Category Archives: Law

by | November 14, 2017 · 12:18 AM

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

by | November 13, 2017 · 11:40 AM

Men Are Afraid to Give CPR to Women Due to Fear of Sexual Harassment Lawsuits

Here.

Figures. I hope some women start dying from this. Maybe they will think twice about this  Puritanical-Victorian sexual harassment anti-male witch hunt.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Health, Law, Man World, Radical Feminists, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

by | November 1, 2017 · 9:25 AM

Alt Left: Gay Men’s and SJW Views on Statutory Rape: Shocking Revelations and Outrageous Bias

Gay culture even today is extremely protective of older man – teenage boy relationships. Forums for gay teenage boys are full of comments from the adults running the site saying, “We know a lot of you are in relationships with older men, and that’s just fine. Don’t worry. We won’t turn your boyfriend in.”

Part of the long-term gay agenda has been to lower the age of consent precisely for this reason – because so many gay men love those teenage boys. That is what is insidious about their devious Gay Agenda. Adult man – teenage boy relationships and sex go on all the time in the gay community. No one cares, and no one turns them in.

This is one more type of SJW hypocrisy. SJW’s hate straight men and are on a jihad against male heterosexual sexuality. This jihad is led by feminism. If you are a heterosexual adult man, and you say that 17 year old girls turn you on (all heterosexual men are maximally aroused by 17 year old girls in the lab), every SJW for miles around will bash you accusing you of being a pedophile and demanding you be arrested.

They will even call the police on you claiming you are a pedophile and try to convince the police to raid your home or investigate you. Apparently dozens of people have called the police on me to try to get me arrested for “pedophilia” because I write that it is normal for adult men to be turned on by teenage girls. Nothing came of it, but it is still scary.

The people doing this are feminists and “femiservatives.” Femiservatives are conservatives who are to all intents and purposes radical feminists in the way that they persecute and prosecute normal male heterosexual behavior. They are actually more dangerous than feminists because there are so many of them.

However, if you bring up gay men and teenage boys to these same feminists and SJW’s? Crickets! Silence. At the very least. That’s if they do not come right out and support it, which I am not sure of. All I know is they never mention it even one time.

100% of the “pedophiles” that SJW’s are hollering about are adult heterosexual men having consensual sex with 13-17 yr old teenage girls.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Law, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

by | October 29, 2017 · 12:43 PM

That’s What We Get for Electing a Nigger

There has been much talk about why the Democrats have lost so many seats all across the land. There are a variety of reasons for it, but the main reason is right up there in that ugly title of the post. We Democrats had the temerity and nerve to elect a Black man to  President of the US. Can you imagine that? We actually elected a Black man! How outrageous.

The rest of the country looked at the  Democrats in disgust and said, “I can’t believe you Democrats just elected a nigger President of the US! Just for that, I am voting Republican at the federal, state and local level! The nerve of you Democrats – electing a nigger! You thought you could do that and we would just sit here taking it sitting down – I don’t think so!”

There really is no other explanation for the Democrats’ loss of over 1,000 political positions countrywide since the election of Obama.

Part of the losses can be explained by increased voter fraud and rapidly declining democracy in the US, but even without those problems, we still would have lost seats due to real changes in opinion since 2008.

Fraud and the War on Democracy

I am not sure exactly why we lost all those seats but part of it has to do with the death of democracy in America.

The whole country is gerrymandered to Hell, and this right there has led to huge Republican gains. Once Republicans get into a state government, they start gerrymandering the state like maniacs.

The vote-stealing by computerized election machines that started in 2000 has continued and increased every year. They don’t just steal Presidencies. There is good evidence that they are stealing Senate seats as well and they stole at least three last year, one each in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and probably Missouri. The last election with Ossoff in Georgia was almost certainly stolen, so they are stealing House seats too. Republicans are doubling down on the election machines by refusing to remove the ones that are most easily hacked.

They have also passed a number of laws making vote recounts after elections difficult or even impossible. You saw how all of the 2016 recounts were shut down by Republican state governments and courts.

