It’s a political loser. I don’t know how the majority of Moronican assholes think about the climate bill, but it doesn’t matter. We need to push things like this through in order to survive to the next century at all or in any decent shape. I doubt if pushing a climate bill is going to kill Democrats at the polls. But get this! He will not compromise on gays on the military! That’s probably the least important of the three issues and the biggest loser. The smartest thing he could do would be to try to fix the economy any way he can. Of course, the Republicans will thwart him every step of the way because they don’t want an economy on the mend. They want an economy stuck in the mud so they can defeat Obama in 2012. That’s how shitty these Reptilican scum are. You can see that Obama is triangulating, just like Clinton did after 1994. It’s true that it helped him in that he won in 1996, but what did we win? We ended up with a Democratic President as who acted like a liberal Republican. Do you think these moves will help Obama or not? And if so, is it worth it?

"Games Men Play About Rape," by Alpha Unit

Do you know that you can do everything in your power to keep away from Black people and still end up as a crime victim? In predominantly White areas of the country, in nearly 10 Furthermore, I’ve heard that your worst enemy can be someone you like and trust. The way some people talk, you’d think these simple facts had never occurred to them. People insist on making the world into something it can’t be – like the kind of place where you’ll be all right if you just stay away from Black people. My purpose here isn’t to demonstrate that White people commit crimes. Everyone knows they do. The people who go on and on about Black crime know that Whites commit crime. What interests me is this “Dueling Rape Statistics” game. It’s a game some men enjoy playing. These men will admit that Whites rape. They’ll admit that a White woman who is raped is most likely to be raped by a White man. What they like to emphasize is that Black males rape a whole lot more than White males, and that Black males rape White women more than White males rape Black women. What is the purpose of all this “You rape more than we do” talk? This ridiculousness is something that only matters to men, and to certain men at that. It doesn’t matter at all if you’re a woman. Rape is one of the hazards of being vulnerable, and especially of being female and vulnerable. It doesn’t matter what race a woman is. A man from just about any race could be a rapist. Girls and young women have been raped by men they knew and never would have imagined would harm them. All over the country there are young women putting themselves at risk of being raped. Some of them are White women who know all about the high crime rate among Blacks. Their rapists won’t all be Black, though. No one who is serious about the safety of women plays this game with them about “They Rape More Than We Do.” If you’re a White woman who has been raped by a White man, of what relevance is the fact that Black men are prosecuted for rape at a higher rate than White men? No woman of any race should give any group of men the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like rape. The only thing that matters from a woman’s perspective is that men rape. As for those of you who like citing rape statistics and pointing out how much Black men rape, what do you hope to gain by doing so? Is rape prevention your mission? That must be it. You’re seriously concerned about the safety and well-being of women. People who are seriously concerned about rape prevention normally advise women to do one very important thing: always trust your instincts. If something about a person or a situation doesn’t feel right, then pay attention. They advise women not to be afraid to seem rude when it comes to their safety – in other words, asking people for ID before allowing them into your home, not divulging to people whether you live alone, not allowing people to touch you or pressure you into going places. It’s the kind of information you’ll find here. People who are seriously concerned about the safety and well-being of women do not say things like, “Black men have a higher prosecution rate for forcible rape, so avoid them, if you can.” Those of you who bring up these rape statistics are only concerned about women, and want to bring attention to the horrible problem of rape and sexual assault. Is that it?

Socialism Rules the Planet

Uncle Milton, as typical of his contrary nature, disputes my contention that most nations on Earth are run by social democratic parties or are social democracies.

The US, the Baltics, Colombia, the Philippines, the UK and Chile are exceptions. May I ask how do you define Social Democracy…? Almost every Latin America country (Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela for example..) has a higher (worse – less egalitarian) Gini index than not only the US and UK but also the Philippines. Nicaragua (43.1) is the exception but is quite close to the PI (44.5). The UK’s Gini index is better than New Zealand’s and matches Italy while it only a smidgen about Australia and Ireland. As for the Baltics, Latvia and Estonia are at the same level as Italy. (By the way I do understand these figures are subject to question..in the examples above I am using the UN’s estimates.. the CIA estimates place the UK at the same level as Switzerland) I would think that income equality would be a pretty important (but not the solely import…) measure of a Social Democracy.

I said most countries on Earth are run by socialist or populist parties. I only list those countries – The US, the Baltics, the UK, Colombia, Chile, the Philippines and Somalia – that are run by parties that are explicitly hostile to socialism and are open advocates of neoclassical economics. If you can find anymore, let me know. Liberal, socialist, Communist, progressive and populist parties run the planet! Rightwing parties hostile to socialism which promote neoclassical economics are a tiny minority. Socialism rules the Earth! Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua are run by socialist parties. They have made efforts to reduce the Gini coefficient of course, but their efforts are attacked in the US, and there are usually assassination attempts and coup attempts against them in their countries. I don’t give a fuck about Gini coefficient. The US’ social democracy is anemic compared to that of the New Zealand and Italy. What matters are the benefits afforded to the people. They are excellent in New Zealand and Italy and anemic in the US. Income distribution ain’t everything. Gini coefficient is not that important in a state that provides no benefits. The Baltic states are some of the few states on Earth run by conservatives that are openly hostile to all forms of socialism and are open advocates of neoclassical economics.

In This World, Socialism is the Norm

Fred is a new rightwing ruling class commenter with an excellent class consciousness, which is intelligent and appropriate for his class. Nevertheless, Fred represents the class enemy that must be fought:

I’m not a socialist because socialism doesn’t work. If it did then I’d be all over it.

But Fred. Various forms of socialism, including forms of social democracy, are the norm in almost every state on Earth. Even the US has quite a bit of socialism – not enough though. Every state on Earth has quite a few socialist or social democratic programs and institutions. The pure capitalist state does not exist. Of the 13 wealthiest states, 12 are clear social democracies. I left the US out because we can’t really be called a social democracy even though we have some socialist programs. Most states on Earth are run by socialist or social democratic parties. The US, the Baltics, Colombia, the Philippines, the UK and Chile are exceptions. Socialism is the norm! Guys like Fred don’t get it. Fred opposes socialism because he’s always looking for a way to lower his taxes, and he doesn’t gets his money worth from the government for the taxes he pays.

Western Women's Culture of Meanness

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib says, possibly jokingly:

I’ll go along with feminism this far: it’s ok for women to bring in a wage, as long as they still rear the kids, clean the place, cook, sew, provide regular sex, are totally faithful unless it’s with another woman and we can watch/share, and don’t mind their men having a bit on the side. Fair’s fair! We owe them that much!

I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I won’t even go that far. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion of LS’ post, and here is what he said:

