Robert Lindsay Through the Years

This is the photo you are all familiar with. Taken in the 2000’s.

Let’s look at some other photos from the 2000’s.

In this one I look like I’m stoned.

Another one from the 2000’s.

I think I look kind of conceited in this pic, but I don’t care. I am vain, so what, what of it?

Some emotions.

Smile for the camera.

Hamming it up.

Big kiss for all my friends, but especially for my enemies.

More hamming.

Neener neener.

More recent photos.

Trying to be nice.

From the same session.

Hi everyone.

One from the old days.

College graduation, Long Beach, California, 1982, age 23. Looks something like the oldest son on the Brady Bunch, eh?

One more from the real old days.

From the hippie era, 1978, age 20, junior college graduation, Huntington Beach, California. Most people nowadays think that hair looks hilarious, but back then, this look was tres cool. My Dad totally hated that hair, and he used to threaten to punch me out unless I cut it. He also kept saying that I looked like some actress called Veronica Lake. To him, born in 1921, long hair meant you were queer, but to us, long hair was a way to get the chicks. I kept telling my father that, but he always acted like that was insane!

Ms. Lake for comparison purposes, 1940’s.

The famous Veronica Lake, known for her curly hair. The “Veronica Lake” hairstyle came back a few years ago, in 2007.

Th-th-th-th-th that’s all folks.

Fascism Deepens In Israel

Famous Israeli activist Uri Avnery, incredibly, was attacked while getting into a taxi cab with his wife as he left a demonstration. 12 rightist thugs attacked him in the cab and tried to drag him out of the vehicle he had gotten into with his wife, probably to beat him up. Earlier at the rally, a rightwinger throw a smoke bomb into the middle of the Earth, apparently trying to cause panic and make the demonstrators stampede and trample each other, causing injury or death. The demonstrators did not fall for it.

Columns by Leftwing opposition writers like Amira Haas in Haaretz regularly attract dozens of comments openly accusing her of treason and supporting the enemy.

In the wake of the flotilla attack, an Arab MP in Parliament received many death threats and had to be given police protection.

Neve Gordon, another activist, is victim of a campaign to get her fired from her university teaching job. A Facebook page calling for her firing now has 1,000 members.

This is getting really bad. Even peaceful opposition to the Rightist regime is becoming outright dangerous. That’s the hallmark of a fascist regime.

Indian State Goes Officially Fascist

The Indian state has now gone officially fascist in the wake of the Operation Green Hunt against the Maoists. Many unarmed opposition movements and leaders, who apparently have nothing whatsoever to do with the armed Maoist movement, are being called “Maoists” and arrested on ridiculous charges.

One wonders exactly what the laws are on this matter? Supporters of this shit government, tell me, what exactly is legal and what exactly is illegal in terms of these Maoists? Surely if you are a member of their armed force, that is illegal. If you are a member of the CPI-Maoist political party, that is illegal too.

What else is illegal? If you talk to a Maoist, is that illegal? What if you interview one? What if you let them stay in your village? What if you say, “I like these Maoists and I support them.” Is that illegal? It’s almost impossible to tell what is legal and what is illegal anymore in this conflict.

India is going to turn into another shit death squad terror state like (past or present) Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Panama, Philippines, Indonesia, Russia and Turkey.

Arundhati Roy is an outspoken Leftist from India who has written some penetrating articles on the Maoists there. Does she support them? Well, I suppose so, though she’s rather coy about it. Is that illegal? Who the Hell knows!

The Indian state is now going after Roy, an acclaimed author, with full force. State-sponsored demonstrators appeared outside her home throwing rocks. Two politicians in Chattisargh state has issued complaints for her arrest on charges of “supporting the Maoists.” A top Hindu fascist BJP politician in Chattisargh called for Roy to be shot on sight. The head of the Salwa Judum death squads called for legal action to be taken against Roy.

A Couple of Bad Approaches for Meeting Women, With Suggestions for Better Ones

I have a friend who has Social Phobia. He’s had it his whole life, and it’s so bad that he is actually on disability for it. It’s gotten better lately. He also has OCD, and I think he has other anxiety stuff going on. Bottom line, he has some issues dealing with chicks. He’s also young, horny as Hell, and trying to get laid without tremendous success like a lot of guys nowadays.

He asked me recently for a couple of ideas about meeting women.

1. “What about going into a bar, acting like you’re better than the place, and ordering a beer, but acting a little aloof? This is what Tom Leykis says to do.”

2. “What about getting some chick I know to be near me in a pubic place, like a bar, then she goes over and starts talking to some other chicks, and I ask her beforehand to say stuff about me like, “Look at that hot guy? Isn’t he cute?”

1. I don’t think that this is going to work. It sounds too much like Asshole Game to me. Of course I have done this, many times, but I learned from experience. You have to be friendly. People don’t really like those who act like they are better than everyone else.

Here is the mindset, and yeah I often do walk around like this. “I am King of the Fuckin’ World, man!” That’s the Confidence Mindset.

I got this mindset from many years of success with women, often with hot chicks. I’ve literally dated scores of hot chicks of all ages over a lifetime. I suspect the success was necessary for the development of the mindset. Even though I have OCD, I am still able to go into this mindset because I lived it for many years. I just go back into my old self, plug into it, and there I am.

It may be difficult to create this mindset out of whole cloth. I’m not sure if you can fake it and get that mindset without all those great successes that created it for me. Maybe you can, I don’t know.

Thing is, when you get into that mindset, there is a tendency to look down on all the normal guys who are just regular dudes walking about. There’s a tendency to think a lot of them are nerds, geeks, dorks, etc. You look at guys who are fat, old, ugly, awkward, whatever, and you look down on them a bit. It’s a side-effect of the confidence thing, and it goes with it.

Well, then I try to get outside of that. I look at some regular guy and try to get under him. I tell myself bullshit like, “This guy is way better than me. I’m nothing, I’m a loser.” I also try to find good things about the guy and focus on that. “Oh wow man, this guy is so cool. What a winner! I like this dude!”

Stuff like that. It waters down the Confidence thing (which is really kind of a strutting, swaggering bastard thing) nicely, but there’s no side effects, because I really don’t believe it.

It’s really necessary to deal with other guys on as much of a one to one level as you can.

When you walk into a bar like you are better than the place, you are insulting everyone. All the guys there, maybe even the chicks there, the owner. It’s a form of Asshole Game. Does it work? I have no idea, but I would avoid it. If I did that, I think most people in the bar would think I’m an asshole and not want to deal with me.

Best way to walk into a bar is like, “Wow! What a cool place! I am right at home!” With me, it’s like, “I’m King of the World, and this is just the place for Him!” You compliment the bar, the guys in it, the chicks there, the owner, everyone. You want to get along with people, not alienate them.

I do this even in bars that I actually think are lame or sleazy. There’s a Hispanic bar I go to sometimes. It’s basically a dive, and it’s full of illegal aliens speaking Spanish. On weekends, there are strippers who barely have a thing on. There are also plenty of gangbanger looking types, Hispanic and Black. Wild fights break out from time to time. The place is a bit dangerous. You might as well be in fuckin’ Tijuana.

Anyway, I go in there like this is the best bar in the world! I just adopt the persona of the guys in there. I turn into a Mexican in Mexico myself. I even speak Spanish! I’m actually this Noam Chomsky academic type, but I go into full macho working class hardass in that place. I go into gangbanger mode if there are bangers around. Heck, I even have a big N on my sneakers. For Norteno! Yep, I live in a Norteno hood, and my homies are Northerners.

I also try to go into the macho thing so I don’t get my ass kicked. For some reason unknown to me, it’s common for people to think I’m gay or bi. I’m not, but it can be an issue. So in that dive, I really get out of that and into macho Mexican hardass as much as possible. You do this by putting a mindset into your mind and watching your body language. I don’t want to get my ass kicked by a bunch of Mexicans for “being a fag.” No thanks.

I was doing that in that bar a while back and the bartender Hispanic chick (35 years old) started talking to me in front of everyone. She was getting people to sign some petition about “immigrants” to the federal government. Probably telling to leave illegals alone. She said, in front of everyone, really loud so everyone could hear, “I want you to come over to my house and sign the petition!” Then she made this little flourish with her body.

I looked at her like, “OK, you just asked me to come over. That’s sort of boring. I mean, chicks I barely know invite me over all the time. So you’re the new one. OK, yawn.”

So I asked her if she wanted to give me her address or her #. She gave me her #. The other guys at the bar were like, “Fuck, that chick just basically told that guy to come over to her house!” I acted like getting the number was the easiest thing on Earth, like I get dozens of chicks’ phone numbers every day. What’s one more? Big deal. I’ll see if can work her in!