In addition, the Republican Supreme Court outrageously overturned the Voting Rights Act in one of the most racist decisions since Plessy v Ferguson. As a result of this wildly racist decision, Republicans all over the land have formulated all sorts of new election laws and rules that have the end effect of making it harder for Black and Brown minorities to vote.

In addition, in several elections this year, Democrats who were voted into office were actually removed from office by state legislatures in a move so profoundly anti-Democratic it is frightening.

The attacks on democracy across the land by Republicans are vicious and ugly. They are some of the worst we have seen since 1964 before which Blacks could hardly even vote in the US.

Given all of these wildly anti-democratic actions, how anyone can say with a straight face that we live in a democracy anymore, I have no idea. The whole idea that this is some kind of a democratic country is some sort of a sick joke.

Actual Moves towards Conservatism in the Population

Nevertheless, polls do show a huge swing towards the Republican Party since 2008 when Obama was elected. As Obama was a mushy Centrist and most of us on the Left think he is just a Republican, it can hardly be because Obama was too liberal.

I assume that the Democratic Party was punished at all levels for the crime of electing a Black President. Basically, “This is what we Democrats get for electing a nigger.” It’s Johnson’s White House comments in 1965 after the Civil Rights Act all over again: “We will lose the South for the next generation.” Just like in 1964, we Democrats are being punished horribly for doing the right thing. We are being made to fall on our swords for the crime of supporting Black people.

The fact that Democrats were crushed all over the land after we elected a Democratic Black President to me shows just how profoundly racist this country still is. And it looks like the Republican Party is becoming the de facto party of resentful White racism, mostly anti-Black racism but to a lesser extent anti-Hispanic racism too.

30 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Discrimination, Government, Hispanics, Law, Local, Midwest, Northeast, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Whites, Wisconsin

by | October 14, 2017 · 11:45 PM

“Child Porn” (Whatever the Hell That Means), Teen Sexting and Pic/Video Trading and Other Moral Panics, Mass Hysterias, Emotional Derangements and General Idiocies

Contrary to what my enemies say about me, I will take a pretty hard line below. The real deal (adults and kids 12-below child porn) needs to be kept the Hell off the Net. People making that crap, putting it up on the Net, or collecting it on their drives can go down hard for all I care. Throw the book at ’em. On the other hand, the issue is somewhat more nuanced than that, and it brings up some extremely difficult questions in legal theory and moral philosophy and general common sense.

The laws against child pornography are correct in that it ought to be illegal put that stuff up on the Net.

I have a hard time seeing how it is illegal to look at the stuff. I mean, you are cruising around the Net and BAM there’s some child porn on your screen. Or you are pic trading porn in a chatroom, and all of a sudden the guy you are trading with sends you child porn BAM! Even if you had no idea the guy was going to send you that crap, and you deleted it within seconds of it hitting your screen, you still committed a felony. Isn’t that crap?

Suppose you are cruising along the Chans and BAM there’s some child porn up on the Chan. OK what exactly are you supposed to do? Leave the page? Stay on the page? It doesn’t matter! Because BAM as soon as that crap hit your screen, you committed a felony! Any way to go back and uncommit the felony? Nope! You’re going down forever more unless you can clean your drive real well. See what crap that is?

I also have a problem with eyeball crimes. This is the only crime on Earth where you can to go prison for many years for “illegal looking.” What do you mean illegal looking? What the Hell kind of crime is that? You can look at anything else on Earth, videos of men being slowly tortured to death by serial killers, Islamists sawing people’s heads off and torturing them to death in every way imaginable, the worst crime scenes  imaginable… everything on God’s Green Earth is legal for your eyeballs.

Except for this CP crap. The argument goes that this kid was injured or harmed in the making of that porn. Indeed that’s probably the case. But then the argument goes that by the fact that your eyeballs grazed that photo of that kid being harmed, you horribly harmed that poor child again by looking at them with your eyeballs! Really?! Your eyes hurt that kid? Every time someone looks at that pic, that kid gets horribly injured? How? Where’s the injury? Is it invisible? Can we measure it?