Bob, first of all, thanks so much for inviting me over so I can write about this. My complaint, Bob, is that feminism has cultivated a culture of meanness, at least here in the US. I would say that American women have cultivated a culture of meanness, but I think they reason they have is feminism. Feminism makes women pissed off at us men. Period. Full stop.As a het guy who chooses to deal with women as more than platonic friends, I don’t dig being hated on. It sucks, and it feels deflating to my cock. I’ve gotten to the point now where I can have sex even with a woman who completely hates me and is making that clear as we are engaging in the sex act, but it wasn’t always that way. Angry, bitchy, emasculating women make men impotent. Either physically, psychologically, or spiritually. I figure even non-feminist women are bitchy enough sometimes. Add feminism into the stew and now they are way bitchier even than they are normally. Fuck that. I hate bitchy women. Nothing worse. One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of wimpy, leftwing, pro-feminist men love bitchy women. They sit back and cheer them on. And these bitchy feminists are attracted to wimpy pro-feminist guys, but the truth is that these guys’ wimpiness drives the feminists insane, because even though they are feminists who say they hate macho men and machismo, they are still women, and most women hate wimpy guys and long for a macho man to reduce them to meek, wimpering Southern belles. That’s why feminism doesn’t work in practice. It creates what we’ve got in Northern California. The stereotypical Northern California male: so wimpy and/or feminized that a lot of people will think the guy is gay. And it concurrently creates the Northern California female: so butch and/or masculinized that a lot of people will think she’s a dyke. These two things attract each other. That’s why you will find a fair number of these wimpy-type guys messing around with guys, and you will find quite a few of these dykey women either messing with women or just going full gay either part of full-time. Macho guys create feminine female counterparts and vice versa. Wimpy guys create bitches at best and vice versa and create macho dykey women at worst and vice versa. At both extremes, normally het people will start moving into homosexuality and bisexuality. This is another thing I have against feminism: it’s full of lesbians. Now, I have nothing against lesbians and gay men being members of gay rights organizations. But why should feminism, objectively merely pro-women’s rights, be full of a dykes? Reason is that feminism creates lesbians, and for some weird reason, lesbians love feminism. Have you ever noticed that the women who scream most about rape are lesbians, probably really butch, dykey, homely and living in some gay community, IOW, just about the least likely women to get raped! The women most likely to get raped are het women, women who are fully involved with men and men’s lives, and who have men in their lives. Straight men, not gay men. Often they are raped by their boyfriends, husbands, dates or just guys they know. I go to a feminist site and typically it’s swarming with lesbians. My first reaction is why? I went to a feminist site, not a gay rights site. Second reaction is turnoff. I’m here to see what straight women think, not lesbians. Final thought is even more disturbing. A lot of radical feminists and feminist separatists openly hate men. They’re into misandry. Yep, the very women screaming most about misogyny are often misandrists themselves. It’s it’s bad for the goose, it’s bad for the gander. As feminism has cultivated misandry (something many feminists now admit), it’s turned lots of feminists into a bunch of lesbians. A family friend was one of the founding members of NOW, and I was a member myself for years. She eventually quit going to the meetings because the feminist women wouldn’t stop hitting on her and propositioning her. Even back then, the movement was swarming with lesbians. I’m perfectly willing to help raise the kids, clean the house and cook the food, but I am sorry that I cannot sew. I’d be glad to learn if it was easy. I’m not sure I even mind if women cheat. I never used to mind and often had open relationships. I was raised in the androgynous 1970’s. In part I was never comfortable with the macho man thing, so I rejected it because it just wasn’t me, and though I was always into masculinity deep down inside, I was also influenced by feminism wanting to make us into “New Men” – sensitive, vulnerable, all that. I turned into a straight Mick Jagger – Steve Tyler – New York Dolls androgynous surfer – rocker – punk rocker – doper – dope dealer – compulsive womanizer. What did I get for this? Guys tried to beat me up for “being a fag”. I even got beat over the fucking head with a baseball bat once. Nicer people were continuously suggesting that I was gay or bi, much to my consternation. Usually it was guys saying I was gay. Females, being more intelligent, usually thought I was bi, because gay men have no interest in women. I was attacked by my very own girlfriends, heads full of feminism, for being gay, bi, wimpy or just not much a man. Screw this. What did I get out of going along with this feminist “New Man” shit? Not a damn thing. Hell with it. I’m gonna be a macho pig, and the feminists can fuck off if they don’t like it.

Do We Live In a Patriarchy?

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, two of my favorite bloggers, k&y of to the ambient void suggest that we live in a patriarchy today. I think that these two guys are both gay, but that’s fine with me, in fact, I think it’s great! I decided to call Sexmaniacman over to ask him what he thought of the notion that we live in a patriarchy today. Here’s what he wrote:

It’s easy for gay men to side with women in the War Between the Sexes because they’re not trying to fuck women, so they don’t have to put up with women’s bullshit that is inevitable in those of us who do.They’re trying to fuck guys in a gay culture that seems a Hell of a lot more sex-friendly and sex-positive than this chilly het culture with these censorious female and mostly feminist Comstocks wanting to beat us with rods every time we get a hardon. Like to look at porn? You’re a woman-hater. Can’t get laid, poor guy? Haha, say the feminists, you loser. Now, me, a masculinist, I side with the guy. The guy’s not getting laid because of women. Women don’t put out that much, and they’re collectively refusing to fuck this guy, and then ridiculing him for it. Like to girl-watch? You’re a woman-hater. Like to look a pictures of pretty girls in magazines or on TV or like to watch beauty pageants or have girlie pictures on your walls? You hate women. Excuse me, feminist ladies, but that is one chilly anti-sexual turd you’re laying on our sex parade. This society of yours, where 9 I don’t know if we have a patriarchy or not. I go to the feminist sites and read about really horrible, obnoxious, and, yes, misogynistic behavior, and I feel tremendous empathy for these feminists in their frustration, depression and rage. Really I do. Now, these feminists probably hate me for being a dog, but I want to tell them that I feel your pain, ladies. Thing is, if we have a patriarchy, I, being a male, am supposed to be on top and winning the race. Instead I feel like I’m getting fucked, and have been getting fucked for much of my life. I don’t feel like I’m winning, or like I’m a member of some male ruling class, or anything like that. A lot of my non-rich male friends feel that way. They feel like an oppressed class, not some member of some ruling class called a patriarchy. I can’t think of one benefit I ever got in my whole damned life due to having a dick. So a lot of us are pissed at feminists. Feminists are sitting on the sidelines, screaming that we’re a ruling class that’s oppressing them, and we don’t feel like we’re oppressing anyone. As for being a ruling class, a lot of us can hardly pay the rent, much less take out one of these expensive things called females. In the same way a lot of White guys are mad at White Privilege Theory and the notion that we live in a White Supremacist society. What did I ever get from being White. How was I ever privileged in life? I can barely even pay my rent and bills. I’m privileged how now? I’m oppressing who now? It’s the same thing – they say we are in a White ruling class but a lot of us feel like an oppressed underclass. It also kind of pisses off us het guys that so many women are still gold-diggers, I mean whores, I mean, well, what do I mean? They want money, our money. Much of it, most of it, all of it, whatever. They go for the guy with the most money. If we don’t have lots of money, we don’t get laid. Worse, we are not even men. The number of women who have abandoned this collective gendered money-grubbing thievery of us men is small, although some middle-aged women start to leave it behind, because they lose their looks and are not much wanted anymore, so they can’t sell their fucking pussies anymore. If you’re a woman going for the rich guys, you’re a whore. You’re selling your pussy for money, real simple. If you’re not a whore, what are you? What does feminism say about this ubiquitous behavior? Nothing, nothing, nothing. The silence is deafening. You see the charts about how women make less money than we do. Are they including the zillions of dollars women steal from men by selling their pussies to us? Nowadays a lot of women make as much money as we do, or more. My girlfriends always seemed to make more money than I do, and that, by the way, pretty much ruins any het relationship nowadays. Even though these bitches made more money than I did, I still had to pay for every single fucking thing when we went out anywhere. All her money’s for her, and all my money’s for her. Nice arrangement. Nice rip-off arrangement. Rip-off of me that is. What does feminism say about this grasping whoredom? Nothing at all! Well, I’m a guy and it pisses me off. My friends and I regularly refer to women as “whores”, because from our vantage, that’s what they are. We’ve discussed this with some women. Those who responded civilly suggested that when you get married, the woman’s not whoring anymore, but then the conniving bitch gets 1/2 my money for the rest of my life. Does this sound like patriarchy to you? Sounds like women on top and us lowly males as some kind of Underclass. I’m tired of a lot of feminists, though I do support a lot of, or most of, their goals. What I’m tired of is this anti-sex shit. They seem like they don’t want me to get laid. And they don’t want my friends to get laid. They don’t even want me or my friends to look at women in public. God forbid we look at pornography. I’m not allowed to look at any sexual depictions of women whatsoever. That’s reducing women to sex objects. Well, fuck. If I’m horny, women are sex objects to me. Sorry. I’m not gay. I’m interested in fucking women. Have been my whole life. My surfer friends on the beach used to fuck everything female that moved. They’d rent a house on the beach, have permanent kegs of beer, sell dope, and screw 100 women a summer, three a day. These guys were my idols, but I could never quite do it like they did, no matter how hard I tried. It seemed like they were trying to set new world records. I understand that feminists hate this behavior and regard it as misogyny. Well fuck me. I guess I’m a boys will be boys, girls will be girls type. I notice 3rd world women take the attitude that all men are dogs and nothing can be done about this, so don’t worry about it. That seems a lot more helpful. I’m basically a dog anyway when it comes to women. I’ve always been one. I may not even be capable of monogamy. At various times in my life, I’ve been a compulsive womanizer. I understand feminists hate compulsive womanizers and say we’re misogynist. Well, fuck you, feminists.