The other Mexicans crowded around me and stayed with me for a couple hours, even buying me drinks. I got to know them. I didn’t act like I was better than them for getting the #. That won’t go over.

Don’t act like you are better than the joint. Maybe it works, I dunno. But I would not do it.

2. Get some chick to say good stuff about you. Well, that’s interesting, but I would not do it. It’s so obviously deceitful, and plus to me it implies I am totally lame and need to resort to this outrageously dishonest thing to get chicks. Maybe it’s true, maybe I do need to sink that low, I have no idea. But I won’t do it. After all, I’m King of the World! King of the World doesn’t do sleazy shit like that! Why should he? I mean, chicks are maybe already saying that about me anyway, right?

Does it work? No idea. Maybe it does. It almost strikes as Asshole Game, it’s so dishonest. Me? I would be afraid of backfire. I would be afraid that the woman I put up to it would turn on me and tell the other chicks that I had put her up to that. This might humiliate me and make me a laughing stock. The idea behind #2 is that if one chick likes you, the others all think you’re interesting too. Well of course.

For instance, I do start talking to hot strangers. Or I start conversations with hot chicks at the cash register. I have noticed that when I do this and it goes over halfway decently, most of the other women in the vicinity start looking at me. “He’s talking to that hottie! Look at him! Does she know him? He’s got some balls!” I haven’t the faintest idea what they are thinking, but it may be along those lines.

Women like guys who other chicks like. If no chicks like you, then other new ones will like you either. It takes women to get women. Etc.

Idiot Tries to Lift Half-Ton Barbel, Nearly Dies

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c99fKwte_-4&feature=player_embedded]

This video is supposed to be gross, sick and horrible, but I was laughing the whole time.

Some meathead fool tries to lift a 1000 pound barbel. I guess he sort of succeeds, I mean he’s able to hold it. Then it crushes him down towards the floor and he pukes all over the head judge (LOL!). Then they help him put him back on the bar. After that he almost dies. I mean he passes out (Lulz!).

Unfortunately, he doesn’t die. I was really hoping this guy would die, because I like to see idiots get killed. Serves em right! I mean, if you do that, you’re dumber than a housepet. A housepet is generally terrified of anything that has like a

Sadly, he doesn’t die, he just passes out. When he finally comes to, they help him to his feet. Then all the other meatheads give him a big cheer, too bad not a Bronx one. What they are cheering for I have no idea. For puking halfway across a room and aiming right at the ump’s face? That took balls, admit it. For passing out on the floor in front of chicks? I hope not. For not dying even though he deserves to? I guess.

Let me tell you something, Logan Lacy. If I were God, I would have killed you just for even thinking about tempting me with this stunt!

Hang on a sec. I have God on the phone:

“Do not fuck with me, Logan Lacy, you meathead punk! I kill 10,000’s of people every day who don’t even deserve it. Don’t mock me, buddy! Don’t even think about it! You thought this was nasty? Hell, I was being nice! You don’t even want to deal with me when I’m in a bad mood, buddy!”

To All My Beloved Enemies

That does it. I’m burning all my hate bridges. Life’s too short to hate, and hate is acid burning etches in our love-souls. You may choose to hate, hate, hate, all you will, but I will only love you in return. I will absorb your hate, transform into blissfulness, and shoot it back at you with a gigantic cosmic love-dart to poison your hate-hearts with love. Haha! Cosmic turnabout is fair play, haters! Hate on all you will, in this part of the universe, we know nothing but the endless shining bright light of Godly love.

I love you:

…………../´¯/) …………./¯..// …………/….// ……/´¯/’…’/´¯¯’)¸ …/’/…/…./……./¨¯\ .(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’) ..\……………..’……/ …’\……………. _.·´ …..\……………( ……\……………\

Either way, enemies, I just want to say I LOVE YOU. I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU!

The world’s full of love, and you and I, enemies, are sharing a bit of the luscious pie. That you may savor the heartfelt joy, oh enemies, and let it flow in and out of your bones, in the most beautiful way, for the deathless eternity of blissfulness!

The Strange Case of Björk

Björk, the most Asiatic looking North European I have even seen, barring the Lapps.

That’s not the only photo of her. Lapps are the most ancient Caucasians of Europe. They do have a bit of Asian in them, but not much (

I much better guess is that Björk is part Inuit from Greenland. Iceland is very close to the Inuit-populated land of Greenland, with close ties to other Inuit regions in Canada. She’s obviously got some Inuit genes somewhere in her background.

I have heard some say that some far north Scandinavians have Asiatic eyes though they are fully Caucasian due to protective effects eyefolds have on the eyes from the glare of the sun shining on the snow. I think that’s dubious until proven otherwise. Most Norwegians and Swedes don’t look very Asiatic.

Best guess is she has an Inuit ancestor back there somewhere.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned she’s White.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

The Pakistan-Peruvian Axis, Part 2

I was listening to some music on the road today. For a long time, I thought I was listening to music from India. Normally, I hate that stuff, but this particular Indian music I could listen to. I got closer to town and now it sounded like Arab music. When I got into town, I started listening to the lyrics and I thought I heard Spanish words over and over. But it didn’t make sense. Spanish words with Arab or Indian music? Then now and then they would all say, “Ole!” like they were at a bullfight. Huh? Then the announcer came on. I was intrigued.

It was Miguel Agujetas, and the music was Flamenco music from Spain. I’ve never heard this music before. It’s the music of the Andalucian Gypsies, with roots in Gypsy, Moorish (North African), Byzantine (Middle Eastern Greek) and Sephardic (Mediterranean Jews) music. As you can see, there is a general Mediterranean and Middle Eastern or Arab flavor to this music. But the roots of Gypsy music are in music from India, so Indian culture has flowed into the Mediterranean region too through the Gypsies.

This is what I meant by the Pakistan-Peruvian Axis of Arabized peoples. The Andalucian Spaniards are an Arabized people. To the extent that Flamenco music is popular in Latin America (they play it in Southern Brazil and Argentina), these parts of Latin America are also Arabized. Keep in mind that this is the White part of Latin America, but with a heavy White Med flavor full of Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and even Arabs. The flamenco music is from the Iberian element.

Waiting For Women to Approach You is Like Waiting for Godot

A commenter asks why women don’t approach us instead of us approaching them. Well, sometimes it may in fact occur, but it doesn’t very often. If we wait around for women to approach you, we’ll all die virgins.

Women are not going to approach you, at least not very much. They may smile at you or give you some sort of signal that they are approachable, but then we need to do all the work. Just assume that women are never going to approach you, basically, ever. OK?

Now that we have that down, we have to approach the women. We are either going to be idiots and act shy and not talk to them, or we are going to grow a pair and walk up to them and say some stuff.

It may be difficult if you are a reserved person. My Mom is a normal person, but she is sort of shy. I know some other normal but shy people. They are amazed that I walk right up to total strangers and start talking to them. They tell me that they could never do that.

Thing is, that is what you are going to have to do if you want to meet women. You are going to have to start talking to total fucking strangers. It’s not as bad as it seems. You can practice in stores, shops and restaurants with the help. You have to talk to them, and you can easily make a bit of conversation. Talk to the checker in line when you buy your stuff.

If she’s a bitch, fine, just blow the bitch off! So what, so she’s a bitch, big deal. Bitches are like motes of dust, they’re floating around us all the time, and they’re a dime a dozen.*

Thing is, you are going to have to get used to getting knocked down and blown off a lot, but so what, they’re just silly bitches, who cares what they think anyway? Just say fuck her, and go talk to some other one instead.

*This may seem a cold-hearted and misogynistic approach to take, but if you put women on a pedestal and adore them with every inch of your sensitive soul, you’re going to be terribly hurt when they pull the typical stuff that women do to us all day every day if we give them half a chance.

Putting women on an adoration pedestal is a recipe for getting your feelings totally hurt, and turning into a permanently shy around women type. It seems cruel to adopt this apparently misogynistic approach, but that’s the only way you can keep approaching female strangers all the time without getting your soul caved in.

Pedobear Flees Poland!

Pedobear says, “I’m out of here!” He just crossed the border into Germany the day before the law came into effect.

Most recent photo of Pedobear. After fleeing Poland, he spied on this young innocent German girl in her home! Parents watch out! Um, WordPress, this photo is ok, right?

Whew! That was close!

Earlier the same day, he chased a young girl down the train tracks on the Poland-Germany border! Kids be careful! Please I mean it!

Social Skills and How to Approach Women, Even Attractive to Beautiful Women

I ought to do some pieces on this since I know some guys who have a terrible time talking to women of any type, much less attractive ones. I also know some other guys who confess to me that they are social retards.

I’m not the greatest social actor of them all either, but I am an avid student of the subject, lifelong. I figure with each new day, I am going to learn some new things about social skills, because after all, it’s a lifelong learning experience.