For this to be true, you would have to prove that that kid was aware every time someone looked at the CP photo of them. So if the photo gets looked at 100 times that day, somehow through some psychic process that kid gets a devastatingly injurious brain zap every time? The whole argument behind this theory is sheer idiocy, and it defies all logic and sense. It’s not a rational argument in any possible universe.

You see where they say Mr. X was arrested for “downloading” child porn. For a long time, I thought these guys deserved it. I mean “downloading” means saving it to your drive in a folder, right? Once you do that, you’re possessing it, right? I have no problem with the possession of CP being illegal. You shouldn’t be collecting that crap on your drive. And yes, all you perverts collecting that crap is of course what drives the market for it in the first place. It’s illegal to possess all sorts of things. There are many such laws saying we may not possess this or that. That’s grounded in sanity, logic and legal precedent.

But recently I realized that downloading CP doesn’t mean downloading at all necessarily. It’s often a reference to the horrific crime of “illegal looking with illegal eyeballs.” I guess your eyeballs have to go to prison for the illegal looking charges? Just by the fact that you happened upon that child porn, perhaps out of complete ignorance and innocence, you are guilty of “downloading child porn.” Isn’t that stupid? It’s “downloading” because your browser downloads a copy of everything you see on the Net to the browser cache. Now I suppose if you clean your drive thoroughly, you can get rid of everything in your browser cache, but still, what the Hell kind of retarded crime is that? Illegal looking? WTF!

Child pornography is photos and videos of adults having sex with children age 12-under. I don’t think pornographic photos and videos of teenagers having sex with anyone is child porn. It’s just not. I don’t know what the Hell it is, but it sure as Hell ain’t “kiddie porn.”

Teenagers of both sexes, boys and girls, are constantly taking nudes and pornographic photos and maybe even videos of themselves and trading them around with other teens. I can tell you for certain that there is a vast amount of this going on, at least on Twitter. How do I know? Because I know about this stuff. They form private pic and video trading groups, (usually all underage teenage girls mostly 15-17) and they trade pics of each other, sext each other, etc.

Usually the groups are girls under 18 only, no boys allowed. Often bisexual girls are especially encouraged to join. So underage teenage girls are taking a vast amount of pornographic photos and maybe videos of themselves and maybe others and trading them all around to fellow underage teens. It’s literally an epidemic. And according to the law, it’s all child porn. Every one of those girls taking those photos and videos is “producing/manufacturing child pornography.” If she trades the stuff with her girlfriend? Now she’s “distributing child pornography.” Huge numbers of teenagers of both sexes are being arrested for manufacture, distribution and possession of child pornography. This insanity is absolutely outrageous. It shows just how insane the Pig State really is. It’s not even a Police State – it’s actually a Pig State.

So what is to be done? I have no idea. We should leave these kids alone with their pics, though. If they put them up on the Net, that’s not OK, but from what I can tell, girls are hardly putting any porn pics of themselves up on the Net. It’s all going back and forth with messaging and emails. Almost nothing is going up on any webpage. I think we should make it illegal for these teenagers to put this teen porn up on the Net. We have to ban that. And we need to keep the under 18 for porn law in. You know why?

This is why:

Now suppose we said that in Kentucky the age of consent is 16, so you can have sex with any legal person you want to at that age, 13-93? There are laws like this all over the land. It’s perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16 year old girl in half the states in the US, which is fine. But if it’s legal for her to have sex, why isn’t it legal for her to take a nude pic of herself? So now you have a tidal wave of cases of the Pig State allowing a 20 year old and a 16 year old to have sex with each other, but as soon as one takes a nude of themselves or the other and gives it to the other one, they’ve manufactured and distributed child porn, and they have to go to prison for 10 years! Idiocy!

So this 20 year old man can have sex with this 16 year old girl 10 times a day for years if he wants to, but as soon as these star crossed lovers who are screwing each other’s brains out every day take a nude of one or the other, they’re child pornographers and they are going to prison for 10 years! What kind of stupid crap is that!?