Sexmaniacman is a Rapist

Repost from the old site. I thought this definition of a the crime of sexual violence was interesting:

Regarding the “incapable of giving consent” hypothetical you posited, my response is, violence and/or a crime occurs when anyone’s body is touched beyond incidental contact or for more than a brief instant unless the person being touched affirmatively gives permission for such contact.It is not the “responsibility” of the person being touched to give permission. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to ensure that the other person has voluntarily given permission. If the other person is “incapable” of giving permission, for whatever reason, that means no permission has been given, and a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, the feminazis says every time you have sex with a drunk woman, you are raping her. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion on this definition of rape. Sexmaniacman:

According to that definition, I’ve been raping women and girls all my life! I’ve always touched women, I’ve reached around and jumped them and started kissing them, I’ve grabbed them, thrown them up against walls in public and kissed them, I’ve done all these things. I always grabbed women or touched them, and I never asked permission first.In general, most of the time, permission was granted, though sometimes, when I tried to go beyond kissing, she stopped me. I picked up a hot 20 yr old woman at a Hollywood nightclub, the Anticlub, two minutes after walking in the door, then had sex with her in my car while driving around Hollywood at 1 AM (to the extent you can have sex with someone while driving a vehicle) then after the show, she tried to weasel out of coming home with me. I pointed to her, pointed to the car, and said, “You are going home with me. Now get in the car.” It was an order, but she was free to refuse, and I was laughing. I sneered at her like Johnny Rotten. She smiled, sneered back, and said, “Says who?” I said, “Says me.” Women love guys who give them orders and they love to follow orders. So she got in the car. Quite willingly. I drove her home and we had sex on the 5 Freeway in Downtown LA at 3 AM while going 55 miles an hour, to the extent one can do such a thing. Good thing I didn’t crash the car. I deny that this was either kidnapping or rape, but it was pretty fun. Another time I had sex with a drunk 14 yr old (I was 16) on the rooftop of an apartment building at 2 AM, and later she went around telling everyone I raped her. I didn’t rape her; she was drunk. I deny that this was rape. Another time I went to a punk rock show with this beautiful 20 year old named Linda and we both came back, drunk, to my house. I got her on my couch, pulled up her top and started feeling her breasts. “Pleease let me go home,” she whined unconvincingly in her best little girl voice. “No!” I said. “You’re staying right here!” I was pissed that I went to all this damn trouble and she was trying to weasel out of the dicking, like they always do. Plus, earlier in the evening, both of us drunk, she had put me in a shopping cart and raced me up and down some 2 AM streets. She kept “dropping her lighter” on my groin in the cart, and then “having to fish around to find it”. Now she was trying to get out of the boning. Well fuck that. The Hell you are, woman. She was free to leave at any time, as the cops say. “Now get over on that bed right now!” I said, half-smiling and not really threatening. I’m not sure what happened later. Finally I just said, “Fine, you don’t want to have sex, I’ll just sleep on the couch. You take the bed. See you in the morning.” Then I lay back on the couch and closed my eyes. Next thing I remember, she was saying, “Come on over to the bed.” And so it went. I deny that this was false imprisonment or rape, but it was pretty fun, except when she started to puke in bed while we were having sex, grabbed her mouth, and ran to the bathroom and puked for a while. Basically, with women, you have to read their minds. At some point, via telepathy, you figure you can make your move. At that point you just grab her and start kissing her. You can do it really aggressively or you can do it real soft and nice. Most of the time, it goes just fine. Having to ask permission for everything you do sexually is insane. If we had to do that, no one would ever get laid. I’ve been having sex with drunken women most of my life, and I hope to continue doing so. A lot of women are way less inhibited when they’re drunk. I’m embarrassed to admit that there have been quite a few times when I grabbed at women and they did not want to do go along, so they pushed me off or said no in some way or another, along the lines of, “Hey! Knock it off, asshole! Get your hands off me!” Most of the time, I did just knock it off right then, though sometimes I kept trying my luck, and she kept knocking my hands away, raising her voice. I deny that this is rape or attempted rape or any crime at all. It’s actually something called “dating”, and I never got any sex any of those times anyway. Once they brush you off once, you might as well give up, because you aren’t getting any. I don’t believe I’ve ever raped a woman according to the legal definition of the word. If she’s not interested, no problem. She has ownership of her body and the right to decide not to do this or that with me. As far as the feminist version of rape law above, well, they can just fuck off.

No Wonder White Men Are Pissed

Repost from the old site. Cool post from the comments from an American mulatto woman, telling it straight up like it really is about masculinity, femininity and race:

I enjoyed reading your post. I am mixed-race, Black and white. I have been with both types of men. I feel that White males used to be much more masculine and the media portrayed them as masculine on TV, but now Black men are portrayed on TV as the heroes. On the other hand Asian men are under represented by the media.  Black men are too masculine for me, and I am really not attracted to them. I wish White guys were the way they use to be – in charge and take control. As a female I feel that a lot of this has to do with the feminist movement. No other men in the world give their women as much freedom as the White male, and in the end they tend to lose their woman to other men because they have let go and have given her too much power. In turn, the White female now has the power and is in charge in most White relationships. As a female I have observed the huge difference in how a White female treats a Black male as compared to a White male. It is like night and day. She is much softer and feminine with the Black male and takes care of him and his needs. With White males, all you hear is there was lots of sex before marriage, then after that she cut off the sex, then has a kid to keep him in control. This strategy does not work with a Black male because he may or may not even marry the White female and may or may not assume responsibility for the child. This makes the Black male appear as a challenge to a White female or any woman for that matter. Also White men are handsome and may have facial features that are handsome, but no male has the body of a Black male when they are in shape. Muscles make a man appear masculine. I don’t date black men mainly due to the fact that I find them to be very promiscuous. With Asian men the problem is their height. I prefer a man at least 5’10 at least. I find when the Asian man is mixed with white they are usually taller and better looking. As far as Black females I feel that European males appreciate them more than White American men.