The first thing that I would say is to not ask women for advice about this stuff, because most of them are seriously full of shit. They will just say retarded things like, “Don’t worry about it,” “You think about it too much,” “Just act like yourself,” “It doesn’t matter,” or other unhelpful crap. A lot of women act like there are no such thing as social rules and will tell you you are analyzing things too much.

Another bad place to ask for advice about this stuff is from other other guys. Most guys will tell you there’s nothing to it and that they are awesome social actors. They will tell you to quit worrying about it, and just go for it. I consider that bad advice.

My philosophy is that no one ever got in trouble for something that they didn’t say.

The guys who are derided as creeps, weirdos, dangerous, freaks, social retards, losers, etc. are hardly the guys who are sitting back consciously thinking of all social situations and trying to figure out exactly how to act and what to say in each situation. If someone doing that gets accused of being a weirdo, I think it’s ridiculous.

Dangerous guys are dangerous. I don’t know much about them since I’m not one, but I assume they are either sociopaths or social idiots.

Sociopaths don’t very much give a flying fuck what you think about anything they do. They hardly care how they come across.

The problem with social idiots is not excessive analysis. It’s that they leap into situations when they should not and say the wrong things. They’re out of control and clueless.

When I’m out in public places with strangers or even folks that I know somewhat well as casual acquaintances, I am looking around the room all time, checking everyone out and trying to read them. I’m also thinking about my own stuff, but at the same time, I am trying to figure out where everyone else is at.

This is what I am trying to figure out about most of the people in the vicinity: Is this person approachable to me?

People either are or are not approachable.

The people who don’t seem approachable, just don’t deal with them. Write them off. Don’t talk to them unless you have to. Don’t even look at them that much. But you can check back periodically to see if they are still unapproachable. It works like this: “Last time I checked on you, you were unapproachable. So what’s up now? Are you still unapproachable? Yes or no?”

Chances are most of the folks in the room, the strangers, are not that approachable. That’s OK. It’s not the end of the world. If there’s even one person in the room who is going to talk to you and be halfway friendly, it’s a great experience being in that place! Forget the 30 who don’t want to talk. Focus on those who do.

Another thing you can do is look around, observe people, and try to figure out what’s going on with them. I try to figure out race, ethnicity, age, income status, upwardly or downwardly mobile, education level, type of social network they are involved in, married or not married, boyfriend or no boyfriend, kids or no kids. All sorts of stuff.

There are other things you want to try to figure out. Personality style. Nice person or jerk. Social status – alpha, beta, omega. Wimpiness, machoness, dominance or submissiveness levels. Mood: happy, sad, angry, hopeless, defeated? Self-esteem levels: high, low, average. You can also check out who people are with and try to put together a story about that.

Act like you are writing a biography about the people in the room and try to put together as much of a little life story about them in your mind as possible. In this way, you will start to understand them, and it will be easier to talk to them.

For instance, the other day I was in back of three Hispanic women in line. One was with a girl, obviously a young daughter. None had rings. Another was outside with a young daughter. I watched and smiled but didn’t say anything. Why should I? What the Hell are you supposed to say to a woman, probably married, out with the girls, and with a young daughter? Nowadays they are hardly approachable with all the Pedo Hysteria.

I was watching them all the time, but I didn’t get any approachable vibes. One woman had a twisted bra strap on her back. I thought about mentioning it, but decided against it. If she gave off approachable vibes, I might have mentioned the bra strap. But such a comment can often be misconstrued from a stranger as sexual.

I look around to see if women are married or not. If she has that big fat wedding ring on their left finger, why talk to her? What the Hell for? She’s married, has a husband who might be really mean, and why should she talk to you anyway? Married women deserve extra distance, but sometimes you can talk to them if they give off approachable vibes. The main thing is to avoid sexual talk. For Chrissake, she’s married! Leave her alone.

At my age, it’s quite hard to talk to young women, especially attractive ones. I used to walk up and talk to them all the time though when I was younger. Now they mostly act like they don’t even want me to say hi to them. I guess it’s an age thing. That’s fine, in that case, I won’t even say hi, no problem.

But there’s a problem here. Young women always think I’m trying to fuck them. Hardly. A lot of times I’m just making conversation. Truth is we older guys are pretty harmless to these hot young chicks. They should talk to us more. We’re sort of like their gay friends, but not quite.

Personally, I’m quite unlikely to jump on some young woman no matter how friendly she is. If she’s worried about guys jumping her bones and coming on to her, look to the guys her own age for that. They’re also the violent ones who are likely to rape and kill her too. We older guys are quite non-violent.

Truth is, women don’t make much sense in the best of times. It’s pretty much hit or miss talking to women. If you fuck up, so what! If you’re a chronic fuckup, so what again! If you clam up and quit talking, almost no one is ever going to talk to you. Bottom line is you’ve got to try.

A few weeks ago, I was in an eatery dealing with my food item with some condiments. A really hot young babe came up to me and frankly started invading my space too much. That’s generally a good sign. I made some more room for her and watched her as she added stuff to her item. Then I asked her what she ordered, then what she was putting in it. She was very friendly, and it was a great experience. Talking to a friendly hot chick, even for a few seconds, ought to make any guy’s day!*

One thing I have noticed is that young women are like us older guys. We older guys look at young women, even underage girls, but we figure either we can’t touch or we don’t stand a chance with them.

I have noticed that while most young women act like they don’t care about me, some of them check me out, even obviously, even all the way to staring at me in obviously sexual ways. But then when I try to talk to them, they act like, “I don’t want to talk to you.”

What’s going on here is a young chick in fantasy world. A young woman is checking out a much older guy who she’s not really interested in (due to age probably). But she likes to look at him because he’s sexy. When he comes up to talk to her, she blows him off because she’s really not interested. She wants to look, not touch, or even get to know him.

That’s quite all right. Just make a note of that. Note her as a looker who only wants voyeurism, and move on. Quit pursuing her, and move on to other targets.

Keep track of your dealings with women you see on a regular basis. What happened the last time you talked to this chick? What was it like? Was it good or bad? If it was bad, hold back and watch your guard around her. She’s given you a stop sign, and you need to honor that. But check her out to see if she is going to put up the green light again. If it was good, see if it’s going to be good this time too. She might have been approachable and nice last time, but this time she’s holding up the stop sign. Make a note of it, and don’t bug her.

A conversation with a woman is like a dance. The younger and more beautiful they are, they harder it is to dance with them.

Say something, see how she reacts, look around to see how others react, then listen for her response. You’re constantly adjusting and recalibrating the conversation based on the feedback you are getting from her. She will also be giving off many non-verbal signals and communications, and it helps to read those and react back to them as quickly as possible. It’s not as hard as you think if you’re an intelligent person. If you say something wrong, no problem, just drop it or shift the conversation and try to keep it going.

I don’t believe there are any master social actors, unless you’re a rock star or something. I bet even social actors fuck up all the time. Young women, especially beautiful women, can be real bitches. They have men after them all the time, and you’re a stranger. Why the Hell should she talk to you?

If you’re walking up to young beautiful female strangers and trying to talk to them, expect to get blown off a lot. It’s not a sign you’re loser, it’s only to be expected. When it happens, just think, “OK, fine, fuck you bitch, no problem, I’m moving on and I won’t talk to you again. No hard feelings.”

Don’t get your feelings hurt, and don’t let women inhibit you.

Women were put on this Earth for various purposes. One of those purposes was to constantly try to make men feel guilty about the fact that we want to fuck them. There’s nothing to apologize about. You’re a Sexual Liberationist, a heterosexual, 10

*I’m really leery about talking about personal experiences on here because I’m afraid locals may read this site and get pissed.

More on the Pakistan-Peruvian Axis

More on what I call the Peru-Pakistan Axis. The Peru-Pakistan Axis is a region of Arabized peoples who have been culturally Arabized due to Arab influence. It includes non-Arab nations and regions like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, the Caucasus, Turkey, the Christian Arabs, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Southern Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, especially the parts not heavily Africanized. From The Study of Racialism site:

A long time ago, I dated a girl whose parents were from Reggio di Calabria – which is right at the tip of the toe of the boot in Italy. A few years later, when I was studying French, I read Née en France – Histoire D’une Jeune Beur by Aïcha Benaïssa. As I read that book, I realized I was imagining the author’s family as family of the girl I dated.

The cultural similarities were very strong, with the the domination of women by the family, the belief in the “evil eye” and spells, and the controlling father who in turn fears his own mother, the separation of the women and the men, the older women trying to play matchmaker, the elevation of female purity/virginity etc.

One can see how there is an underlying common culture which has existed probably since pre-Roman times that has simply had Islam/Christianity superimposed upon it.

Idiot Defends Idiocy

Here.