I do not know what to do about this. I suppose if they are over the age of consent, they can take pics of each other all they want and pass them around at least to one another in privacy and to other minors. I’m leery about this stuff being passed around willy nilly to adults though. They can’t put them up on the Net because it’s illegal material, and we don’t want that junk on the Net.

But why not? Indeed, let us look at a fascinating argument:

A very good argument is that if a girl can consent to sex at 16, why can’t she consent to taking porn photos and videos of herself and put them up on the Web? Or allow other people to film her? Actually it sounds logical. If you’re old enough to screw, of course you’re old enough to do porn. At the very least, you ought to be able to take pictures of your own self and put them up on the Net. I have no problem with this in theory.

But here is the problem. Pornographers are some of the most low down, sleaziest, slimiest men (and almost all are men) on the planet. They’re just about criminals, except what they are doing is legal. Most are what I would call legal criminals. The rates of Axis 2 Cluster B disorders is very high among pornographers. Narcissistic Personality Disorder and especially sociopathy and psychopathy are everywhere in that industry. It’s Ground Zero for male controlled psychopaths. Most pornographers are simply awful people.

Now here’s the problem. Say in these states where the AOC is 16 or 17, we allow girls that age to consent to doing porn. I agree it’s rational and reasonable. But here’s what is going to happen. Very soon after you legalize legally sexually mature girls age 16 and 17 to do porn, the porn studios are going to be flooded with teenage girls wanting to do porn. It’s just going to happen. I assure you it will. If they can’t find them here in the US, they will readily find them in Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and places like that.

Because the porn industry is constantly pushing the envelope and promoting weirder, kinkier and sicker stuff in a race to the bottom, the 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn will soon be flooded all across the net. There’s already a massive market for the “Barely 18” market, in which 18-20 year old girls do porn for the “young girls” market. You can call men who would look at those 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn sick fucks all you want, but I assure you that in the US alone, you will have millions of men looking at that 16 and 17 year old girl porn.

Do we want this? No, we do not want this! We cannot allow girls under 18 to make porn because of the scenario above. I don’t want to open up my browser and see 10 ads for 16  year old girls doing hardcore porn. Just forget it.

As far as CP – the real deal – adults and kids 12 and under – goes:

  • Of course it needs to be illegal to put that crap up on the Net.
  • It has to be illegal to make it.
  • It has to be illegal to trade it back and forth by messaging or emails.
  • People who collect that crap in folders on their drives can go down hard for all I care.

But illegal looking? Illegal eyeballs? That’s just weird. How do you justify putting some poor schmuck in prison for 10 years because of some image that he innocently stumbled on and flashed before his eyes? The whole idea of “illegal looking” at anything on Earth being a crime, much less a serious felony, sounds completely bizarre. Like I said, name one other thing on God’s Green Earth that it is illegal to look at?

Let the teenagers take their porn pics and whatnot of themselves and each other and trade them around in strict private out of the view of everyone else. If it’s perfectly legal for two humans to engage in any sex act they wish with each other, for God’s sake, of course they can take photos of each other doing it or just posing with nothing on. But I don’t want to see that crap being passed all around town. If you are a grown adult, you should not be looking at nudes and porns of underage girls. The exception would be if you are in a legal sexual relationship with her. But passing them all around town? We need to discourage that somehow.

There is zero sense, logic, sanity or rational thinking operating on any argument about this stuff. 100% of the people talking about this stuff are emotionally deranged. They are trying to think about this, but they are emotionally crazed so they can’t think about it logically. If you are in an emotionally deranged state of mind, you can’t make any rational decision about anything. Reasonable thinking only occurs when people calm down and stop thinking emotionally.

Emotional thinking never does any good. All it ever does is give you the wrong answer.