We showed this post to Sexmaniacman, even they know crying’s not manly. Unlike Sexmaniacman’s mother’s generation, they delight in attacking our masculinity when they get mad. Sexmaniacman’s Mom shook her head when he told her that. “Oh Sexdude, hun,” she said solemnly, putting her hand on his shoulder. “We would never do that. That’s one thing we would never do.” Like guys in prison with Mom on their shoulder, Sexmaniacman cherishes his mother. If anyone suggests that he’s too close to her, he’ll just threaten to slit their throat, just like that. It’s not just guys like Sexmaniacman who get it. All men do. The most macho guys Sexmaniacman ever knew have been taunted with this shit, and they are the most furious and homicidal of all about it. One day Killerdude and Sexmaniacman were drinking and getting high. Killerdude was feeling angry and homicidal, but that was ok, because men are supposed to feel that way sometimes. “Sexman. Bro. I want to kill her,” he confided. “I want to kill that fucking bitch.” Sexmaniacman’s ears perked up. “Oh? Who?” It wasn’t every day they talked homicide. Killerdude looked at the ground. He’d been shooting coke and doing lots of PCP lately. Just the other day, he was lying on the ground at Sexmaniacman’s place, pissing his pants, orbiting the solar system on angel dust, while Sexmaniacman and his friends were drinking and laughing at the spectacle. “My old lady. I want to kill my old lady. I swear. I swear. If I could get away with it. I swear. If I could get away with it, I’d do it. Just like that. I’ve thought about it many times. I’ve got it all planned out. The crime, the weapons, the getaway, the whole thing. I just need you to swear you won’t tell.” Sexmaniacman didn’t have any tea to stir, but he wanted to. He took a swig of beer instead. “Maybe. Maybe I could. Why? What did she do to you?” Sexmaniacman knew Killerdude could do it, and he knew the bitch deserved it. Killerdude was quiet. His mood was bleak and scary. “She took my kid. She won’t let me see my kid. And she attacks me. She attacks me as a man. She attacks my manhood. I can’t tolerate that.” Sexmaniacman understood completely. In Man World, such a crime could and often did carry the death penalty. You attacked a real man’s manhood at your own risk, knowing that he may try to kill you anytime you did it. “Yeah. I’ve seen that. She calls you Pipsqueak. You. Of all people. The most macho guy that ever lived. A lot of other dudes, I can see it. But you? No way.” Killerdude is livening up. “Yeah!” He’s smiling and frowning, and he’s nervous and agitated, and it looks like he’s going to cry, all at once. “You’ve heard that? You’ve heard that? You heard that shit?” Sexmaniacman was quiet. “Yeah.” He shook his head with mournful outrage. “I’ve seen it. Unbelievable. She practically deserves to be killed just for that right there.” Killerdude is out of his chair, jumping up and down, spilling his beer. “Cheers!” They clash bottles. Attacking their manhood, the ultimate weapon of modern woman. The weapon that violates all rules of the World of Men. For in Man World, there are all sorts of highly intricate rules, and there is even a Geneva Convention. If you attack a man’s masculinity, that’s a war crime, and he has a right to punch you, and no one can stop him. He doesn’t have a right to kill you, but many times he’ll do it anyway. Well, women get to violate all the rules of Man World and violate all the conventions too. All war crimes are on the table. The bitches can do anything, and we can’t even raise a pipsqueak in defense, Sexmaniacman noted angrily, or they call the cops and lie and say we beat them. Sexmaniacman actually opposed misogyny, believe it or not. Misogynistic porn and misogynistic websites make him frown. The web sites tell how to treat your woman just shitty enough in some certain ways to make her really love you. Yuck. A friend told Sexmaniacman, “You can’t be a nice guy to women, Sexguy. You’ve got to be an asshole. You’ve got to be an asshole to women. That’s what they want. They want to be treated like shit by a macho jerk so they can sit around with their girlfriends and complain about how their boyfriend treats them like shit.” Sexmaniacman has a feeling he’s right, but it bothers him, and he thinks he still can’t do it. I really don’t care if girlfriends hate me, Sexmaniacman said. They can hate me all they want to, as long as they still keep coming around. They can call me names, insult me, call me lazy, rage at me, threaten to kill me or cut my dick off. It’s not exactly optimal, but it’s pretty much unavoidable. Hopefully, I’ll just laugh in her face, Sexmaniacman thought. Just hate me as a man, that’s all I ask. Don’t hate me as a not-man, Sexmaniacman said. That I won’t tolerate. No wonder that’s their favorite weapon, their secret weapon. Don’t date other guys, or screw other guys, and wave them in my face, just to taunt us, Sexmaniacman said, waving his beer bottle in the air and taking a swig. Yeah. Women do this to us nowadays. They don’t just screw other guys while they are with us. That might be tolerable if they were civilized enough to keep it a secret, but of course they’re not. No, they do it right in front of our faces. They parade the new guy, or the other guy, or whoever the Hell the jerk is, around right in front of our faces, just daring us to do something about it. Hard to believe? Just try. Feminist Woman created Wormboy, and she’s been stomping her foot in frustration and having masochistic sex with 80 IQ thugs and ex-cons, ever since.

Sexmaniacman Is A Creep

Repost from the old site. It’s official. Sexmaniacman is a creep. And a pervert. And he’s proud. Sexmaniacman just learned the definition right here. First of all, “creep” is a woman word, and no real male would commonly use such a word as a noun or a verb. Sexmaniacman just doesn’t use it in general, because he’s a real man, not a pussified ally of the females, but every now and then, it’s appropriate. For instance, Sexman’s Mom works at a college. There was a male student there for a while, socially inept, who used to hide under and behind cars out in the parking lot and jump out at the college girls. I guess he thought it was funny or something. The girls were not amused and they kept complaining to the administration. With some regret, Sexmaniacman will admit that this guy’s behavior is creepy. But really, it’s only creepy in that they don’t find him attractive. If Leonardo DiCaprio was hiding behind cars and jumping out at them, about 5 So it’s not necessarily the behavior that these silly little woman-children don’t like, it’s the fact that the guy is unattractive, unwanted and unappealing, and then he’s trying his luck with them. He realizes this was frightening to the girls, but Sexmaniacman happened to know the idiot who was doing this, and it’s just his opinion that the guy’s completely harmless, though obviously a social retard. These strong, modern, rough, tough, feminist puffed-up ladies should have just told him to fuck off a few times, and probably it would have all stopped. But apparently they kept running away like the little girls they really are deep down inside, so the behavior continued for too long. So, yeah, Sexmaniacman is obviously a fucking creep according to the definition above. Plus he’s a pervert. He never was one, but then he hit 47 or so, and now he can’t look at young women anymore in case he gives them a heart attack or induces post-traumatic stress disorder or molests them with his eyeballs requiring years of weepy and bank-breaking therapy sessions to untwist their poor fragile psyches. Sexguy is perfectly aware that the vast majority of young women don’t find guys his age attractive anymore. That’s very painful for him to realize. He looks at younger women, and he doesn’t think, “Wow, I have a chance with her.” Instead, she often reminds him of so and so who he dated or slept with back in 1978. So he’s looking at them and reminiscing, wistful memories of days gone by. And if that pisses you little bitches off, well he says too fucking bad. They looked great then, and they look great now. Beauty contestants focus on females aged around 18-20. Other than the fact that they probably can’t use minors, the reason they do this is because at this age, females of all races, in all cultures, and at all times, are at the peak of their physical beauty. It’s a common myth that a guy hits 45 and 50 and can’t get an erection anymore. Actually, many of us guys still can and do, believe it or not, Sexmaniacman noted. We may be old, but we’re not dead. You can’t touch a 16-17 year old girl with a 10-foot pole and an 11-foot extension, but they sure are nice to look at. If acknowledging this makes Sexdude a pervert and a fucking creep, then he will wear that badge proudly. Sexmaniacman probably wouldn’t want to sleep with them even if it were legal, because it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these silly girly things. Not that older women are much better! Good. From the site:

I think I’ve generally come to the conclusion that a lot of women’s definition of a “creepy guy”/pervert is:  A guy they find unattractive, who checks them out. Most straight women, of course, liked to be noticed by guys they find attractive, and a lot of women will dress to attract men they fancy. The problem a lot of women seem to have is, is that there’s an unwanted side effect. If they dress sexy, they not only get looked at by the sexy guys, they also get looked at by the guys they don’t fancy.

Well, yeah, duh. If you don’t want us to look at your fucking tits, Sexmaniacman suggested, then don’t walk around with your boobs hanging out. If you’re showing cleavage, or God forbid have your tits halfway hanging out, Sexbro is going to look right at them, Goddamn it, and fuck you if you don’t like it. If it pisses you off so much, dress like a lady for Chrissake.

It’s like during the 1980’s when all political correctness issues came to the fore with a vengeance. In a work setting, a bloke could chat a woman up. If she fancied him, it was fine and dandy. If she didn’t, it was called sexual harassment. 

Yeah. Sexcat figure that’s probably what’s going on in a lot of this sexual harassment bullshit. He remembers he worked at a place once where the whole office freaked out because some poor schmuck asked a woman out. To look at the guy, Sexman figured he probably hadn’t been laid by a non-professional in at least months, so he had a God-given right to ask, and Sexguy felt deep sympathy for his sex-deprived brother. She was being nice to him and talking him, and all the silly bitch had to do was say no and that was that. The guy was civilized, he would have just taken it like a man. But oh no, Ms. Silly made it into a capital fucking offense, and it was the talk of the whole office for a while. Being a real guy, not a wuss, of course Sexbuddy took the guy’s side in this skirmish of the War Between Men and Women, but most of the “men” in the office sided with Ms. Silly, like knights running to save her honor. Afterward the poor guy told Sexpal that management told him that sexual harassment guidelines said that employees should not be dating. Great. Here it is, in the modern US, where so many of us are working long hours, and we can’t date at work. Great. So how are we supposed to get laid? Sexmaniacman finally had to adopt some new rules to deal with this bullshit, but he realized he was not the only one. He read a sociology paper about guys who moved down to Costa Rica. One guy said when he was 50, an uppity 17 year old girl spit at him for looking at her. I guess that was the last straw, and he high-tailed for the sexually relaxed tropics. His 43 year old sick, perverted, creepy brother had some advice: “Sexguy! Look. Invest in some sunglasses! I look at them all the time. That’s one of the great things about being in junior college – I’m surrounded by 18-20 yr old hotties!” Sexdude’s new rules were to avoid looking at obviously underage girls or sometimes even those around 18-20, but it was so hard to tell ages. He’d look at em a bit, see if they looked back, and if they didn’t, he’d try not to look at them too much. Kind of hard to do when they are young and beautiful! Sexmaniacman also noticed something disturbing about this bullshit. As much as these silly little twats claimed they hated it, he could not help but notice that a certain number of them (Definitely not all but for sure some!), often the better looking and older ones (18-23 or so), relished the attention they got from him. They deliberately strutted, tipped, weaved, swayed and sashayed, flirted and winked, stole glances and battled lashes. At the stores, they shoved the others out of the way so they could ring up Sexman and reap the harvest of his loving eyeballs. They smiled at him coquettishly and made bullshit excuses to get up and strut in front of him, to nowhere and to do nothing, and then traipse back, basking in the warm, delicious rays of his sick, pervy, aging gaze. They looked at him out of the corner of their eyes and winked. When he wasn’t looking, they moved way too close and pretended to look at store things they weren’t interested in. Sexmaniacman would look down, notice a 16 year old just about brushing her tits up against him, and pretend nothing was happening. It sure was an idiotic little girl game these female things were playing, but females often don’t make much sense to Sexguy. Some were jockeying for the eyeballs and others were bitching about illegal looking. Were some of them one and the same? Who knows? Sexmaniacman thinks we can look at them all we want, that’s his position. If they don’t like it, they can call the cops, or take pictures of us with their bitchy cellphones and post them on their screechy blogs, or sit around and carp to their girlfriends about us. There’s also a right and wrong way to look, Sexman thought. You look a little bit, you look away, a while later, you look again. Staring is pretty uncool. Sexmaniacman can’t remember the last time he catcalled a woman. That’s rude, and he’s not rude. Sexmaniacman doesn’t rub up against women, but when he was a lot younger, especially at bars and rock concerts, women were always rubbing up against him and touching him, because he was drop dead gorgeous guy, especially when he wore a beat-up 1950’s James Dean leather jacket. Touching and groping is rude, and he’s not rude. Jerking off in public is illegal, and guys who do that deserve cuffs. However, he objects to the whole Feminazi mindset behind this bullshit movement, mostly because they haven’t specified where harassment begins and where it ends. Supposedly the females get to make up the rules here, on an individual, case by case basis! Great! Webpage here, and most of these guys portrayed here are idiots, Sexguy agrees, but he’s still worried that there are no boundaries here. Sexman is particularly disturbed by the modern notion that he can no longer talk to teenage girls or young women in any way or at any time or about anything, since they automatically assume he’s trying to pick up on them, when usually he’s just trying to make some innocent conversation. Also, the silly feminist bitch idea is that all women hate being looked at. Bullshit. Sexman’s beautiful aunt was in the Castro District of San Fransisco eating at a cafe with Sexman’s Mom. His aunt is a silly woman, like most women are at least sometimes. She’s getting all upset. “None of these men are looking at me,” she pouted huffily. She’s beautiful, and male looks are like vitamins for her soul. Duh. They’re all gay. Sexmaniacman also knows some older women who love to be or would love to be looked at. One, 50 years old, mournfully told him that she wishes men or even boys would look at her. One delighted in telling him how young men and even boys continued to check her out, and how she loved every second of it, being 50 years old.

For You Conspiracy-Mongers

Repost from the old site. I don’t really believe that this is what happened, but Professor Francis A. Boyle, whom I am acquainted with, tosses out some conspiracy theory here regarding the Anthrax attacks and 9-11. First of all, he claims that the Patriot Act was already written and sitting on John Ashcroft’s desk on September 10, the day before the anthrax attacks. That’s pretty weird right there. Boyle is convinced that elements of the US government – he lists Bush, Rice, George Tenet and John Ashcroft – either participated in the 9-11 attacks or at the very least allowed them to go forward. He says that before the attacks occurred, the US military had forces positioned all around Afghanistan and Iraq (the decision of which one to attack would be made by the Administration). He also lays out a conspiracy theory about the anthrax attacks, claiming that an FBI agent, Spike Bowman, may have been responsible for the destruction of the Ames cultural Anthrax Database in Ames, Iowa, which caused the destruction of evidence necessary to figure out which strain the anthrax came from. Since the FBI seems to know which strain it came from anyway, Boyle’s claim seems odd. This same Bowman later was supposedly responsible for thwarting a FISA warrant for searching Zacarious Moussaoui’s computer, which had information on it that possibly could have helped stop the 9-11 attacks. After these two strange and seemingly evidence-tampering actions, Agent Bowman was given a promotion. Leahy and Daschle were reportedly targeted due to their opposition to the Patriot Act – they were holding up the passage of the Act, then they got hit by Anthrax, Capital Hill was shut down, and all opposition to the bill vanished in the wave of hysteria that followed. Indeed, the FBI is now claiming that Bruce Ivins, the man they are fingering as the author of the attacks, mailed the letters to the two Democrats in order to shove the Patriot Act through. Boyle points out correctly that under the Patriot Act, the government can call you a terrorist, throw you into Guantanamo, and never let you out. There are problems with Boyle’s theory. If the government itself did the attacks, how did they manage to keep the FBI away from the state authors of the attack? He also notes that there seems to be an effort (exemplified by John Yu of Stanford Law) underway to seed neoconservative sympathizers of an authoritarian state into the nation’s law schools to subvert long-established US law. The Nazis did something similar in Germany, led by attorney Carl Schmidt, who was the mentor to and hero of Leo Strauss, icon of the neoconservatives. Incidentally, Strauss, a German Jew, supported the Nazi Party, but opposed their anti-Semitism. He wanted to strip the anti-Semitism from the Nazis, but he did support fascism in general. So the icon of the neoconservatives was long a covert supporter of fascism. It was only after the Nazis turned on the Jews bigtime in 1933 that Strauss turned on the party and left Germany for America. There were many other German Jews like Strauss, who supported Nazi fascism but were uncomfortable with the anti-Semitism, and who only turned their backs on the party when the party went after the Jews in 1933. Israeli scholar of fascism Zeev Sternhill notes that Italian Jews were some of the most prominent supporters of both Mussolini’s fascist party and the Italian Communist Party, for what it’s worth. Boyle notes at the end that an FBI agent interrogated him in 2004 and tried to get him to spy for them on his Arab and Muslim clients who he was representing as an attorney. Boyle refused and was then placed on a no-fly list, and has since found it very hard to leave the country.

Are Blacks Actually Progressive or Are They Just Faking it?

I’ve come to realize that most non-whites really are not that progressive. Oh sure, they’re “progressive” on racial issues that directly affect them. But in general, they’re not. I think Ta-Nehisi Coates (who’s progressive enough for you) put it best, when referring to many socially conservative blacks who vote Democrat: “He doesn’t vote Democrat out of any love for progressive taxation or abortion, but because he thinks, in fact he knows, that the Republicans derive support from people who hate him.” In other words, blacks and other non-whites are mainly Democrats for purely racial reasons, not out of any noble class consciousness.

Blacks know that a lot of Republicans are just a bunch of White racist assholes. Also, Blacks are usually not on this low tax fad diet. Blacks often support raising taxes. Blacks support government programs. They like Big Government. They have no fetish for limited or small government or any of that crap. Blacks also don’t have a lot of money in the US and they are mostly just working class people. As the White nationalists say, Blacks are naturally socialist. A bit of an exaggeration, but it’s true. And Blacks are for income transfer. White politics opposes what they see as transfer of White money via taxation to worthless, criminal, lazy Blacks. Blacks, sensibly enough, support this transfer and wealth redistribution in general since it is in their interest. For all these reasons, it’s logical of them to vote Democrat. I bet you will find a Hell of a lot more support for progressive taxation among Blacks too than among Whites. Blacks don’t have this insane love of their rich class enemies or their corporate class enemies as Whites do. Not are Blacks as patriotardic as Whites. Blacks are pretty dubious about American jingoism. Where there are problems is with socially conservative religious Blacks, but even there, they just vote for us anyway. And yes, Blacks support abortion much more than Whites. Ever seen a Black face in the anti-abortion movement? All a bunch of idiot Whites, mostly White men.

Arabs or Hispanics, Which Do You Pick?

I pick Hispanics any day. FG writes:

Many are concerned about the demographic and cultural Hispanicization of the US. It’s a big change that surely carries major costs and benefits. Who knows what the future holds? But I have to say that the future of the US seems brighter than that of Europe.

Most Latinos do not fit the traditional American definition of White, but they are a quasi-Western people. From my perspective, that’s preferable to being demographically swamped by Muslims with their affinity for Shariah Law, as is happening with France, Holland, and other Western European states.

I don’t lose a lot of sleep over Hispanicization, but keep in mind that I’m a native Californian who grew up with Mexicans, took Spanish lessons at age 6, was raised on Mexican food, had Mexican-American friends and girlfriends in high school and spent many vacations down in Old Mexico.

If you spend a lot of time around these 2nd generation and up Hispanics (especially the 3rd generation ones), you realize that they are so much like us Whites. For instance, just about every White teen cult has been replicated by Hispanics. There are Mexican bikers, hippies, punks, heavy metalers, skaters, emos, Goths – you name it, they have replicated it.

On the other hand, Blacks have not replicated our cults like this. You don’t see a lot of Black bikers, hippies, punks, heavy metalers, skaters, emos, Goths, etc. It’s like Black people have this totally different culture that’s not like White culture at all.

The only reason that I can think of why these Hispanics are replicating our movements is because they are like us culturally and possibly genetically. Blacks may not be so much like us culturally, and they are not like us genetically.

Last night I spent some time at the local market discussing honor killings with the local Yemeni (born in the US by the way). He defended them, and said that if a married woman cheated on her husband, she had to be put to death! He then said that Islam mandated this. It’s not true, and I argued with him about this, but he didn’t buy it. He also said that if an unmarried woman had sex, 1

He and his brother also told me that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda and no such thing as terrorism, and added that Jews did 9-11, not Arabs. I like these guys a lot (Arabs are great people), but it was quite a discouraging conversation.

Europe is experiencing this mindset in spades. I don’t envy them.

Up with Class, Down with Race

Dave Coe writes:

I can understand your sentiments, but why would any sane White person want to be a minority even if a lot of Whites are morons, no sane group would want to be a minority. The elites want mass third world immigration and a more multi-racial America to divide and conquer the masses.

Fuck it dude, I’m already a minority. It’s not as bad as you think, and a lot of these “non-Whites” around here are actually White people as far as I can tell. US Whites as a group are the class enemy. I operate from a class consciousness. Anyone who supports my class is a friend, and anyone who opposes my class is my enemy. So Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are my friends, and Whites are my enemies. The way I see it is that White people are trying to kill me and mine, ruin our lives and destroy our ability to survive. Non-Whites aren’t doing that at all. All they do is steal a few things now and again. I can deal with that. The only way that my class will ever see any benefits against the White class that wages war on us is if the White population drops. As it drops, America will become a more progressive place and the prospects of my class will improve. BTW, any Whites who want to join us and have a class consciousness are welcome. I really don’t give tow shits about race. It’s not that important. Class is everything, and every race that shares my class perspective is my brother.

What You Dipshits Just Voted For

When Reagan was in office in 1981-1988, the Heritage Foundation* said, and I quote, “We want to bring America back to the Pre New Deal era so we can compete with the 3rd world.” The notion is that all of the New Deal programs make the US economy uncompetitive with the 3rd World countries who don’t have them. So if you like New Deal programs, you’re a total asshole for voting Republican! Exactly what do you think you’re doing? If you hate the New Deal and want to get rid of it, then you’re certainly doing the proper thing by voting Republican. The Heritage Foundation then said, “We will never have the votes to do away with the Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The way to do away with those programs is to bankrupt the system.” This is what Republican Administrations have been doing all this time they are in office – deliberately running up insane deficits for no good reason with wild tax cutting followed by huge increases in the military and intelligence budgets. Lately, they threw in some actual hot wars for good measure. Military Keynesianism? Every Republican asshole you meet, every Republican asshole politician and the entire news media is utterly silent about budget deficits and the national debt while the Republicans are deliberately running them sky high for no good reason. Then as soon as a Democrat has the Presidency, they scream, yell and carry on about the debt and the deficit and demand cuts! The Democrat meekly cuts everything in sight that he possibly can, in Clinton’s case, even balancing the budget and producing a surplus. They get no credit for this, and Republican assholes still scream, “Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Tax and spend!” Then a Republican comes in and deliberately bankrupts the state again for no good reason and every Republican asshole you know suddenly doesn’t care anything about deficits or the debt. Isn’t that despicable? So you see the agenda here is to deliberately bankrupt the state in order to roll back the New Deal. In recent years, Republicans have been getting bolder. Newt Gingrich was explicit that getting rid of the New Deal was on his agenda. A slew of Tea Party candidates have also been quite explicit about rolling back 80 years of progress. Of course the corporate media is ecstatic because they’ve always hated the New Deal. Under Bush, devious plans were unrolled called Social Security privatization and Medical Savings Accounts. These are sneaky roundabout ways of getting rid of both Medicare and Social Security. It’s no secret that Medicare, Social Security and the Department of Education have been on the Republican hit list for a long time now, probably ever since they were created. If you know of any Republican officeholders who don’t want to get rid of these programs, can you point them out to me? At the same time, as we might expect, the Republicans are totally devious about their agenda. They lie and insist they want to “save” these programs and not kill them. They make up phony lies about fake budget shortfalls that show these programs going bankrupt soon. So we had to destroy the village to save it, and we had to destroy these programs in order to save them. Why the Department of Education is on the chopping block is beyond me, but for some weird reason, it’s #1 on the Republican hate list. One would think that an advanced First World country would have a Department of Education in their national cabinet, no? Sure, some 3rd world shitholes might not have one, but what kind of model society is that? *The Heritage Foundation is the favorite institution of Uncle Milton and AJ in the comments section, since they are always quoting their dubious Index of Economic Freedom. I don’t know about their weenie little Index of Economic Freedom, but I checked out another weenie index by the Heritage twits’ buddies, Freedom House. Freedom House has an Index of Freedom. The least free countries are mysteriously all leftwing. Rightwing countries are never below the middle of the list, no matter if they are slaughtering 10’s of 1,000’s of their people, hey, it’s all good, bro. Now that we see in the quotes above what assholes the Heritage Foundation are, why would I read any Index of Anything these turds come up with? Gimme a reason?

The Election Was Not So Bad

The media is totally biased in favor of Republicans, especially the execrable AP, which has been driving this election. Compared to 1994, this is not so bad. Executive Branch: Same as 1994, we have it. And Obama is more progressive than Bill Clinton. US Senate: Apparently will be 53-47 Democrats. That’s a full 5-point advantage over the Republicans 52-48 Senate in 1994. The Senate races were not as bad as I thought. The two huge disappointments were in Illinois and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, super-progressive Russ Finegold lost to an insane person, gazillionaire Republican asshole Ron Johnson. Wisconsin has always been a progressive state, but now they’ve gone insane. On the other hand, they are all White, so maybe it makes sense. Maybe White people are going nuts. It’s also possible that Finegold is just too liberal. In Illinois, Obama’s old seat went to a Republican who is not too extreme. Russ Kirk is just a typical Republican asshole, as my father used to say, but at least he’s not insane. Alexi Giannoulias lost in a close race. In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, an escaped mental patient, won a tight race against Joe Sestak. The seat had long been held by liberal Republican Arlen Specter. This is disappointing in that a liberal Republican seat has gone to a Team Crazy seat. In North Dakota, Democrat Bryan Dorgan retired, leaving an open seat picked up by a typical Republican, John Hoeven, who is not as rightwing as you think. This is not surprising, as North Dakota is a deeply reactionary state. In Indiana, Democrat Bayh retired, and Dan Coats was brought back in by Republicans to fill his place. Coats is an asshole like the rest of them, but at least he’s mentally stable. Indiana has always been a rightwing state, so no surprises here. In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln lost to John Boozman. Obama lost by 20 points in White racist and deeply reactionary Arkansas in 2008, so it figures we lost this seat. Lincoln spent the last two years trying to be a Republican. That never works, and given the chance to pick between a real Republican and a fake one, voters tend to choose the real one. As we can see, conservative Democrats and more liberal Republicans tend to be losing, so we are getting hardline liberals in the Democratic Party and hardline conservatives in the Republican Party. US House: True, Republicans took it by a huge number, more than in 1994 and the most since 1946. However, the Democrats still control 2/3 of the government. The Republicans control 1/3 of the state. Big deal. Since 1994, the House has periodically been in Republican control for the first time since 1954. The reason for that is that Whites went progressive in 1954 with the expanding economy of the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. That started fading somewhat in the 1980’s as America became more multicultural. By the 1990’s, US Whites were in full revolt. This whole Republican Revolution thing is about mostly older racist Whites trying to take our country back from the niggers, beaners and other muds* who are destroying it. It’s White angst on steroids. In multicultural societies, Whites go rightwing – often hard, fascist, Nazi, death squad, mass murderous rightwing. They will only share and create a decent society where they don’t have to share with muds. The CRT explanation for this would be that White people are racist assholes who only create decent societies in Valhallas where the demographics are like Idaho or Iceland. I hate to agree with CRT weenies, but they are right on this one. *All racist words used sardonically.

Bye Bye Pro-White, White Advocate Movement

The entire White nationalist blogosphere is cheering themselves to a multihour orgasm now that their White oligarchs, plutocrats and corporate slavemasters have won a smashing victory over the White working class. If there was ever a reason to tell the White advocate and pro-White movement to fuck off, this is it. I am no longer a White advocate or pro-White, because 9 You’re down with pro-White and White advocacy? Fine, you can have it. Goosestep on over to the Cause, my fellow White serf, and don’t forget to salute your feudal Lords in the Republican Party.

The Republican Pledge to America Cannot Possibly Work

I’ve seen the Republican agenda, and I’ve heard them talking tonight on and on about what they are going to do. Trust me, nothing that they are going to do could possibly have a good affect on anything important, much less the economy. Tons of tax cuts. This will blow up the deficit they hate way worse than before. It won’t help the economy because the economy is suffering from lack of demand. Business is already sitting on a record mountain of cash. They don’t need any more of it. Giving them more won’t make them hire one more worker. The problem is lack of customers. More supply side (neoclassical) economics won’t do anything to solve that. The lack of demand is due to the economic crisis. It’s also due to a 35 year war that the Right has waged on working people via outsourcing, union busting, Hindu 1-B and other guest workers, and mass immigration, legal and illegal. They’re crushed the American worker, smashing his wages and income. It’s classical capitalist class war. As Fordists would argue, this is having its predicted effect in that workers can no longer afford to buy the stuff that business is selling. There has also been a mass transfer of income to the well off. The top 1 Cut government spending. This is retarded. In the US, government spending is 2 Pledge to work across the aisle. The Republican Party’s goal in 2008 was to do everything possible to make sure that Obama would not be elected in 2012. They will continue to do this. They will oppose everything that he will try to do. If he tries to do rightwing things, they may go along with him, but that’s dubious. Look forward to 2 years of total gridlock. The Capitalist Shit Market, I mean the Capitalist Stock Market, rallied on the elections not because Republicans were going to win but because a Republican win would mean a gridlocked government that is so paralyzed it can’t do anything. All of you who love the stock market or the US corporate class so much ought to think about that. The US corporate class, via its institution, the stock market, wants a gridlocked state that does as little as possible. So those of you who feel that the government ought to do something (like “create jobs”), ought to rethink your cheering on of the US corporate class or the US stock market. You heard that right. Business wants a government that does nothing. Capitalists are wonderful people! Get rid of regulations on business. Business is regulated, in general, in the interest of consumers, workers, society and the environment. By deregulating, you by definition harm consumers, workers, society and the environment. Because the economic crisis is due the financial mess, not lack of regulation, deregulation will do nothing to help the economy. The economy will not improve until the financial crisis is dealt with. The other aspect of the problem economy is lack of demand. All the deregulation on Earth will not put one more penny in the hands of workers and consumers. It will enrich business, but business is already sitting on an Everest of cash. This will fail to help the economy. Create jobs! The state cannot create jobs except through stimulus spending and deficit spending, which these shitheads oppose for ideological, not economic reasons. As we discussed above, all the tax cuts and deregulation on Earth will not create one job absent a solution to the financial crisis and/or measures to restart demand. The huge spending cuts they are advocating will by definition result in GDP loss and will actually cause loss of jobs, not job gain. Therefore, this will fail. The entire Republican project cannot possibly help the economy because it’s not economics. Or rather, it’s bad economics. Better, it’s politically driven economics. It’s economic policy in pursuit of political goals such as gutting the state for ideological reasons and waging the class war of the top 2

The Democrats Got Creamed, Right?

I have not been paying much attention to the news tonite. Looks like the Democrats lost the House for sure, but no way did they lose the Senate too. Forget that. A lot of polls were showing a serious last minute surge for Republicans, I mean in the three days prior to the election. Marco Rubio, who are seriously insane, appears to have won in Florida. The thing that’s scary about this guy is that he’s so popular with the wingnuts that he could actually run for President in 2012. On the plus side for the Democrats, even though this election was said to be a referendum on Obama, the Republicans still do not have one candidate who can beat Obama in any poll. But maybe they will find one. The comments on Yahoo news stories is an excellent place to judge the popular mood. Like the entire Internet, Yahoo comments are frighteningly rightwing. Why is that? Because the Internet is not democratic like television or radio, though it ought to be. Internet access should be as easily available as access to TV or the radio. It’s not due to cost. So around the world, only the rich, upper middle class and middle classes are on the Internet. In the US, the poor, the low income and the working classes do not have much Internet access. The Internet is a tool of the moneyed classes. That’s why the Internet seems so much more rightwing than real life. Judging from Yahoo comments, it’s true that the Democrats and Obama are unpopular, as one might expect. But another thing is very interesting. Among these rightwing commenters, the Tea Party is not popular at all. In fact, they are widely despised. So this crowd supports Republicans but not the Tea Party. I suspect that this divide between somewhat more reasonable folks and the serious lunatics in the Republican Party will be an ongoing thing. I just spoke to two Democrats tonight. Neither of them voted, nor do they ever. How many Republicans do you know like that? As a Big Government fan, I would love to make voting mandatory as it is in many countries. If you don’t vote, what? $50 fine? Higher? How many people would just pay it? Russ Finegold lost in Wisconsin, but he was down a couple points in the polls for a long time now. His opponent is a serious asshole and insane person. It’s hard to believe those Scandinavians up there are that insane. Finegold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. So we see that Americans hate those who hate the Patriot Act. This election cements my contempt for this country and its people which I’ve had most of my life. Seriously, I am with JohnUK and AJ in the comments section. Americans deserve every bad thing that is going to happen to them in the future due to these idiot decisions they are making.

Successes of Socialist Vietnam

Uncle Milton continues his distortions in the comments section:

I’ve been to China, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, the Philippines, and Thailand… whatever they may state on paper is not followed in reality. It sucks to be poor in all of those countries but it sucks somewhat less in Thailand…because if nothing else you can rip off the many tourists with a smile and there actually are subsidized health clinics in Thailand and the Philippines. In addition there are quite a few charitable organizations within and without the catholic church. In theory you have free (sort of) care in Vietnam but you basically have to pay a bribe to be treated. Sorry to be so contentious but what you are saying just doesn’t reflect the reality of these countries.

Those tourists won’t help you in the rural areas, because there are no tourists there. Malnutrition rate: Thailand: 3 Philippines 3 Vietnam: 1 Vietnam also has almost no unemployment, about Being poor in the Philippines really, really sucks. For one thing, they still have a semi-feudal rural economy, so you are basically a serf for some feudal lord. Plus they have some of the worst shantytowns on the planet. Thailand is variable. They recently had a socialist oriented leader in power named Thaksin. He was ousted in a rightwing military coup led by bourgeois forces in Bangkok. His followers are poor rural Thais in the Northeast who speak a language called Isan. The recent street fighting between the Red Shirts (socialist followers of Thaksin) and yellow shirts (Bangkok bourgeois followers of the coup leaders) that led to deaths and injuries in the capital was really just class war, though the capitalist press never told you that. Under Thaksin, Thailand had a pro-people leader. Vietnam, whatever its problems, has a pro-people government. The Philippines has never had one, which is why the National People’s Army (NPA) exists.

Another Neoclassical Lie: Neoliberal Economics is the Best Way To Help the Poor

Also, the poor are poor for a reason. If you follow your liberation theology and gather resources for the poor through redistribution you’re shrinking the area of the pie from which everyone draws resources. Capitalists lose, some of the poor who become powerful in the new redistribution (i.e. community organizers and feminists) gain power, the majority of the masses lose as well because they aren’t smart enough to create jobs for themselves or make their own way without someone providing a job and capital for them to work with. You want egalitarianism, but that comes at the expense of quality of life. So that everyone is equal you are willing to accept that everyone is equally poor. This becomes an epistemological battle in that we are pitting the idea of socialism or social democracy against a relatively free economic model. People can choose for themselves what they want, and it seems that they usually choose economic freedom over egalitarianism.

In many social democracies, people are certainly not equally poor, and most Communist countries wiped out poverty, even if they only were able to provide a relatively low standard of living and the model bogs down and collapses over a period of some decades. Surveys the world over show that most people want some kind of socialism. There are few exceptions, though the US may be one of them. Socialist, populist, progressive or Left parties rule almost the entire globe. Rightwing parties are in the minority or out of power in most places. The few places where they have power (the US, Chile, Colombia, Philippines, Thailand, the Baltics) they are busy destroying the country, just like they always do. That’s one of your neoclassical lies. I just showed earlier how 12 of the 13 richest countries on Earth are all social democracies. Also many wealthy countries have low to very low Gini coefficients. Go to a place like Sweden, and you will be amazed at how many small businesses there are. Literally one on every corner. The masses don’t lose. When you redistribute wealth, as long as you do not do so too radically, the masses gain tremendously in wealth, power, resources, benefits and rights. All neoclassical economics ever does is shift wealth from the bottom 70-8 The economies that are really kicking ass now are heavily socialist economies like Russia and China (state capitalist, corporatist or mixed economies). The economies that weathered the latest Capitalist Depression best used stimulus spending to come out of it and had heavy state intervention in the banking system. The ones that got fucked worst of all had followed neoclassical economics in their banks to the greatest extent (Iceland) or following neoclassical economics, used austerity instead of stimulus to deal with the slump (Baltics and Ireland) got fucked worst of all. Laissez faire is refuted. Neoclassical economics doesn’t work. It causes wild booms and busts and leads to regular economic recessions and depressions. It’s only good for rich people because the purpose of it is class war and wealth transfer.

Vote Republican? Rather Die

Shawn encourages me to vote against illegal immigration.

I encourage you, Robert, and all others to vote for the candidate opposing illegal immigration (and ideally massive immigration in general). This should be your issue because it is itself economics and a pro-poor vote. Yes, this means you could find yourself voting Republican. I just did!Disclaimer: I have voted for the D’s, R’s, and I’s in the past. Find me an anti-immigration D and I will vote for her.

Never! I will never vote for a Republican. I’m a progressive person. The only way I would ever vote for a Republican is if the Republican was more progressive than the Democrat. I don’t like illegals, but the rest of the Republican agenda is worthless. I’m a liberal like my late father. He never voted Republican in his life. I’m the same way. I’d rather die than vote Republican even one time. I agree with the Republican candidates on illegal immigration, but here in California, even the Republicans are typically pro-illegal. I disagree with Democrats in general on illegals, but that’s not enough to make me switch parties. Sorry. Illegal immigration is one of the few things that I am rightwing on. Opposing illegals will be the only way that these Republicans are for the poor. The whole rest of their project will harm the poor. My politics is the same as that of Liberation Theologists – advancing the interests of the poor, low income and middle class in the US. For that, it’s always necessary to vote Democrat and against Republicans, because Democrats are always more for the poor, low income and middle class than Republicans are. If I can’t stand the Democrat and I know he’s going to win anyway, I will throw my vote away and vote Peace and Freedom or Green. I’ve been told that as a radical, I should never vote Democrat. Instead I should throw my vote away on some stupid Left 3rd party or sect. Sorry, homey don’t play that. The Tea Partiers are right in a way. Most Left radicals in the US – socialists, Communists, etc – vote Democrat. Many are even active in Democratic Party politics in a wing of the party called the left wing of the Democratic Party. However, most Democrats are not actually radicals. But I think quite a few Democrats would actually support social democracy, so many to most of them are may well be socialists in that sense. But the deep structure of the party – the DNC wing that actually elects candidate, Obama, Clinton and the rest – are even opposed to social democracy, so it’s not right to call them socialists.

Blast from the Past – 1978!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN3MGN899yE&feature=related] LOL! Captain Kirk “singing” Elton John’s Rocket Man with corny lounge muzak playing in the background. Live at the Sci-Fi Awards. Good performance, Captain! I see he’s already wearing a toupee I think. You would not believe how many actors, TV anchors and Congressman are not wearing their real hair on their heads.

Recent Congressional Polls Are All Over the Place

The Newsweek poll on November 21, which showed Democrats with a 4 point lead in the generic Congressional ballot, has been dismissed by reasonable folks at the great Daily Kos site as an outlier. That might be reasonable except that we now have 2 more polls in the same territory in the past few days. All of these polls showing Democrats closing the gap have come in the past few days. The Quinnipac Poll showed Democrats up by 4 points. Another poll just released showed a dead heat in the generic race. None of this makes much sense. One poll could be an outlier, but 3 polls is not an outlier. Forget it. No they are not. Something is wrong. On the other hand, polls continue to come in showing Republicans ahead. Two polls have them up by 4-6 points and another has them up by 12.5 points. Clearly the polls are all over the place and don’t make a lot of sense. The argument that the polls showing Democrats ahead are polling cell phone only users is not valid. Many of the standard polls are also polling cell phone users, but it’s hard to poll cell phone only users. Rasmussen does not call cell phones, so his polls always skew Republican. The Newsweek poll had a heavy weighting of cell phone users at 3 The Gallup poll which has Republicans up by 12.5 seems wrong. It uses a strange weighting for non-White non-Black showing them voting 2-1 for Republicans. Gallup is run by Republicans. Non-White, non-Black means Hispanics and Asians. Hispanics will vote 7 Anyway, looking over recent polls, let us compute the median: Democrat +4 Democrat +4 Tie Republican +4 Republican +6 Republican +12.5 The median will be somewhere between tie and Republican +4. So based on this, it is reasonable to assume that polls show Republicans up by 2 points. Averaging the results will look better for Republicans due to the inclusion of the Gallup outlier. The average should give us Republicans up by 7 points. The median seems best due to the distortions of the Gallup poll. A reasonable assumption shows that polls in the last 11 days have Republicans up by 2 points. Most of the massacre rhetoric came from a very wide enthusiasm gap of 15 points in favor of Republicans. However, that has collapsed in recent days and polls now show Republicans with a 2 point advantage in enthusiasm. Cell phones are a real problem. Polling cell phones increases the cost of the poll by 3X, so it’s often not done. Plus no one seems to know many to call. Overall, the best polling in recent days shows that Republicans may well pick up seats, but the claims of a wipeout are much overstated.

Rocketbutt Jumps into a Lake

Rocket Butt, naked, takes off over a lake. He has the best-selling show on the lake, but I wonder if he'll ever know? Is there life on Mars? Perhaps he will soon find out.
It’s the freakiest show! EJ and I wrote a song about Rocketbutt. Hope you like it! She packed my ass last night pre-flight Zero hour nine a.m. And my ass’ll be high as a kite by then I miss the earth so much I miss my wife It’s lonely out in space On such a timeless flight And I think it’s gonna be a long long time Till touch down brings me round again to find I’m not the man they think I am at home Oh no no no I’m a rocket butt Rocket butt burning out his ass up here alone Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids In fact it’s cold as hell And there’s no one there to raise them if you did And all this science I don’t understand It’s just my job five days a week A rocket butt, a rocket butt And I think it’s gonna be a long long time…