Catholicism is probably the only religion where the holy men are required to be celibate. If you can think of another one, let me know. As the Orthodox consider themselves the true and pure Catholics or Christians, it follows that the Orthodox consider priestly celibacy to be some sort of crazy deviationism. Orthodox priests can marry, and as the original Christian Church was Orthodox, it follows that allowing priests to marry is right within the proper traditions of Christianity.

The reason for this is obscure and I’m not sure of the roots of it, but it was instituted at some time after the split between Rome and Constantinople.

It’s often said that priestly celibacy is the reason priests molest kids so much. The implication is that if guys are not given a healthy sexual outlet, as in a woman to fuck, they will go towards other things like kids. So guys who are not getting any pussy are at risk of child molesting.

I don’t agree that that’s the case.

Anyway, there are tons of priests out there messing around with women, trust me. What’s really going on here is that the priestly celibacy requirement means that you end up with a bunch of guys as priests who don’t care if they never fuck another woman or not.

That is, they have no use for normal sexual relations with women. What kind of men have no use for sexual relations with women? Guys who are not attracted to adult females.

Homosexual men, for one, and Andrew Greeley, a popular author and former priest, estimated that 1/3 of Catholic priests are gay. AIDS has actually hit the priesthood very hard, and many priests have died of it already, though you don’t read about it much. Catholic seminaries are said to be hotbeds of male homosexuality.

There’s not that much homosexuality in convents and monasteries as that is a preselected group, and there are not that many of them anyway.

It’s true that other religions have celibate monks and nuns. In Thailand, for instance, it is quite common for young men aged 18-21 or so to go off and join a monastery and be celibate for a couple of years. It’s kind of like going in the army, and seems to be good for them. Most only do it for a couple of years, then come out, marry and have normal lives.

In the Middle Ages, there used to be tunnels between nunneries and monasteries where the priests and nuns could meet and have sex with each other.

The other type of guy who has no use for sex with women is a pedophile or hebephile, since they are attracted to teens and especially children instead of adults of either sex.

So, it’s true that the celibacy requirement is the cause of a lot of the priest child abuse, but not in the way that you normally think.

It’s often said by dogmatic sexual liberationists that priestly celibacy will harm a man even after he comes out of it.

Not true. Most men like to fuck.

The argument makes no sense. If you’ve been on starvation rations for years, are you going to come out of it hating to eat a square meal? Forget it. Most people who have gone through that live for nothing more than a good square meal every day – that’s all they want out life to be happy.

Studies of ex-priests have shown that years of celibacy did not harm them. They come out of the priesthood, marry and go on to live normal, healthy, sexually well-adjusted married lives.

The whole argument is silly, but it was common in the 1970’s among what I call Sexual Liberationist Fascists. Among these folks, lack of sex, celibacy or virginity was regarded as a horrendous sin similar to the way child molesters are seen these days.

Say what you want about chastity, but it’s hardly a sin. True Sexual Liberation, what I preach, means total freedom about sex. You can have sex with any consenting adult you want to. With your own sex, with the opposite sex, with both, or with no one. As frequently or infrequently as possible and with as many or as few partners as you wish. Celibacy is one of the options available in a Sexually Liberated world. Some people actually prefer it that way, mostly women, but some guys too. You would be surprised.

Celibacy has a long tradition in Hindu India. A Brahmin friend of mine told me that he was celibate until he married at age 32. He felt absolutely no shame in this lifestyle, and he said that this was a typical way for a male Brahmin to live – to be celibate until marriage.

Internet Radio, Video and Blogging as a Form of Media Communism or Socialism of the Media

Actually, I think that blogging is a form of Communism. Under true Communism, the media will be so democratized, that, say, everyone can more or less own his own printing press in a sense. Like back 200 years ago in the US, when a major city may have had hundreds of little papers, often just little broadsheets run off by individuals.

As you can see, monopoloy capitalism has been a catastrophe as far as that goes. Most cities have one paper. Newspapers are becoming more and more consolidated. We only have a few newsmagazines. There are only a few news channels in any city, and they all take the same line. The national news channels are few, and all speak with the same voice. A few owners own almost all of the radio channels, especially the news channels in the US.

In this way, a few capitalists, all quite rightwing, have monopolized all forms of media. The Internet is the ultimate in socialism and democratization of media because the cost to set up and run a blog is basically zero. It’s a serious threat to the media monopolist capitalists, so they are trying to destroy it by getting rid of the open net via the FCC, making it pay to play, creating fast lanes and slow lanes,getting rid of net neutrality, etc.

I also support pirate radio and the ability of anyone to set up a radio channel. This is occurring on the Net as people set up Net Radio. I further support public (socialist) use of the airwaves instead of selling them off to the highest bidder. I would like to see say 600 channels on cable and allow you or me to have our own channels, if we could afford the equipment. That would put you and me on the same footing at CNN and Fox and lower the cost of entry to the market.

Negros in Negroland: A Fascinating Book

I have been spending the past few days thumbing through this amazing 268 page book, written in 1868 by a very racist White Southerner, an unabashed White Supremacist. Keep in mind that back in those days though, White Supremacy was simply normative for nearly all US Whites.

The impetus for this book comes out of the Radical Republican attempts at Reconstruction, which were, it is true, a disaster. Incompetent and uneducated Blacks were put in positions of power over Whites all over the South during this period, with catastrophic effects. It was not unusual to find Black judges, mayors, sheriffs, police officers, supervisors, etc., who could not even read or write. The object here was simply to humiliate the Southern Whites.

Blacks roamed all over the South aimlessly. Many, knowing nothing else, retreated to the plantations where they had been slaves, this time asking for wage labor. Encampments of them on their old plantations were not uncommon. Many others resorted to crime, often stealing only food to eat. There were many shootings by Southern Whites of Black criminals.

The South was in ruins, and Radical policy only added to the chaos. The finest of Southern White manhood was dead, wounded or hobbling around as amputees. Blacks had freedom but had not the faintest idea of what to do with it.

By the time this book was written, 1868, the Ku Klux Klan had just been formed and was beginning already to ride the torched night. Terrorist attacks on Blacks and White Radicals were growing. The North had just fought a horrible war with the South and was full of the dead and hobbling wounded themselves.

The intent of the Radicals was to humiliate the South in the traditional fashion of ancient man in war, exemplified by the Greeks.

It didn’t work.

Violent Southern reaction only produced disgust from an exhausted North. Soon after this book was written, Radical Reconstruction was ended or amended, and most troops had pulled out of the South. The North was washing their hands of the exasperating South and saying the Hell with them, moving on to their own affairs.

In the decades after this book was written, reactionary retrenchment set in, and much of the progressive changes for Southern Blacks were undone. It was not a full retreat to slavery, but it was a reaction back to Jim Crow, merely one step above.

Bearing in mind the era in which this book was written, its thesis is understandable. The author was actually a liberal for his time, as he was a Southerner who had long opposed slavery as a counterproductive and dying institution.

His solution to the Negro Question was Back to Africa, which seems racist to us, but was actually a progressive position at the time, even embraced by Lincoln. The attitude was similar to that of Herzl’s The Jewish State, where he stated that European anti-Semitism was incorrigible due to the behavior of both parties, and a divorce was the only way out.

The Back to Africa crowd had a similar mindset. Black and White in the US were interminably opposed, and Whites would never cut Blacks a square deal.

Back to Palestine in the case of the Jews, back to Africa for the Africans.

The full title of this book is The Negroes in Negroland, the Negroes in America, and Negroes Generally, also, the Several Races of White Men, Considered the Involuntary and Predestined Supplanters of the Black Races, a Compilation by Hinton Rowan Helper, a Rational Republican, Author of The Impending Crisis of the South, Nojoque, and Other Writings in Behalf of a Free and White America.

The book recites a voluminous amount of literature from early White explorers to Africa in an attempt to prove Black (apparently genetic) inferiority. His object in proving Black inferiority is to show what a crime it is to put an inferior race over a superior one in the South, and to show that inferior Blacks will never be able to succeed in America and will only degrade the country.

The various chapters on Africa were selected for the unflattering portrayal of Africans by explorers. I do not think that the explorers were making this stuff up. Indeed, Africans were living in a state of profound and debased barbarian savagery.

But so were many primitive peoples including Polynesians, Melanesians, Papuans and many Amerindian tribes.

The only lesson that can be drawn here is that Hobbes was correct about the barbaric nature of uncivilized man and his short, nasty and brutish lot.

The question arises whether the debasement of Africans was due to their genes or their culture. I suppose the best answer is both. However, reading through this, it immediately becomes clear that no matter how messed up Africa is today, Africa is immensely more civilized than it was 150 year ago. African Americans have gone much further, and do not resemble this picture much at all, although you can see hints of it in many places.

Africans’ genes have not changed much in 150 years, so much of their debased savagery must have been cultural. African Americans have actually changed genetically in the US in addition to undergoing massive cultural change whereby they lost most of their African culture and gained an American one.

One thing that I found interesting what that this very racist man actually quoted many explorers who said that quite a few African women were beautiful, and it would stand to reason that a White man could want one. They even said that African women made good wives. However, they noted that the African woman was coarse and lacked many of the finer civilized nuances of a White woman.

In particular, one notes the casual terror and murderousness of African life, the omnipresence of death and dead bodies, the minimal nature of mourning in which the dead are soon nonchalantly forgotten, the lack of compassion, romantic love and the other finer sentiments.

This got me to thinking as a race realist where US Blacks retain these qualities. In particular, White observers in Africa today remark that Blacks do not seem to have a White understanding of romantic love.

However, I know that Alpha Unit on this site has all of the finer sentiments that any White woman could have, and more so, honestly. The Black commenters on here, male and female, seem to display the finer sentiments of adequately civilized humans.

I was struck on Abagond’s site how similar the educated Black women on there were to White women in their understanding and desire for romantic love. Perhaps it’s a function of IQ or education. At any rate, I do not think that US Blacks in general, or Black women in particular, are in general lacking in the finer sentiments of romantic love vis a vis Whites.

The casualness of death and lack of compassion in these accounts was also striking, as was any lack of a real mourning period after death. This got me to wondering if US Blacks were deficient in this regard.

However, I have seen and heard many older Black mothers on TV and radio who still mourn for their dead or imprisoned children, some years after the fact. I have seen interviews where Black women in their 40’s and 50’s still keep the dead son’s room decorated with his photos and things and weep on camera for his death even 10-20 years after the fact. Although rationally one should argue that humans ought to get over it, extended and passionate mourning is definitely a finer sentiment and a sign of high civilization.

The thievery, wanton dishonesty and shocking amorality of Africans in this book is frightening. Surely, US Blacks are on average less honest, more thieving and more amoral than US Whites.

However, in this book, nearly every African encountered is essentially a laughing, guiltless, casual and amoral thief. That’s not the case with US Blacks. Many are bad, but many others are very honest to a fault, even moreso than you or me. Many US Blacks have highly developed consciences and even strong guilt complexes. I’ve even met some with the ultimate guilt neurosis, OCD.

What I am getting at here is that a lot of this shocking debasement, savagery and barbarianism of early Africa, which might seem at first to be genetic, is largely cultural. I don’t know much about Africans and Caribbeans today, but US Blacks are tremendously more civilized in their personalities and behavior than the Africans of 150 years ago.

The level of barbarism or civilization in a group often has more to do with culture than genes.

When Reactionaries Attack

It used to be that the average person was sane on most things. I will take my mother as your average person. Despite being a Republican for many years, she knew a few truths that were not friendly to capitalists.

That workers and owners are enemies under capitalism. That Communist regimes made great strides in health care, education, feeding and housing the people, and giving everyone a job. That unions are good for workers. That primitive people lived under a communist style culture. That the fencing of the Commons was a horrific nightmare for the average resident of the Britain and Ireland. That the US government gave away tons of free land to the railroads to keep workers from getting it and to proletarianize them and force them to sell their labor.

What we are seeing now is the horror that has resulted from the collapse of Communism. The rightwing has been radically emboldened by this failure, and they are pushing the craziest revisionist madness everywhere. The capitalists never give up, never say uncle, never concede an argument, never use logic and always and everywhere hate the truth. Information and theory is not a search for truth for the capitalist but only a sport or a form of warfare, one that will go on forever as long as they are capitalists alive to keep lying.

Did you know land reform always fails? Did you know that primitive man was actually a capitalist “free agent” negotiating his labor with his equals, like you now, chiefs and kings?

Did you know Mao killed 70 million? Did you know Stalin killed 60-110 million and the USSR period was one entirely of starvation, mass ruin and poverty? Did you know that Stalin and Mao were the biggest murderers of all time, much worse than the rightwingers’ hero, the far rightwing ultimate anti-Commie, Hitler? Did you know that Nazism was a leftwing movement? Did you know that Hitler was a socialist? Did you know that Stalin and Hitler were allies having a lovefest?

Did you know that mass budget cuts during a recession or Depression actually help the economy grow out of the downtown and do not worsen the economic crisis? Did you know that Roosevelt actually worsened the Depression with his massive spending and that Hooverism was actually the cure for the Depression?

Did you know that government health care and education always fail, and that private education and health care is the way to go? Did you know that privatization is the best thing for society in all cases, including especially the workers? Did you know that socialism is bad for workers? Did you know that unions actually harm workers? Did you know that deregulation is best for everyone? Did you know that tariffs and trade protectionism has been proven to be a failure, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary?

Did you know that the more socialist a government, the murderous the state is (RJ Rummel)? Did you know that libertarianism is the savior of the working class, the consumers, the environment, Hell, everything under the sun? Did you know that global warming is a fraud?

It’s really unfortunate that the Right has gotten so emboldened, because now the sane people have to spend all of our time refuting rightwing cant that was buried long ago, and has only been resurrected, zombie-like, from the dead, with the capitalist intellectual rally since 1989.

US White Colllar Workers – The Untimate Traitors to Their Class

These highly paid white collar workers all hate workers, hate unions and love the bosses and love management. This is a problem with all highly paid White collar workers in the US. They’re essentially traitors to their own worker class and work for the management/boss enemy. They don’t realize that the bosses will fuck them in a NY minute given half a chance.

I am convinced that hardly any Americans, much less American workers, actually understand the most basic things about how capitalism works. On the contrary, even the stupidest bosses have the essentials all figured out.

A company makes gross income. After that comes in, it pays expenses.

If there are profits left over, it has a choice to divide them between workers and bosses.

LOL, which one do you think they choose?

They want to give 10

The workers try to negotiate to get a fair share of the profits to share with the company, but the company never wants to give them a thin dime. In fact, even after massive profits come in, the company will typically try to cut wages, benefits and pensions, make working conditions worse, etc. The reason for this is that no amount of profits is ever enough.

As corporations are owned by stockholders, they are required by law to maximize profits come Hell or high water. If a corporation tries to be nice and share some of its income with its workers, the stockholders can fire the CEO and management and replace them with new ones for failing to maximize profits.

Have you ever invested in a corporation on the stock market? I have.

You get this nice big fat prospectus. In there, the company, among other things, brags about how hard they fuck their workers. If they’re non-union, they shout if from the skies! “We are non-union, and we hope to stay this way in the foreseeable future.” This is the company you want to invest in! If you get two prospectuses, one from a company that brags about how it is non-union and another which admits they are union (Must they admit this in a prospectus?) a savvy investor always invests in the non-union company, all other things being equal.

If a corporation gives workers a raise or ups benefits, often its stock actually declines on Wall Street. Yes, it is true! If a company forces workers to take a big wage and benefit hike and worsens working conditions, its stock should see a nice big rise.

Isn’t the stock market a wonderful thing?

All hail capitalism!

Alt Left: Where Helen Thomas is Coming From

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14]

This is the famous video where some rabbi set up Helen Thomas and got her on camera saying that the Jews should get out of Palestine and go back to Europe where they came from.

This comment has been attacked as everything from stupid to anti-Semitic. It’s neither, really.

The comment is best analyzed in seeing where Thomas herself is coming from. Helen Thomas is the child of Lebanese Christian immigrants to the US, specifically Greek Orthodox Arabs. These comments of hers are quite in line with the typical Arab attitude about the Zionist Jews forming their state on the ashes of Palestine. The attitude is that the Jews are occupying Arab land in Palestine and that they ought to go back to Europe where they came from. So, she’s just talking like a typical Arab, nothing more, nothing less.

Although many Arabs who say such things are anti-Semites, not all are. Surely they are anti-Zionists. Rather than a battle of racists, this is really a war between two tribes, the Arabs and the Jews, and increasingly between the Muslims and the Jews. Tribal wars are not very pretty affairs, but it’s often incorrect to accuse the parties involved in the war of racism. Were those who hated Germans and Japanese during WW2 a bunch of racists? Get real.

The Jews do not like Arabs very much. Understandably so, as the Arabs won’t stop trying to kill them. Likewise for the Arabs in turn. If members of some enemy tribe kept trying to kill my people and more particularly me, I would surely opt to paint myself with the flimsy stain of temporary racist sin as opposed to daubing my body with the sturdy blotch of universalist death.

But it’s not much of a choice.

Further, Thomas’ comments must be seen in terms of her Greek Orthodox Arab religion. There were many Greek Orthodox living in Palestine before the Nakba, and many were ethnically cleansed. George Habash, leader of the PFLP, was ethnically cleansed with his family from Lydda, and his own sister was killed by the Jews. He was permanently radicalized. The Greek Orthodox refugees spread out to the surrounding Arab states, and many were attracted to secular Arab nationalism. Waddi Haddad, another PFLP radical, was also Greek Orthodox.

In Lebanon, the Greek Orthodox live heavily in the South with the Shia, but they often have their own villages. During the latest Lebanese war, when Israel invaded a Greek Orthodox village, the Lebanese Army surrendered, but the Israelis were soon attacked by a Greek Orthodox militia from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, a pro-Syrian and pro-Hezbollah political party.

In the early days of the Lebanon War of 1982, the first suicide bombers were often Leftists, often Lebanese Christians, typically Greek Orthodox, from parties like the SSNP. Only later did Hezbollah take up the tactic.

In Lebanon, the Greek Orthodox support Syria and Hezbollah and despise Israel. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is a ferocious anti-Zionist and even anti-Semite who has supported suicide bombings and Hamas. The Greek Orthodox had a large population in Jerusalem. Recall that one of the four quarters of the Old City, the Christian Quarter, is mostly Greek Orthodox.

Unfortunately, the Greek Orthodox, and the Orthodox Church in general, has a long history of anti-Semitism. Note the anti-Semitism of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some say that Orthodox anti-Semitism is even worse than Catholic anti-Semitism. Note that the Orthodox Church sees itself as the true pure church, and has never gone through Vatican I, forget Vatican II. My understanding is that they don’t even like Catholics, and consider Catholics to be some sort of liberal deviationists.

The anti-Semitism of the Orthodox involves accusations that the Jews are Christ-killers and the ancient enemies of the Christians. In this way it is similar to Catholic anti-Semitism, which is all about a homicidal or even genocidal response to their descendants of those who committed the Deicide.

The Nazis killed 8

One of the worst Christian anti-Semites was the 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople, Church Father Saint John Chrysostom. He delivered a series of homilies about Judaizing Christians, suggesting that they needed to choose one religion or the other.

The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.”…

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.”

Here’s an excerpt from Homily 6…

You [Jews] did slay Christ, you did lift violent hands against the Master, you did spill his precious blood. This is why you have no chance for atonement, excuse, or defense.

Pretty ugly stuff.

In spite of these sentiments, or, even more frighteningly, possibly due to them, this man was made an Orthodox saint! His hatred for the Jews was palpable. He wanted them hunted down and killed, and he wanted their synagogues burnt to the ground.

In that sense Orthodox anti-Semitism is worse even than Catholic anti-Semitism founded in part on Saint Augustine. At least Augustine felt that the Jews should be preserved in humiliation as witnesses to the triumph of Christianity. Neither accorded the Jews full humanity, but at least Augustine was willing to let them survive, albeit as some sort of Catholic version of the dhimmi.

So, while I have no knowledge of whether or not Thomas is an anti-Semite, this is the cultural milieu that she comes from. She may have heard dinner-table conversations like this while growing up in her Greek Orthodox home.

Peter Tobin “Clarifying the Primitive Communism Question”

The previous post on primitive communism was attacked by rightwing capitalist ideologues who insisted that primitive man did not live under primitive communism at all.

Peter Tobin responds:

These folks are profoundly wrong and apparently have read nothing, never mind bothering to find out what Marx and Engels actually said. Their knowledge appears to be derived from the first twenty minutes of Kubrick’s 2001.

Engels, rather than Marx, is pre-dominant in this area as the term arises in his seminal work Origins of the Family, Private Property and State. The key work that inspired them work was the American Morgan’s groundbreaking Ancient Society.

What Morgan does, in a serious materialist way, is to trace human progress from, what he terms, savagery to civilization. What Engels takes from this is that there are identifiable stages in human social evolution. So the primitive stage is sub-divided into lower, middle and upper stages. In the lower stage there were no classes, and state and economic relationships were broadly egalitarian. Hence there was a collective right to basic resources, and the question of a superior authority (kings, priests or elders) did not arise.

Morgan himself speculated on the “liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.” He even finds contemporary evidence in the layout of the Native American village, which he calls “communism in living.”

At this time family groups were consanguine, and Engels refers to these family groups as the “original communistic common household” which lasted to the late middle stage of barbarism. There was even group marriage and incest, which existed in Polynesia and lasted until quite recently (to the horror of Christian missionaries). He does not hold this that stage up for emulation, instead, “communism” is used a technical terms to denote the “sharing” of sex with a related group.

This stage gave way to new household communities (Hausgemeinden), which Morgan calls the punaluan family, which prohibits sex between brothers and sisters and children and parents, but allows it between cousins. But this is not the bourgeois form of the family where one man possesses and dominates one women, as women were common wives and men were common husbands.

Far from extolling the former, Engels make the point that as it withered, the human stock grew stronger and better by outbreeding as opposed to inbreeding.

The other important factor that must be considered is the emergence of man as a hunter of animals and hence an omnivore. His brain grew bigger and his teeth smaller. What is salient here is the behavioral changes took place, especially in the process of socialization. In order to hunt effectively man had to organize communally and develop stratagems for success.

Consider, by contrast, the earlier hominids, such as the australopithecines, who were herbivores and consequently had larger teeth and smaller brains – a trait shared by many vegetarian animals today.

You can all these forms, “communist,” “socialist,” “communal” or whatever nomenclature denotes shared activity, because this phenomena is self-evident.

These stages gave way as man settled down and took up agriculture. Private property and the growth of surplus and authority became prevalent, although residual forms of the earlier stages continued.

For example, Grote, in his History of Greece, defining the characteristics of the emerging Greek tribes, found evidence of: common religious ceremonies, common burial, common rights of inheritance, common obligation to help the tribe in times of struggle, and the common ownership of property, while at the same time he noted the growth of authority figures, kings, priests, lawgivers and even treasurers.

References

Engels, Frederick. 2001 (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property and State. Honolulu, HA: University Press of the Pacific.

Grote, George. 2000 (1846-1856). The History of Greece: From the Time of Solon to 403 B. C. London: Routledge.

Morgan, Lewis H. 1887. Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization. London: MacMillan & Company.

It’s Not Helpful to Arguments About Black Mental Inferiority…

When even the Black leadership acts like a bunch of retards.

Seriously? The NAACP can’t tell the difference between planetary “black holes” and “Black ho’s'”?

Someone needs to stop these Black people before they make fools out of themselves some more.

What’s worse is that Hallmark is vying with the NAACP for the Retardation Olympics and they actually pulled the card. That or Hallmark is afraid of being on the losing end of the Ghetto Lottery (I mean a fake civil rights lawsuit).

The NAACP used to be a standup organization. Now it just seems like they sit around all day and look for stuff to get pissed off about. Must be fun I guess.

The NAACP is getting more useless by the day. Someone ought to sue the NAACP on behalf of the sane people in the nation for wasting so much of our precious time with stupid bullshit.

As an aside, is this why there are so few Blacks in the US space program? They keep misinterpreting astronomical terms as racial slurs?

People wonder why Whites don’t like Blacks. Well, here’s one reason right here, hate to say it.

This behavior is not flattering in the least.

Primitive Communism, Feudalism, the Fencing of the Commons and the Genesis of Capital

A far rightwing commenter disagrees that there existed primitive communism in the past, as theorized by Marx. Instead, he opines that primitive man lived, absurdly, in some condition called “the free market.”

You could say primitive man was communal but NOT communist. There is no such thing as voluntary Socialism/Capitalism. Such are contradiction in terms, Robert. If work within a group are completely voluntary, then it is by definition a free market. If they were forced to work together, then it was some sort of authoritarian-ruled collective. Either way your argument is bunk.

Needless to say this fellow’s definition of free market (capitalism as per Adam Smith) is quite unlike any other I’ve ever heard.

Read Marx.

Many primitive tribes lived under primitive communism. There was no free market among primitive tribes, there was no market period, there was no capitalism, there was no exploitation other than maybe of slaves, there were no wages, people lived in communes, hunted, collected, farmed, etc. for the common good. Food was divided amongst all members. No one hired anyone to do anything, paid them, marked up their labor, and sold it or products based on it for profit. Hence, no capitalism, no free market.

In the Middle Ages, there were many artisans, but they were more or less free agents akin to the self-employed. Shoemakers, tailors, chimney-sweeps, etc.

Much of the rest of society was under feudalism. Before the fencing of the Commons in England that was necessary for capitalism, most were primitive artisans or small landholders. Small parcels were farmed and some livestock was held. In the meantime, households made a few items here and there for sale.

There was no labor force for the plants that the capitalists wished to build. They were building the plants and no one was coming to work in them. Since people were happy to work their small parcels and do a little household industry on the side, no one wanted to give that up to become a wage slave in some Godawful capitalist firm.

In order to create a proletariat, the Commons was fenced off, and the small landholders were driven off the land into teeming towns where they crowded, starving and in rags, a new army of proletarian workers for the capitalists. There were long debates about this in the English Parliament about the necessity of throwing all of the small householders off their land and depriving them of their livelihoods in order to create a captive workforce who needed to sell their labor to capitalists or starve.

This process has actually been repeated over and over in the modern era and continues to this day in places like India, El Salvador, Paraguay, Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Philippines and Colombia where the poor are continuously being thrown off their small parcels so their lands can be seized by large landowners, and the poor farmers are hence proletarianized and turned into landless peasants.

There are even suggestions that this occurred in the early days of the US. So many Americans were becoming small landowners in the West that this raised serious problems for the creation of a captive proletariat. Hence much of the land was grabbed by the state and turned over to the railroads in an attempt to deprive small landowners of land and force them to sell their labor or starve.

Read Marx, “The Genesis of Capital.”

Capitalism is a new thing, mostly since about 1400 or so.

References

Marx, Karl. 1978. Genesis of Capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Helen Thomas Tells It Like It Is, Is Forced Out

Here.

Helen Thomas, the doyen of White House press crew, was captured on videotape saying something naughty and abruptly resigned her position as a journalist for Heart Newspapers. A Jewish rabbi who was out to get Thomas got her on camera saying that the solution to the crisis in the Holy Land is for the Jews to “get the Hell out of Palestine.” She suggested that they could go to Poland, Germany or the US instead.

For those comments, she was condemned across the board by various past Press Secretaries, including the Bush Press Secretary Ari (Ratfink) Fleischer, a man who cheerled for the invasion of Iraq that has left 1.2 million Iraqis dead, and the Clinton Press Secretary Lanny (Scumbag) Thomas, who has recently been hired by the Honduran Government that came to power in a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras.

So these guys are not exactly standing on a high moral ground.

Time magazine columnist Joe (Joe the Jew) Klein predictably said she should be pulled from the White House Press Corps.

Thomas called her an “anti-Semitic bigot” (What else?). Fleischer also implied she was an anti-Semite.

It seems clear that Hearst forced Thomas out, an amazing move considering what a famous journalist she is, with an illustrious career going back decades. It just goes to show you that the Jewish Lobby still has a lot of kick in it here in the US.

Thomas is 89 years old. Hell of a thing to do to an old lady. Interestingly, Thomas is Lebanese, so she may be coming from this from an Arab Christian POV. Thomas has since apologized, but that’s never good enough for Jew Know Who.

Abe Foxman (Who else?) is all over the news, accusing Thomas of bigotry (He’s actually calling her an anti-Semite).

Check out this photo in CBS News article on Thomas. I doubt if she looks like that all the time. That photo is part of a hit piece on Thomas by CBS News.

From 1995-2000 it was owned by Lawrence Tisch, who is Jewish. Tisch stacked the management of CBS News with Jews before he left, and he himself owned 2

Before Tisch came in, CBS News was run by William Paley, Jewish, for many years. Westinghouse sold out in 2000, and since then, CBS News has been run by CBS Corporation. That company is owned by Jewish mogul Sumner Redstone. The CEO is Leslie Moonves, who is Jewish. The corporate board is stacked to the rafters with Jews, possibly 8

Thomas, set up by a Jew, then roundly condemned by a bunch of Jews. This is looking more like a tribal squabble than a real sin on her part. The Jews have their backs to the wall with the latest Israeli shenanigans and are going all out in their finest style.

Truth is that people who have known Thomas for decades insist she has no anti-Semitism in her. Is saying that the solution to the crisis is for the Jews to take off an anti-Semitic statement? Not necessarily, though many of the people who say such things are anti-Semites (or more typically anti-Zionists), there’s nothing objectively anti-Semitic about the observation.

Should the Jews get the Hell out of Palestine? Sure. Are they going to? Hell no. So, while that’s a truthful observation, it doesn’t really lead us anywhere. There have already been enough expulsions and ethnic cleansings in the region. We don’t need anymore of them.

A reporter who just came back from the Occupied Territories and spoke to many of the top members of Hamas said that even Hamas leaders were not insisting on Jews leaving the area. They were quite clear that all the Jews can stay. What they were insistent on was the Palestinians “getting their rights,” as they put it.

He did meet some people who had been sitting in refugee camps for decades who said that the Jews needed to take off, but even these folks said that all of the Jews who came from 1948 could stay, but the ones who came afterwards had to leave. Even in the camps, this was a minority viewpoint.

The notion that the Palestinians are determined to drive the Jews into the sea and commit a 2nd Holocaust is overwrought.

The Fate of Workers Under Capitalism and Communism

One problem of Communism was that workers did not work very hard. This occurs to this day in Cuba.

As the workers in the USSR used to say, “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”

It’s true that wages were low under Communism, but so was rent and prices, so it was not such a big deal. Education, health care, transportation, culture, etc. was free, and rent was very low. Wages had to be low because the state spent so much money.

The state was responsible for all of education, health care, transportation, infrastructure, housing, and the building and maintenance of all structures in society. Everything was owned by the state. If the state did not keep it up with continuous repair and construction, everything would fall apart.

If workers were paid more, the state would not have enough money to fund health care, education, transportation, infrastructure, to buy raw materials and manufacture things with them, etc. Everything would start to fall apart.

But low wages were not the real reason that workers do not work hard under Communism. Workers need to be disciplined, otherwise, according to human nature, they will tend to screw off. Under Communism, workers quit at half day, call in sick, don’t show up at all, fulfill their quota and go home for the month, etc. This sounds like a lot of fun, but unfortunately, productivity suffers and workers screwing off is a big reason for a lot of the problems of Communism – shortages, poor products, lines, etc.

The problem is that under Communism it was hard to get rid of slackers. Say you have ten slackers in your plant. Sure, you can fire ten of them, but then what? Communist countries had full employment. If you fire ten slackers, you may well not be able to fill those positions with more workers, so you will have ten unfilled vacancies in your plant. Hence, slackers were usually just kept on the labor force.

Under capitalism, workers are typically horribly abused. The only places where they are not is when they have labor unions. Cheerleaders for capitalism need to own up to the fact that under capitalism, workers are the enemy. The capitalist state is dead set against the workers, as is the capitalist media, and in many cases, the capitalist army and police. Even capitalist society opposes its own workers, as it portrays workers as failures and losers.

Workers need to own up to the fact that capitalism is a purely worker-hostile system. Under capitalism, bosses (and their management lackeys) and workers are essentially enemies. The bosses hold all the cards, not only that, but they have the entire machinery of the state backing them up.

The only way that workers can even the score is via their own organizations, labor unions. But capitalist societies hate labor unions. The state, the media, and often the army and cops are dead set against labor unions, who are seen as the enemy of society.

Even society itself is typically against unions. Here in the US, many workers have been brainwashed into hating unions, which are only their own organizations to represent their interests.

The middle classes are typically not unionized, and they see unions as overpaid organizations of working class inferiors – the blue jeans and lunch pail crowd. For this reason, many middle class members of society do not wish to join unions, since to do so transforms you into a redneck with a high school education, a beer belly, work boots and a lunch pail. The middle class sees themselves as superior to the working class, so to join a union is to lower oneself in society.

Middle class rage at striking workers was important in the ushering in of Margaret Thatcher under the Tories in the UK in 1980. The public got behind efforts to break strikes of the trash collectors and to privatize the coal mines, which broke the coal miners’ unions. There was a strong class element to Thatcher’s election.

To the middle classes, Thatcher was sticking it to the overpriveleged working class unions. The British workers have always voted for Labor – they never voted for Thatcher. But the UK is now like the US in that most of the population identifies as “middle class,” whether they are or not.

Even in Communist states like Vietnam and China, workers are horrifically abused in the parts of society that have been handed over to foreign firms. There seems to be no way around the terrible abuse of workers under capitalism, in particular under developing capitalist states. Can the defenders of capitalism on this site show me any possible universe in which capitalism in developing states does not involve monstrous abuse of workers? And if it’s inevitable, what good is the system?

The Communist societies really were workers’ paradises in a way. The workers ran the show. Probably never in modern history have workers been treated as well as they were in the Communist countries.

Nevertheless, when workers ran the show, they fucked off and ran the system into the ground.

And under capitalism, workers are terribly abused.

Truth is that neither system works very well.

Let Us Put Another Anti-Communist Lie to Rest, While We Are At It

On the previous post, a commenter reiterates a classic rejoinder about Communism:

But anyway, the point is that Communism hasn’t worked, and it never will. It simply goes against human nature.Capitalism, on the other hand, fits perfectly with human nature. People are selfish, self-interested, ambitious, and opportunistic beings by nature.

This isn’t really true. This lie has two parts:

1. Communism has never worked.

2. Communism goes against human nature.

The problem with this is that capitalism is a fairly recent invention. Before that, there was feudalism. Many primitive tribes lived in what is called “primitive Communism.” Read Marx to understand these essential facts.

Many of them still live under primitive Communism to this very day. Sure, some people had more than others, but there was no exploitation of labor, marking up of labor value and profiting from the exploitation of labor.

Many other societies seemed to work according to some sort of collective ownership like modern-day collectives, but once again, without profits. People who worked harder did not make more money, or get more of anything for that matter. Sure, the chief had more, but that was it. There was little reward for working hard, and little punishment for not pulling your weight.

So there answer to #1 is that Communism has in fact worked, maybe not in the modern era, but surely for the vast majority of man’s past.

The answer to #2 is that Communism cannot possibly go against human nature, since mankind lived under primitive Communism for most of his history.

I suppose that this capitalist talking point could be reworked to say that Communism had not worked in the past century, and that it goes against human nature as human nature has evolved in the past century. This might be a more accurate framing of the argument.

A Few More Words on Stereotype Threat

A few more things about stereotype threat (ST), expanding on a previous post:

ST has only been shown to exist in experiments. In these experiments, Blacks and Whites, males and females, everyone really, is subject to ST and shows a similar decrement in performance.

From these experiments it has been extrapolated to the real world that Blacks are under stereotype threat, and that this explains the B-W test and even IQ gap, among other things. But it does not. Under ST threat, the B-W IQ and testing gap is the same as ever, except it is even worse! If you think about this, you realize that ST cannot possibly explain the performance and IQ gaps themselves. What it might do is make Blacks perform even worse than they ordinarily do!

No one knows if stereotype threat exists in the real world, who is subject to it, when, etc. No studies in the real world have shown that we can create high ST environments that Blacks do worse in and low ST environments that they do better in. In other words, all this stuff only works in the lab. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the real world, where, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t, but we don’t know where and how it effects whomever or for that matter how to correct it once we see it.

The Blacks have jumped all over ST lately because, while we can’t prove it exists and harms them, we can’t really prove it doesn’t exist and doesn’t harm them either.

ST is not so much bunk as it is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory. Arguing about ST is like arguing how many angels can dance on a pin. It’s interesting, but it can go on forever, and we will never learn anything or solve any problems.

Can We Please Put an Anti-Communist Lie to Rest?

The capitalist West’s war against Communism has been pretty vicious. There are few lies that they have not bothered to toss about. Most here in the West simply uncritically swallowed all of this stuff no questions asked.

I would like to take to task at least bit one anti-Communist dogma: That Communism (and by analogy socialism) has failed, and one of the reasons for that failure was that people hate it.

We really need to ask, “Failed how, and in what way?” If you ask your average person how it is that it failed, you won’t get much of an answer.

One of the ways we can determine if a system failed or not is if the people themselves accepted it or enjoyed. Anti-Communist dogma long held that the people living under Communism were miserable. But this is now coming under question. An earlier post laid out well that after 20 years, large sectors of Eastern Europe, in some cases a majority, prefer Communism to the capitalism that replaced it. Keep in mind that these are folks who experienced both.

More evidence is forthcoming from a new poll from Tajikistan, indicating that 7

Another poll says that 6

Ok, so if it failed, it wasn’t because the people hated it, right? In many cases, large sectors of the population, even majorities, preferred it to capitalism. So we can’t say it was a failure based on lack of popular support.

How about another argument? This argument says that no one has ever immigrated from a capitalist country to a Communist country, with the exception of a few Western Communists. But this is not the case. After Germany split into West and East halves, many West German Communists left their half and immigrated to East Germany. I’m not sure how long they stayed. This info comes from a German friend of mine from Hessen. She told me that most of her Communist relatives in the West took off for the East.

In Cuba, we have yet another case. Eastern Cuba is now full of Blacks from Jamaica and Haiti who have fled capitalist Haiti and Jamaica (largely failed states) for Cuba. They reportedly like Cuba much better than Haiti and Jamaica.

A better way to look at it is that Communism and capitalism (as economic systems) are different systems, both of which can and often do have immense problems and also immense benefits. Some humans prefer to live under Communism while others prefer to live in a capitalist system. The type of person who prefers to live under one system or the other probably depends on personality and life experience.

A rightwing friend of mine told me that it’s true many people prefer Communism, but he said that they are the “lazy failures” of society. I’m ok with his objection. I just wish that the capitalist media of the West would agree that a lot of humans prefer Communism over capitalism. Then we can argue about who they are and why, whether or not they are “lazy failures,” etc.

As for the larger question of whether Communism failed or not, that goes beyond the preferences of those who lived under it and deserves another post.

“Kipling On the Front Lines,” by Alpha Unit

Mowgli, the little boy raised by wolves and befriended by Baloo the bear and Bagheera the panther, first came to life during a winter in Vermont in the imagination of Rudyard Kipling.

Kipling was in Vermont because that’s where his wife’s family lived; the couple had taken up residence there and started their own family. It was American hubris, however, that soured Kipling on living in the United States.

The focus of all the dissension was British Guiana, which was in a border dispute with Venezuela. Richard Olney, the American Secretary of State, declared that the United States had a right to mediate all disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the Monroe Doctrine, you know.

In other words, the United States ruled the Western Hemisphere.

This didn’t sit well with the British, including Kipling. Anti-British sentiment in America, followed by family troubles, sent him back to England.

It was a period when both Britain and the United States were settling their weight upon all kinds of native peoples around the world. Someone observing the actions of both nations might have been amused by Kipling’s distaste for American interference in Britain’s interference in South America.

“If anybody’s going to be interfering in South America, it’s going to be us,” Secretary Olney would have told him.

Kipling, who actually memorialized the imperialist ambitions of both nations, remains a figure of contradictions.

He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1907, though other writers have mocked his abilities, particularly as a poet. People still argue about whether he was pro- or anti-imperialist. Many know of his poem The White Man’s Burden, for which he has been denounced – and celebrated, as a satirist.

Does anyone concerned with world affairs today, particularly heads of state, really care what Kipling may or may not have advised his fellow Whites roughly a century ago?

I’m guessing that the answer to this question is “No.” The fact that people still debate Kipling’s views is a testament to two things: the power of art, in this case literature; and the power of the idea of race.

Kipling is long gone, but there are people who seem to have some kind of stake in whether or not his views on race and empire were justified. It reminds me of the debate we have had from time to time in America over whether kids should read some of the works of Mark Twain.

Kipling’s Kim has been compared to Huckleberry Finn, in fact. Both novels tell the coming-to-maturity tale of a “loose” boy with father issues, traveling with a beloved adult male. Both novels have come under scrutiny for alleged racism – which informs the question of their appropriateness for developing minds.

School children should be taught literature. Adults wrangle over which works are to be presented to them, and how they are to be presented, because adults supervise the indoctrination of children.

They wrangle for another reason, though. The issue of race is intimately wrapped up in another issue: self-esteem.

When I say self-esteem, I mean the popular concept of having a healthy, positive self-image. Who doesn’t want kids to have a healthy, positive self-image – especially “minority” kids, those long deemed to be most in need of it?

So for quite some time, at least here in the US, we’ve been giving historical figures – be they Presidents or novelists – the PC litmus test. If someone reads anything by Kipling other than The Jungle Book (both parts), will he be contaminated by White Supremacist ideology?

We’ve decided we must be very careful about that sort of thing going into the heads of young people.

And so educators and other interested parties have put long-dead authors such as Kipling onto the front lines of their ideology wars.

He Killed Again

First Natalie Holloway, now a 21 year old Peruvian woman, dead in a bloody hotel room in Lima.

The killer? Same guy we all thought killed Natalie, rich Dutch punk Joran van der Sloot. He’s 21 now, and he was 16 when he killed Natalie. Incredibly, he killed the Peruvian woman on the exact 5 year anniversary of the death of Natalie. Celebrating an anniversary? Taunting Interpol? Who knows.

A private investigator with deep knowledge of the case said he knew that van der Sloot would kill again, and he did. He’s now an international serial killer. Looking at footage of van der Sloot, he’s a tough call. He’s clearly a narcissist. Is he also a sociopath? I’m not sure. He’s one cocky, swaggering bastard, a real lady-killer in more ways than one, and he obviously thinks he can do anything he wants to. He’s now on the lam in Chile, two days after the murder. He will be caught and tried for murder for the third time.  But this time he will be found guilty.

Possible narcissist-sociopath Johan van der Sloot, with his two victims, Natalie Holloway and Stephany Flores.