7 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Computers, Crime, Girls, Government, Jailbait, Law, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Narcissistic, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Ridiculousness, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sociopathy

by | October 13, 2017 · 10:52 PM

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

24 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

by | October 7, 2017 · 11:09 AM

The Alt Left View on Anti-Black Racism

Rambo: Saw you’re 10-6-17 post regarding some guy calling you a racist. Left the first comment about that. P.S. I happen to be a Black guy.

The real hardcore nasty racism against Black people bothers me. I do not mean just words and whatnot, but ugly words are still gnarly. It’s hard to argue that you’re not racist against Blacks when you care calling them niggers all the time like so many of these Alt Right types do. Used in a certain way, that is a very cruel word to use against Black people. It is nearly a slap in the face. It’s literally a fighting word.

Real discrimination against Blacks bothers me too. I am against discrimination! However, I would argue that disparate impact has to go, and affirmative action is not the way to deal with discrimination.

I am outraged at the way Blacks are having their right to vote taken away from them. It’s like we are back to Jim Crow.

It’s little known, but the Housing Rights Act is barely enforced at all. It’s a great law, the last of the great civil rights laws of the Second Liberation, but it’s toothless a lot of the time. They do have investigators they send out, and it is pretty simple to pick up discrimination, but they get constant budget cuts, especially when Republicans came in. Trump put this silly Tom named Ben Carson in charge of HUD, and one of the first things this House Negro said was that he would not enforce the Housing Rights Act.

Job discrimination has declined dramatically, but it’s still out there. Promotion discrimination is actually a more serious problem. The EEOC generally has good resources to fight this, and they do all the time. Good for them. The lawwuits are generally not abusive (though the disparate impact ones are) and most of the time, they are filing suit against some nasty policies.

Trump’s softer racism is starting to bother me too. When there are multiple people doing something he doesn’t like, he singles out the Black man and goes after him. And he seems to single out Blacks for attacks based on their behavior. This NFL flap feels racist to me. He just can’t resist any opportunity to bash Blacks. I think he is trying to win points with his racist base this way.

It is sickening that Jeff Sessions is now Attorney General. This is one nasty, ugly, old cracker White man from the South. He’s an unreconstructed Jim Crow type racist. His racism is raw and unmasked. They put this anti-Black racist cracker in charge of enforcing the laws of this land! Outrageous!

The modern antiracist movement of which many Blacks are a part of has gone completely bonkers and off the deep end. They have taken things way too far, and all they are doing is making people mad. Plus they are fighting for some very dubious things. Even worse, they are driving some formerly sympathetic Whites over to the overt racist side as the logic of the crazy debate is that you are with either the CRT kooks or the nasty racists, and there’s no middle ground. You have to side with one idiot or the other. It’s a game of Pick Your Fool.

But the correct response to the craziness and stupidity and even wicked folly of modern anti-racism is not be become a racist in response. The correct response is to say the Hell with the CRT Cultural Left antiracists and the Hell with the real racists too!

There’s nothing wrong with antiracism or better yet, nonracism. I like the word nonracism better than antiracism, as the modern version has poisoned the word to where it’s not even a good thing any more. Further, antiracism seems to mean that one must be consumed with a constant war against racism wherever it rears its ugly head. I don’t agree with that. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have better things to do than to use up all my energy battling racist assholes.

Racism will never go away anyway, so in that sense the modern antiracists are either attacking windmills with spears, or worse, racism has become their very own White Whale. The best response is probably to line up with neither the antiracists nor the racist bastards and instead to simply drop out of the war. That doesn’t mean refusing to take a side. It means trying not to be racist yourself and opposing real racism at least in your mind while somewhat dropping out of the interminable war against the racist Leviathan.

But most of the principles of original Civil Rights Movement of Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Seven, James Meredith, SNCC, Martin and even late Malcolm are righteous things, and those values are still very much worth holding. The Alt Left in general upholds the values of the early Civil Rights Movement or what we call the Second Liberation, with a couple of exceptions for overreach.

13 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Housing, Law, Left, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism, Whites

by | October 6, 2017 · 12:34 AM

They’re Talking about Us, October 6, 2017

Here.

The site is called I Am Not Your Niga Higa: Contemplations of a Young Japanese-American.

Here is what he says about me:

Robert Lindsay – one of  the internet’s most notorious, bigoted “racial realists” also admitted that the idea that black women aren’t sexy is absolutely preposterous:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/who-says-black-chicks-are-ugly/.

Wow! One of the most notorious bigots on the Net? Jesus. There’s nothing like infamy I guess.

They won’t quit calling me this crap, will they? I work on Black political campaigns – I am a member of Culture of Change. My favorite group in Congress is the Black Political Caucus. I voted for Obama twice and even cried at his first election just because I am such a damned liberal. I supported the early Civil Rights Act, and I support all civil rights laws with the exception of affirmative action. I also oppose disparate impact – it’s got to go.

I am outraged that the SC threw out the Voting Rights Act. I am furious that Black voters are being disenfranchised across our land. I am angry that the Housing Rights Act is so little enforced. I am appalled and disgusted at the open racism of the Trump Administration, especially Jeff Sessions, an unreconstructed White racist right out of the Jim Crow era.

Trump’s mild anti-Black actions such as his tweets are slightly disgusting. He wants to get racist Whites all riled up to support him. How sickening. I am repulsed that Donald Trump was convicted of housing discrimination in refusing to rent to Blacks in New York City. This level of racism is repulsive. Martin Luther King is one of my heroes and so is late Malcolm X after he renounced separatism. I even like the Black Panthers. Not the racist New Black Panthers. The old ones like Huey and Stokely and the rest.

With a history like that, they dare to call me an anti-Black racist?! How many anti-Black racist White men do you know who fit my description? There’s no such thing.

Still a lot of Blacks keep calling me racist. I am tempted to call them ingrates and tell them to go to Hell and solve their own problems, as I am not going to help them anymore. But I keep getting pulled back. I am going to try to help US Blacks no matter how much they hate me. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

The site that linked to me seems to be focused on the most unlikely pairing of all, Asian men and Black women.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Democrats, Discrimination, Housing, Law, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

by | October 4, 2017 · 9:11 PM

Game/PUA: Why Older Men Like Younger Women

40% of 18 year olds are still virgins. I have dated a few 18 year old girls recently, and I had an 18 year old girlfriend several years ago. Two of them were complete virgins, never even been kissed. That’s not so unusual. People err in thinking that 18 year old girls have a lot of sexual experience.

Teenage girls under age 18 (jailbaits or JB’s) can be very good fucks. I had sex with quite a few of them as a teenage boy and even more from age 18-21 as a young adult. They’re a blast. And they’re horny as Hell, as horny as any adult woman. They often don’t have a lot of experience, but they are very willing to learn, and it is fun to teach them. One of the best fucks I ever had in my whole life was an 18 year old girl when I was 17. A total maniac in bed, cumdrunk the whole time.

But people err in thinking that JB’s lack the sexual passion of an adult female. Unfortunately nowadays most of those girls are the sole province of teenage boys, much to the frustration of a lot of these girls who find boys ridiculous, immature and callow. 18 and 19 year old girls are available in every state in US, and 16-17 year old girls are available in about half of US states. There are also Romeo and Juliet laws that let a lot of young men aged 18-21 off the hook with a certain subset of jailbaits. Check the laws in your state and don’t break any laws if you wish to venture into the teenybopper realm.

It seems rather strange to fethishize teenage girls just because they are young. She’s 15  year old, dude! So? So what? What’s so special about a 15 year old girl? Nothing. And a woman is better than a girl in so many ways after you are past 30 or so.

For the life of me, I will never understand why men prefer a teenage girl to a real woman. An ephebephile is maximally attracted to females age 15-19. Although modern psychology says that ephebephilia is simply normal behavior, and it’s not a disorder or any type of a mental illness, I think they mean it is normal for men to be attracted to these fully developed females with the bodies of women. Of course they look great. But why is a teenybopper better than a woman, once you are past age 21 or so?

As we get older, it is more and more of a compliment if young females like us. It feels a lot better if a woman in her 20’s or better yet, 18-19, stares at me and checks me out than if a woman my age does because it is so much harder to get a young woman to look at me.

Most young women do not like men my age at all, and if you can still attract them, you got it going on bigtime. And at my age, the only men I know who still date young women aged 18-30 are pretty much Ultimate Alphas with good looks for their age and especially the best Game in the whole world. Your average man in his 50’s simply cannot pull this off.

So if you still get young women in your 50’s, it is a compliment that shows that at least you probably have incredible Game. So it is bragging rights if you can still get young women at my age. It’s not that they are better but more that you are doing the impossible. You are doing something that few men your age can even pull off. So it makes you feel very good that you can best most men your own age and that you look young enough to still get young women.

So older men like young women mostly for bragging rights and to show off their youth or sexual prowess. It’s not that young women are better than older women. In fact, in many cases it is the opposite. And older women is better than an 18-29 year old woman in lots of ways at my age. I can’t even begin to describe it.

6 Comments

Filed under Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Law, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

by | October 3, 2017 · 5:30 PM

One Problem with Pedophile Mass Hysteria: It’s Based on Magical Thinking, an Irrational Thought Process

Chase Howard: There’s nothing wrong with pedophilia? What?

There’s nothing wrong with the fact that someone got wired up as a pedophile against their will. I would go so far as to say that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia at all for any reasons. Pedophilia is just an attraction to children. Most pedophiles simply got wired up that way through no fault of their own.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. There honestly is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation whatsoever. Anyone can get turned on by anything they want to. It’s a free country, and we haven’t made thought crimes illegal yet, though I am sure harridans like the commenter are working on it.

Pedophilia is simply a thought process, a sexual orientation. Most people truly oriented that way got wired up that way out of no fault of their own. It’s simply a way of thinking. It doesn’t necessarily harm one single soul, and it’s not their fault anyway.

Child molestation on the other hand is an act. This seems to be what you are referring to. There is not really anything wrong with pedophilia (a sexual orientation), as its just a way of thinking that doesn’t necessarily hurt a soul.

On the other hand, child molestation, sometimes but not usually associated with pedophilia, is, I would say, a problem. In many cases, it seems to harm the girl, and in a lot of cases it’s not really consensual. Even if she goes along with it (and trust me, they do sometimes), I still think it’s wrong because we as a society simply don’t want adults having even consensual sex with kids. It’s one of our values, and we have a right to enforce our values with laws.

To summarize:

There’s nothing wrong with pedophilia. It’s just a way to think.

There’s absolutely something wrong child molestation. It’s not a way to think; it’s a type of action, and it most cases it seems to be harmful, and even where it’s not, we don’t want that bullshit in our society.

You see, people like the commenter (apparently the vast majority of Americans) think like little children. You are engaging in magical thinking. That’s what little children do.  A child thinks that a thought and action is the same thing. They often cannot differentiate one from the other. Apparently you cannot think like a adult because you never matured that far.

Newsflash! Your magical thinking is that thoughts and actions are the same thing and that a bad thought is just as bad as a bad action. But you’re wrong! Thoughts and actions are completely different things, and it’s insane to mix them up. We have crimes against behavior. We don’t yet have crimes against thoughts, but if folks like the commenter get their way, I’m sure they’re coming right up.

I do not think adults should be having sex with children under the age of 12. In most cases, it causes a lot of harm to the kids and even where it doesn’t, we have decided that we do not want this crap in our society, which is our right.

If you want to talk about adults having sex with teenage girls, it’s a lot messier, but it’s not child molesting anyway. It’s statutory rape or illegal intercourse.

That’s another subject altogether and my position on it is well known:

I advise all men to avoid having sex with teenage girls where it is illegal. Not because there’s anything wrong with it, and usually there’s not. It’s that it’s illegal as Hell nowadays and you can ruin your life and end up in jail or prison and the Sex Offender list for life, all for some hot little piece of ass. C’mon guys, it’s just not worth it. Think before you act.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, Girls, Jailbait, Law, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pedophilia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology