Sticky: How to Access the Newest Posts on the Site

To access the latest posts on the site, please scroll pasts the three sticky posts. 

The first three posts on the site, including this one, are sticky. That means that they are always at the top of the page every time you come here. There are two posts below this one that are also sticky. If you want to see the latest posts on the site, you have to scroll down past the first three of these sticky posts. So the newest posts on the site will always start at the fourth post down, past the first three sticky posts.

Have fun on the site with the newest posts!

4 Comments

Filed under Meta

Sticky: Major Changes to the Private Delphi Murders Fora

To access the latest posts on the site, please scroll pasts the three sticky posts. 

Despite or possibly because of the smashing success of the private Delphi forum, we have had to make some major changes in the forum.

First of all, someone called Desirably Torn on the Topix site has declared war on the site, trying to destroy it in the process. Apparently he simply hates me. He is extremely self righteous, and he seems to think I am evil, so he is determined to destroy my site. Either that or he is just a destructive person who likes to destroy things for fun.

This person and an equally self-righteous woman he is in cahoots with also posted the names of some forum posters, all women, and started posting on the Topix public forum using the names of women on my forum. In one case, the pest used a woman user’s maiden name and married name. These women got very upset and threatened to quit. Everyone felt that the forum had been compromised, and the women were seriously concerned about their personal safety. So this man and woman were terrorizing the female posters on my site. You proud of yourselves? Later he somehow got access to the paid forum and posted the passwords on the open Internet for everyone to see. Obviously this is a very serious security breach.

Another troll actually paid $15 to join our site, and then strolled in and started picking fights with me of all people. Posters immediately launched into him, resulting in a huge fight spanning maybe 100 posts. He then went over to the Topix forum and started trashing our site. He was banned, all warring posts were deleted, and his money was kept.

This is a very serious problem. We have had have people who dedicated much of their time to destroying our site. These are extremely serious security breaches, and we had to take immediate action.

From now on, the donation requirement has gone up to a minimum of $20. We figure the higher fee might keep the pests and destroyers out, but who knows? If you have already paid at least $20, you are in. If you have paid less than $20, you will have to pay at least $5-10 more to equal a $20 contribution. I have records of all of your payments, so don’t worry.

Donation page.

Each post in the forum now has a separate passcode that is pretty much impossible to remember. The passwords are secure from a dictionary attack also for reasons I will not go into.

In addition, we have undertaken even further security measures to safeguard the forum users.

Hopefully these new policies will at least keep the security breaches to a minimum.

I would like to point out more thing to the people who are  dedicated to destroying  this site for whatever insane reason they have. I realize that you and quite a few others out there have an extreme, off the charts hatred of me for some retarded self-righteous reason. Fine.

But do you any of you realize that this site is very important to the LE working on this case? Well, it is. I know that for an absolute fact. I am not going to tell you how I know that, but I do know it. So in trying to destroy this site, do you realize that you are trying to destroy a valuable trove of evidence that LE is utilizing to attempt to solve this case? You are directly attacking the LE who are working on this crime. Why don’t you just go over to the Delphi Center and start slashing police tires and cutting phone lines to the tip lines? You are doing something similar when you deranged haters try to destroy my site. You are hurting LE efforts to solve this case in a serious way. Why do you want to do that?

Protected thread 1:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/post-to-discuss-poi-in-the-delphi-murders/

Protected thread 2:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/post-to-discuss-all-of-the-various-pois-and-theories-in-the-delphi-murders-from-the-crime-to-the-present-protected-to-avoid-libel-and-character-assassination-problems/

Protected thread 3:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/07/08/protected-post-to-discuss-all-of-the-various-pois-and-theories-in-the-delphi-murders-from-the-crime-to-the-present-protected-to-avoid-libel-and-character-assassination-problems-3/

Protected thread 4:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/protected-post-to-discuss-all-of-the-various-pois-and-theories-in-the-delphi-murders-from-the-crime-to-the-present-protected-to-avoid-libel-and-character-assassination-problems-4/

94 Comments

Filed under Crime, Law enforcement, Meta, Midwest, Regional, USA

Sticky: Website Going to a Subscription/Donation Model

To access the latest posts on the site, please scroll pasts the three sticky posts. 

I am really getting sick and tired of this endless bashing of me by scumbags for trying to make some money off my website. It is really quite incredible.

So for now and into the future, the website will no longer be a free website. It will move to a donation model of many pay websites. However, like a lot of such sites, you will still be able to access a lot of content for free. For instance, all of the articles on the main site can be read for free forever! However, if you wish to comment on articles, there are now limits. If you become what I consider to be a regular commenter, you will have to give a minimum of $10 for a donation. After that, you can comment forever on the regular website’s thousands of articles forever!  You are certainly free to donate more than $10 if you wish, and many people do. I regularly get donations of $50, $100, $200, $250 and rarely up to $500.

People who like the site often give quite a bit of money to keep it going. I do not have a high income, as I have made ~$14,000/yr for the last several years. By donating/, you are mostly just helping me to survive.

Of course, when you go on those pay sites and read their free stuff, they hit you up to buy a subscription or buy whatever it is they are selling on a regular basis. It’s logical. Do you walk into a store and assume you are not going to buy anything? Of course not. You go into a store, and the owner assumes that you may well buy something. Same at the pay sites. So you get nag screens, pop-ups, limits on free viewing, etc. pretty regularly when you access their free content. And why not? Accessing the free content is like walking into a store fully intending not to buy a thing. The nag screens, requests to donate or buy a subscription, popups, etc. are like the owner repeatedly asking you if you want to buy something. The limits on free viewing are like when you spend an hour in some store not intending to buy anything, and the owner finally asks you to leave.

As this is now a pay site, it’s perfectly logical that I should have announcements or comments seeking people to donate to our services.

I am a journalist. I have a BA in Journalism from a good university. I have previously worked as an editor at a major magazine. I worked for a while as a freelance writer for money. And I am now a published author. Most authors don’t go to work for some newspaper or magazine and expect to work for free. They expect a wage or salary. Book authors don’t give their books away. No author who makes his living off writing gives his writing away for free. Why should he? Everyone else works for money. Why shouldn’t authors work for money too? Apparently my critics think I have no right to work for money! I have no right to offer my writing for sale instead of giving it away like an idiot. I am supposed to give all my material away for free and I guess starve or live on the streets and beg or something.

So if you hear, “Lindsay’s always hitting people up for donations,” first of all, this vicious lie of my critics is not even true. I only occasionally ask for money on here. A few site services now cost money, and people are told that if they wish to access that material, they must pay a fee.

Second, why they Hell can’t I ask people to give a donation?

You go to the New York Times, Washington Post or Guardian, and they hit you up for money all the time. The Times and Post only let you read a few articles for free a month, and then you are cut off. If you wish to comment on the Times or Post, you need to purchase some sort of subscription. The Guardian hits you up for donations at the end of every single article you read. And why not? Are the Times, Post, and Guardian supposed to give their product away for free? Why? How are they supposed to stay in business? How are they supposed to survive? They run a business. Why do you expect businesses to give their products away for free? They will all starve and live in the streets if that is the case.

Why should I be any different? This is also a news site run by an accredited, experienced, and published journalist/author. He doesn’t give his writing away for free. Not exactly anyway.

It is quite amazing what you can read on here for free. On the other hand, like many pay sites, to obtain full use of the site, you must make some sort of a purchase.

I am getting sick and tired of hearing idiots screeching that I ask for money. Damn right I do. This is a pay website, and like the rest of them, we will hit you up for donations like any other news outlet on the web. Why it is outrageous that I wish to work and survive and get paid for my labor in America is beyond me. This is something I will never understand.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

34 Comments

Filed under Journalism, Labor, Meta

Robert Stark Interviews Pilleater about Psychosocialism

Just listened to this. It’s from May, four months ago, but I just got around to listening to it now. Psychosocialism is not about socialism or any economic doctrine. Instead it is about Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, which is similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that so many are familiar with. I like Maslow’s hierarchy, and I like Erickson. This is about the psychology of human development through the lifespan. It’s not about economics.

I never could understand what Heidegger was on about with his Dasein stuff. Maybe someone can help me out here.

I have heard of Alain de Botton, but I am not sure exactly who is or what he writes about. I believe he is an author.

Paul Fussell’s book or books on the American class system are classics that ought to be read by everyone, including me, even though I haven’t gotten around to that yet. I had an ex who was really into that book. I imagine you can never understand US society well until you start to get a handle on our class system that permeates everything in our land and every moment of our existence whether we want it to or not.

I cannot recommend Roger Devlin’s short work Sexual Utopia in Power highly enough. The document I have is a pdf that’s only ~35 pages. It shows so well how feminism has ruined the West and Western women and furthermore how feminism has dramatically changed the sexual marketplace. People love to hate Game and the Game/PUA crowd, but the truth is that this movement was forced to develop the way it did due to the realities of how feminism changed the sexual marketplace, and yes, it is a marketplace, trust me on that one. So the feminists really created Game and the PUA jerks. Reap what you sow, ladies! The PUA/Game philosophy is ugly, but the point these men are making is that this nasty project is the only thing that is going to work nowadays given how feminists have turned the sexual marketplace upside down. You either learn Game and go along with at least some of its postulates or you lose out with women. The choice is that stark.

I do not know much about Andy Nowicki other than that he is one of these new writers out of Chip’s new publishing house, which also features Ann Sterzinger. I am told that both Nowicki and Sterzinger are excellent authors who have produced some fine novels, but both are associated with the Alt Right for some crazy reason.

It’s hard to imagine Ann as a racist, so I have no idea why she tied herself up in this mess. I do know that Ann hates the Left, whatever the Hell that means to her, but I have no idea why she hates it, I mean us. She blasted me recently for being a Leftist. I guess that some evil or horrible thing somehow.

Andy’s different, and his motivation may be racial, but I do not know enough about him. Andy also hates the Left and liberalism, but I have no idea what he means by that either.

Given how much Ann and Andy hate the Left, which means me (keep in mind that that Alt Left is definitely a Left movement, as odd as it may be), I am wondering if I should even bother to read them. Why read my ideological adversaries? I hear enough of that swill as it is.

A lot of people who didn’t seem very racist seem to be aligning with the Alt Right for some weird reason. These folks are mostly Gen X’ers, often embittered, cynical and nihilistic ones. Even Matt Forney, formerly pretty agnostic on the race issue, has gone over  pretty seriously to the race project of the New Right. He also ferociously hates the Left to the point of becoming a strong advocate for the Republican Party. 

I am thinking a lot of these young hipster types have gotten tied up in this Alt Right stuff simply because it is the latest groovy rebellious or even revolutionary trend. At this point, the PC/SJW Cultural Left is the Establishment, so going Alt Right is a way of rebelling against the Establishment. It’s a new counterculture, if you will. A lousy counterculture, but a counterculture nonetheless.

This is what it means to be a hipster nowadays? Support Trump and the Republican Party of all things? The mind boggles. The 1960’s is calling. They want their Revolution back. And so do I.

I like Pilleater a lot. He has been identifying himself as Alt Left for some time now, though recently he has been modifying that to Alt Center. The Alt Center is the newest political project kid on the block. I am not sure exactly what it is. It’s the Alt Left minus some of our Left views and with a lot more of the Alt Right added in instead. I suppose you could call it an ideological marriage between the Alt Left and the Alt Right. What I have seen so far is not that bad other than support for Trump. They are not particularly racist. It’s not my cup of tea at the moment, but I am not opposed to it. I have to check out this Alt Center a lot more to see what they are on about.

Here.

Robert Stark and co-host Pilleater discuss Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages

.Topics:

Psychologist Erik Erikson’s life and philosophy.
The psychosocial stages of development.
Pilleater’s article Erik Erikson’s Psychosocialism: An Introduction.
Martin Heidegger; Who and What is Dasein?
Cultural expectations that one must achieve certain goals by stages in life.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Situational losers vs. genuine losers; “I deserve better”.
Arrested psychological development.
How Psychosocialism shapes our political, economic, and cultural system.
How won must adapt or win at Psychosocialism.
Psychosocialism as a political doctrine.
How to restructure society to solve these problems; Smart Socialism.
Does a High IQ Nearly Guarantee Riches?
Paul Fussell’s A Guide through the American Status System.
Alain de Botton: Status Anxiety.
LARPing as a psychosocial coping mechanism.
The Bobo doll experiment.
Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power.
Andy Nowicki’s memoir Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Racism, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics

Spot the Language September 23, 2017

Here is a good one. What language is this? I probably ought to give you a huge clue and point out that this is the Romanization orthography of the language and the vast majority of the time, this language is not written with this Roman orthography.

Shànliáng, wēnróu, dúlì, lèguān, rèqíng, làngmàn, zhōngchéng. Shòuguò liánghǎo jiàoyù, xǐhuān tànsuǒ wèizhī shìjiè. Xǐhuān zìrán de dōngxī. Xǐhuān yīnyuè, yuèdú, xǐhuān pēngrèn měishí, xǐhuān lǚxíng, rè’ài jiātíng, jùyǒu chuántǒng de jiàzhíguān, zérèn xīn. Yǒu fēngfù de rénshēng yuèlì hé jiāndìng de xìnyǎng, wéirén zhōnghòu, kuānróng. Lái dào měiguó jiāngjìn 2 nián, yǐ huòdé lǜkǎ. Zài zhōngguó cóngshì jiàoyù gōngzuò 25 nián, jiàoshòu zhōngguó wénxué. Yǒuyī nánhái, dàxué bìyè, zài zhōngguó gōngzuò.

5 Comments

Filed under Linguistics, Spot the Language

Teen Sex Mass Hysteria Kills Another Kid

Here.

Boy takes photo of himself having sex with a girl classmate. Somehow the photo gets found by some adult and reported to police. Idiot cops get involved. School administrators, even more boneheaded than the police, stick their big fat noses into the mess. The dumbass adults threaten to the poor boy with criminal charges for distribution of child pornography (surely a horrific abuse of that statute) and threaten to put him on the Sex Offender list for life.

What follows, logically, is the boy kills himself. Of course he did. How did you expect him to act? And he’s not the first one. There have been more, and many kids have been arrested and jailed on “child porn” charges. Quite a few have been put on the Sex Offender list for life over this idiotic nonsense.

It’s a moral panic. Let’s call it Teen Sex Mass Hysteria.

 

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under Crime, Law enforcement, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Midwest, Moralfags, Regional, USA

Teen Sex Mass Hysteria: Anatomy of an American Moral Panic

At the moment, American fanatical puritanism is focused on teen sex.

I guess they’re just not supposed to do it! It’s out and out illegal in many states. The mere mention of the subject causes lynch mobs to rage at you and call you “pedophile.” I have been supposedly reported to the police many times as a “pedophile” simply for discussing the subject of teen sex! Jesus. Even the Victorians had nothing on us. Lots of teenagers were having sex back then and no one gave a damn.

Let’s call it Teen Sex Mass Hysteria because that’s exactly what it is. For some insane reason, puritanical Americans can’t seem to get it through their heads that teenagers are fully sexually mature beings, typically by age 13. The boys have a full blown adult sex drive (male sex drive peaks at age 16-23) and anecdotal evidence implies that even girls age 13-15 have full blown adult female sex drives nowadays.

Americans refuse to believe this. Instead they infantalize the young men and women known as teenagers, calling them kids, children, etc. The truth is that teens are not little kids. They’re not adults either, but they’re not little tiny children like you see running around in the park or the schoolyard. The difference between teenagers and little kids is so stark that it is almost like they are people from two different planets. It’s insipid and insane to conflate little children with the young men and young women called teenagers. It’s sheer idiocy.

Can someone please tell me how it is progressive to infantalize our teenage young men and young women? How is it liberal to treat 17 year olds like kindergartners? How is it feminist to support laws that imprison teenagers for having consensual sex with each other? How is it feminist, progressive or liberal to call the photos teens take of themselves and each other naked in having sex with each other “child porn?” How is it feminist to put teenage girls in jail and on the sex offender list for life for taking nude pics and sharing them with some boy? How is it progressive to imprison a teenage boy for “distributing child porn” for taking a nude photo of himself and sending it to the girl?

If this is how insane and puritanical the US Left is about sex, you can imagine how batshit nuts the US Right about the subject.

It’s time to chill on this Teen Sex Mass Hysteria bullshit. It’s profoundly backwards, reactionary and barbaric. No self-respecting liberal or progressive person should have anything to do with this insipid moral panic. Shame on us as a nation for falling victim to an obviously irrational mass hysteria.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Conservatism, Culture, Law, Left, Liberalism, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Political Science

America, Land of Sex-Crazy Puritans

When It Comes To Sex, Americans Are Barking Mad and Always Have Been

What in the Hell is the matter with Americans anyway? Why are we so insane about sex? America has always been insane about sex, possibly dating back to its puritan roots. The fact that this is the only Western country with a huge fundamentalist religious movement cannot be helpful.

On the one hand, there is free porn everywhere, all over the Internet, available for anyone to see, even underage teenagers. And underage teens of both sexes definitely watch porn. By age 18, I would gather that the vast majority of teens of both sexes have seen Internet porn. I had a client once who had started masturbating compulsively to Internet porn at age 11. And, get this, this person was female. Yep, an 11 year old girl masturbating compulsively to Internet porn. Now obviously she’s an outlier, but the point is taken.

She brought up the issue of “early sexualization” regarding today’s kids in regards to her own experience.

In addition to flooding society with free porn, we fetishize and nearly mandate sex. We make it impossible to criticize even the sickest, most messed up sex acts.

Gay men like to eat shit? That’s just fine! Don’t you know it’s homophobic to criticize that?

Sick people get into S/M relationships where a sadistic man basically abuses a self-hating masochistic women, all done under the rubric of S/M of course, so we are not allowed to criticize it, except that in terms of its dynamics, it looks exactly like any abusive relationship with a cruel man and suffering, Stockholmed battered woman? This is basically torture sex. We are not allowed to criticize torture sex. If people want to torture each other, that’s their business!

Another thing not discussed is the relationship between S/M, B/D sex and psychopathy and sex crimes, including kidnapping, rape, torture, murder and serial murder. It is extremely common for men who committed violent sexual crimes against women to have a background interest in S/M B/D sex. Women involved in the scene report that many of the male doms (really just sadistic men) have sociopathic tendencies, and many are out and out psychopaths.

A lot of the masochistic women who come out of the “consensual” S/M B/D scene end up damaged, often seriously, by years of abuse done under the “cool” rubric of S/M B/D. The sort of damage that they present with looks exactly like the psychological damage that women in abusive relationships show. But hey, that’s just fine. A sex scene that produces rapists, kidnappers, torturers, murderers and serial killers is just fine! And you’re a stuffy uptight prude if you disagree!

Gay men want piss on each other and drink each other’s piss? Well that’s just fine! How uptight of us to object to such a thing! We must be evil or something. Why don’t we try it ourselves? What’s wrong with you? You won’t drink piss? What, are you frigid or impotent or something?

Gay men want to shove fists up each other’s asses, sometimes causing serious damage to their bodies? How dare we object. We are evil homophobes! Fisting is just fine! We must be uptight or something. Why don’t we try it ourselves, we might like it?

For straight people, sex is nearly mandatory, even if you are single. I knew a 19 year old college girl who absolutely hated herself because she was still (technically) a virgin. She said she felt like a total loser. You can go on the Internet and read underage teenage girls complaining bitterly that they are still virgins and predicting that they will be virgins all the way to age 18. One was so angry about it that she was determined to seduce one of her father’s friends just to get rid of her virginity.

Guys who can’t get laid are considered losers. We are all supposed to be having tons of sex all the time, and if we are not, we are hung up, failures, losers and maybe even mentally ill, sick or even evil. I have seen people call men who were not getting any evil on many occasions. If you’re not having sex, you’re a sinner! Wow. We’ve turned morality upside down. Sins are virtues and virtues are sins! Sade would be proud of us.

At the same time as we push this Wild West bacchanalia sexual free for all with its sinful chastity and virtuous whoredom, we are probably the most puritanical country in the entire West. Most of this is being driven by Gender Feminism, one of the most fanatically puritanical movements to emerge in our time and  probably by the Christian fundamentalism, which is somehow working right alongside the whorish Babylon. So we hate sex, and we are sex-crazy. This actually makes sense because there is evidence that the more you repress sex, the more sex-crazy people get due to pent-up frustration.

Way to go, Americans! Way to be stupid! Keep being idiots! Don’t stop now! You’re just getting started.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Christianity, Coprophilia, Crime, Culture, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Little or None, Masochism, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Regional, Religion, Scum, Serial Killers, Sex, Sociopathy, Solitaire, USA

India Is the Most Beautiful and Terrible Place on Earth

Excellent report from India from the comments:

This blog is hilarious! Especially the bans. I’m a White American who has traveled to India three times, twice by choice, once for business. I have told people I thought India was the most beautiful and most terrible place on Earth.

Delhi is a horrifying shithole alright and is full of assholes. The taxi people will try to fuck you with a bunch of stupid scam shit right out of the airport. However, I went there almost 15 years apart on two trips, and the second time I went, it was much improved. Roads were being built, as was a subway (metro).

Twice in Delhi my wife was molested, once in a tuktuk with me, and once standing in a crowd. In both cases, someone grabbed her ass from behind. After a week, I was so disgusted and angry at the Indian men who would walk up to her, drooling, while I was accompanying her, tested all my strength of cultural tolerance. Fortunately we left Delhi before I kicked someone’s ass. I should add that my wife is 6′ and totally fucking hot but was dressed more or less like a dirty hiker.

Dharamsala is not a shithole. I did find occasional open sewer canals, but the people were much nicer, the city was generally cleaner, and most of the escaped Tibetans I met were very friendly.

Bihar is disgusting. I got dumped in Patna with my wife because of a bus strike in Nepal while we were trying to travel back from Chitwan to Varanasi, so we were rerouted there. I have seen the throat of Hell, and it is the Nepal/India border town of Raxaul. Beyond Bosch, Goya, Milton, etc.

Four bandits/dacoits boarded our bus late at night during a stop. I stood up in the back of the bus waving a Kukhri I bought in Kathmandu (very nice place in 1999, much better overall than India) and they got off at the next stop.

I believe I encountered a guardian angel in downtown Patna, who suddenly appeared on the street (it was the middle of the night) and told us we had to get off the streets immediately and take refuge in the train station. The floor there was covered with people sleeping on newspapers in filth and urine, but from there, we spotted the last open hotel in the place. After I checked in there around 3 AM, people immediately came knocking on the door after I had settled in. I pushed the chest of drawers in front of the door, and we went to sleep. In the morning we were awakened by knocking again, so I went to the door, and it was a member of the hotel staff who brought us tea and toast for breakfast, which tasted really fucking amazing at that moment.

Rajasthan is really nice. Beautiful palaces, lovely colors, friendly people. The occasional pool of human excreta, garbage and the fucking free-roaming cows did appear but not enough to feel pervasive. Jaipur is a mad crunch of people, but we stayed in a former palace for nothing, and it was great.

Khajuraho was fantastic. I loved Gwalior as well. On the road south to Orchha, we spotted a beautiful, empty palace of sorts called, I think, Dhuttia or Datia. We got out – no attendant or anything. It was UNESCO-quality in architecture. Climbed to the top of that, and inside we were approached by a security guard who was friendly, and we wanted to know why there was nobody there.

He said, “We don’t let Indians in here. They would destroy the place.”

Never forgot that; made me quite sad.

Goa is shit. Filthy, overpriced, non-stop haranguing from tout fucks. Disgusting beaches, filthy ocean, though there is infrastructure and decent roads in some places, and the Portuguese historical sites are interesting.

So I did the range from cheap hippie-backpacker experience in 1999 to five-star “bubble” traveling (and sometimes nomadic wandering). I would go back, as I would like to see the Ajanta and Ellora Caves, Kerala, and Gujarat.

I did bathe in the Ganges near Varanasi in 1999 because I was on some sort of spiritual journey thing right after my father died. I didn’t get sick, though I got sick other places in India (but that is the same as in many African countries, Egypt, Portugal, etc., and I got a terrible case of dysentery in London, though that was from eating samosas at an Indian food stand.)

The wife molestation thing I have never encountered anywhere else. The whole Eve-teasing thing and its mentality has to fucking stop. As does of course the raping, though that’s certainly not unique to India.

Now that said, I have been to 96 countries, including several in Africa. The poverty, at least demonstrated by total squalor, is worse in India. Where I have traveled, I have found assholes and wonderful people and have not usually been able to pin them down by religion. Except for Buddhists. Everywhere I have encountered Buddhists, everything’s been cool. I was surprised at how many Ethiopian people are assholes and at how endemic prostitution is there. The most assholes I have encountered were in Cambodia. But I can understand why.

So overall, I would tell people what I said at the beginning of this post: India is the most beautiful and the most terrible place at the same time. They should not be sending fucking satellites and rockets into space and spending gazillions on developing their own fighter jets which will never compete with the USA’s before taking care of basics like infrastructure, sanitation, health, and poverty. Costa Rica, for instance, has no military. They’ve spent the money on education and have achieved 95% literacy.

Also, I have made several acquaintances who I wanted to be friends with here in the US. Things went great until I told them I had been to India a couple of times. They immediately cut off all contact and wouldn’t engage with me ever again.

But if you get a chance to go to India, go! Just be prepared, and get your shots.

3 Comments

Filed under Asia, Buddhism, Culture, India, Nepal, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, Travel

Something Conservatives Will Never Understand: Armed Leftwing Revolutions Only Happen in Horrible Countries

I will grant that Colombia is more rightwing than the US, but at least they have a great Left. Hell, the Left down there is actually armed for Chrissake! They have guns, bombs, RPG’s full battle uniforms, you name it, and they use their weapons all the time to kill the conservative police and army, who very much deserve it.

This shows what happens when your society goes too rightwing or when your rightwing goes too rightwing. Not only do you get a monstrous, fascist, usually murderous Right, but, just as sure as night follows day, you end up with a very radical Left that in many cases arms itself against the murderous Right.

Extremes beget extremes. Do you really need to read Marx to figure that out? Hell, I bet I could explain that to a 5th grader and they would nod their head in agreement.

But show me an American conservative anywhere who agrees with that statement. Nope, according to the US Establishment, the radical Left rises out of ether for no apparent reason at all other than sheer fanatical evil to overthrow the capitalism that their ideology orders them to blindly hate.

While the USSR was still around, it was a convenient White Whale for any stirrings of the radical Left.

Why is the Left armed to the teeth down there, killing people left and right? Well, Number One is just because they are evil. Idiots, but evil idiots.

Are they taking up arms for any reason? Of course not, there is never an indigenous reason for any Left revolution. Well, what’s the cause of it? Cuba! And the USSR! The Cubans and the Russians put them up to it! Oh God, what crap this is. But this is the ideology of the entire US political establishment and the entire US media for decades now. And it is the lunatic ideology of the vast majority of the American people since 1946.

We lie like this because the truth is hard to swallow.

The Communists were not stupid. The individual CP’s in various countries generally felt that only when the capitalist conditions in the country approached a truly horrorshow of a Hell would there be reason for revolution. Otherwise they would always try to take power by peaceful means. Many a CP ruled many, many times that the country was not in a revolutionary situation and hence taking up arms was not justified. I can’t tell you how many documents I have read that said X country was not in a revolutionary situation right now so taking up arms was illegitimate.

Taking up arms was always an extreme last resort for any CP in any country. And when people did take up arms in what was seen as a non-revolutionary situation, as with the Shining Path in Peru, the vast majority of the Left lined up with the state against the Marxist rebels. Nevertheless, even in those cases there were variables. Towards the end the situation in Peru had gotten so horrific with the war and the monstrous turn of the state into a murderous charnelhouse that a number of parties around 1992 declared that the country was now in a revolutionary situation and it was acceptable to take up arms. That is why a number of other groups took up arms in 1992 at the peak of the war.

In many cases, CP’s even cruelly denied help to local CP’s on the grounds that they were not in a revolutionary situation.

Every American hates North Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, but he was a rational man and North Vietnam was a reasonable state.

After the cancelled elections of 1954 which were ruined by the US (the UN ordered elections in the country, and the US ordered South Vietnam not to participate), the South Vietnamese Communist Party (really the Viet Cong) tried to obtain power by peaceful means. They were not armed with a single bullet. Nevertheless, with strong US support, the South Vietnamese government murdered 80,000 unarmed South Vietnamese Communist civilians between 1954-1960.

All this time, the South Vietnamese Communists were asking for permission from North Vietnam to take up arms. The North consistently refused armed support, so 80,000 Communists died. This shows you how grave most CP’s thought the decision to take up arms was. Finally in 1960, the North gave the South permission to take up arms, and the war was on. As you can see, South Vietnam started the Vietnam War by killing 80,000 unarmed civilians with the enthusiastic help of the US. The Viet Cong actually took up arms in self-defense. They simply got tired of sitting in their villages and waiting for the government to come murder them. They decided that if the state was going to try to kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves against the killers.

If you study most Communist revolutions in the 20th Century, this was the case in almost every single one of them. The decision to take up arms was only a last resort when conditions in the country deteriorated drastically and in particular when all peaceful methods of change were blocked. In the 20th Century, Communists almost always took up arms grudgingly, as a last resort and typically in self defense.

If you had a decent country, you never had to worry about an armed Left rebellion. If you had a shithole, well, a Left revolution was definitely something to worry about. The conclusion here is that every country that had an armed Left revolution in the 20th Century basically asked for it and got what they deserved. It was the fault of the leaders of every one of those countries for making conditions so horrible that the Left took up arms in the first place.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, Cold War, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Fascism, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, South America, US, US Politics, USSR, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Liberals Lie Like Rugs Too

Well, of course they do. And they especially lie about the people they hate the most – conservatives – for good reason I would argue, as American conservatives are easily some of the worst conservatives on Earth. I  mean my God, we have the worst leftwingers on Earth (the infectious pustules known as liberal Democrats). So it would figure that our conservatives would be orders of magnitude worse than even our awful liberals. Our whole politics is slanted to the extreme Right. In many ways, this is nearly the most rightwing country on Earth, and that’s mostly why the US sucks so bad these days.

And the Left lies like rugs just like the conservatives. The latest is an article by this poor conservative fellow named Jerrold Laber, who penned an unfortunately titled piece for the execrable Federalist called Your Refusal To Date Conservatives Is One Reason We Have Donald Trump. I will discuss the content of the piece in a bit. As soon as this article appeared, liberal jerks all over the Liberal Jerkosphere started piling on this poor guy, saying that he had written an article complaining that women would not date him because he was a conservative.

This guy claims women don’t want to have sex with him because he’s conservative. No, its because he’s a creepy racist bigot.

The comments that followed all said that the poor guy could not get laid because he was a disgusting conservative and also that he, get this, looked creepy. I looked at his photo very hard. He’s actually a very nice-looking man. He’s some egghead at a think tank. He looks about as creepy as an egghead at a think tank looks, which is not at all.

Then these liberals proceeded to call him a loser because he could not get laid. This is the last thing we on the Left should be doing. We don’t care whether you guys get laid or not. Saying we hate men who don’t get any means we are acting like Republicans. The guys who get some are winners and the guys who can’t get any are losers. We love the winners and hate the losers. That’s how Republicans think.

It’s so shameful to see liberals talk this way. Another thing you often see is liberals slamming some conservative saying he works for minimum wage! Wow! So now we liberals hate the poor! And the only decent people are the rich! And we judge humans as good to bad based on how much money they make! I can’t tell you how many liberal Democrats I have met who talk exactly like this.

If you’re going talk that way, why don’t you just get the Hell out of the Democratic Party and especially, why don’t you quit saying you are on the Left. I mentioned above that we have the most horrific and despicable Left on Earth (liberal Democrats). Well, I just gave you a couple of examples of why the US Left blows so much. I could go on but you get the point.

The thing is, the guy who wrote the piece never said he couldn’t get laid. He discussed OKCupid, but he never said he was a member. He only said that OKCupid now let’s users put Planned Parenthood badges on their profiles if they support abortion. He never says he is a member of OKCupid or not, or even if he is single or married. Even if he is a member, he never says how successful he was on the site.

In short, there is no reason at all to see this article as a guy complaining he can’t get laid on a dating site (actually an extremely common problem for men, take it from me, and I am good with women).

Instead, he uses this anecdote to discuss assortative mating, that is the tendency of like-minded people to mate with each other. Like mates with like. Similarities, not opposites, attract. This is well-studied in social science. The author warns about this and notes that we are getting increasingly polarized on our political views. Whereas 23 years ago, only 15% of Republicans and Democrats hated each other, now it’s up 38-48%. I still think only 38% of us hating the other side is way too low, but then I am Mr. Polarized. Polarization? Bring it on! More, more, faster, faster! And no, I am not (((Michael Ledeen))).

He opines that the fact that Republicans and Democrats are not bonding together nearly as much as they used to (apparently inferred by polarization numbers) means that the parties split more and more and polarization increases even more. It’s a feedback loop. We start hating each other more and more, so we start bonding with the other side less and less. The fact that we are mating with each other less and less means increasing polarization, which leads to more mating avoidance which leads to…OK you get it. It’s a dog chasing its tail here, like so many things in life.

He then quotes Charles Murray about how the wealthier and poorer Americans are growing further apart to the point where they almost seem like people from two different countries, if not two different planets. Murray thinks this is not a good thing. And since the author quotes Murray that means he is a racist. Why is Murray a racist? Because he wrote the Bell Curve (a book I love by the way). So if you quote Murray about anything, even when Murray is not discussing race at all, that makes you a racist because Murray is a racist and hence anyone who quotes him is a racist.

People wonder why people have had it up to here with the Cultural Left, PC and SJW’s and are voting Republican in protest? It’s because of crap like this. This man did not mention race at all anywhere in his piece, yet we on the Left smear him as a racist. Murray writes a completely nonracist book full of 100% pure and proper science at least in terms of hypothesis, and he’s a racist for the rest of his life. We may be on the right side, but we are just as ugly as Republicans. Even if they are on the other side, we must be fair to them. If we cheat and lie and fight dirty about and towards them, what right do we have to complain when they do it?

I so wish we on the liberal-Left would knock this crap off. And the fact that the Left acts this way is a huge reason why the Alternative Left even got formed in the first place.

An honorable man is judged by his behavior in war and peacetime. It’s not enough to be a gentleman in peacetime. An honorable man also fights fair. He doesn’t fight dirty. If he does, he is no longer an honorable man. He’s a lousy person along with the hundreds of millions of others out there.

10 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World, by Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach

I have never heard of this early French philosopher, nor have I heard of his monumental doorstop of a book, quoted in the title.

The prose below is from 1773, and I doubt if anyone can write better today. I think this shows that our brains are about as smart now as they were in the times of the Revolutionary War at least in terms of raw IQ or brain speed. In fact, some studies have shown that Victorians had dramatically faster brains than we do (by reaction time). So the suspicions of us cynics may be true after all – of course we are getting stupider. Just look around you. How can it not be so?

Knowledge is one thing and intelligence is another. Intelligence is probably defined best as a measure of raw brain speed. The faster the brain, the more intelligent the person is.

Knowledge is another matter altogether and is more related to culture. For instance, we are much smarter now than we were in 1773 in terms of knowledge. We know so many more things and we understand the world so much better! We can make so many fancy things and solve so many difficult problems now solely on account of our accumulation of knowledge. So while we may be dumber than Victorians in terms of raw intelligence, we are much smarter than Victorians in terms of knowledge. The latter may well compensate for or even overwhelm the former. A fast brain is not a worth a lot if you barely understand the world around you.

It’s also useful to note that knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence necessarily. For all we know, cavemen may have had very fast brains. Brains in 1770 may have been even faster than in the Victorian Era. No one knows. We have always been an intelligent species. But while men in the Middle Ages and Dark Ages may have had brains that worked about as fast as ours, they were nevertheless not able to figure out the world very well.

Knowledge is more a matter of luck than anything else because ideally it is cumulative. With each generation or at least with each century or millennium, man has increased his knowledge and has managed to figure out the world better. Nevertheless, at the beginning the process is quite slow. Look at how long we lumbered along in comparative ignorance, even with presumably fast brains. This shows us that intelligence needs knowledge to be worth much of anything. Intelligence minus knowledge does not add up to a hill of beans. How impressive is a fast brain if it has the worldview of a caveman?

As I noted, knowledge ideally is cumulative. This is not always so, and there have been shocking histories of actual cultural and knowledge loss. The Tasmanians were separated from the mainland 10,000 years ago and afterwards they seem to have lost the ability to make fire and craft fishing hooks among other things. They may have also forgotten how to sew. So Idiocracy is nothing new. It’s been going on somewhere for at least 10,000 years.

Nevertheless, knowledge throwbacks are an anomaly because knowledge tends to be cumulative. It is also interesting to note that there seems to be some critical mass at work here. As knowledge gains, the acquisition of new knowledge seems to speed up somehow. Critical mass may well have been reached perhaps 100 years ago. Since then the leaps of knowledge have been spectacular. We now learn more in decade now than we did in a millennium.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the basics, we are hardly more competent now than we were in 1773.

Modern writers have not superseded the prose below; in fact, many cannot even achieve this 1773 level of competence. When it comes to certain things like the ability to write down our ideas, all of our knowledge seems to hit a roadblock. All of the massive knowledge we have piled on in the last century has not enabled us to craft better prose than the prose of 250 years ago.

I seriously doubt if your artistic skills have improved either. We now paint better than Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci? Really?

What about music? Are we really better musicians now than Bach or Beethoven? Really?

It’s doubtful that our psi skills have improved much.

Are our social skills really better now than they were in the past? Are you sure?

Are we better able to achieve psychological health than in the past?

Do we know any more about the mysteries of life such as the soul and death than we did then?

Has our philosophical knowledge actually improved? We still cannot surmount Plato and Aristotle.

Anyway, check out this awesome prose:

The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:–He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage–it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigor and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colors; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

Man seeks to range out of his sphere: notwithstanding the reiterated checks his ambitious folly experiences, he still attempts the impossible; strives to carry his researches beyond the visible world; and hunts out misery in imaginary regions. He would be a metaphysician before he has become a practical philosopher. He quits the contemplation of realities to meditate on chimeras. He neglects experience to feed on conjecture, to indulge in hypothesis.

He dares not cultivate his reason, because from his earliest days he has been taught to consider it criminal. He pretends to know his date in the indistinct abodes of another life, before he has considered of the means by which he is to render himself happy in the world he inhabits: in short, man disdains the study of Nature, except it be partially: he pursues phantoms that resemble an ignis-fatuus, which at once dazzle, bewilders, and frighten: like the benighted traveler led astray by these deceptive exhalations of a swampy soil, he frequently quits the plain, the simple road of truth, by pursuing of which, he can alone ever reasonably hope to reach the goal of happiness.

The most important of our duties, then, is to seek means by which we may destroy delusions that can never do more than mislead us. The remedies for these evils must be sought for in Nature herself; it is only in the abundance of her resources, that we can rationally expect to find antidotes to the mischiefs brought upon us by an ill directed, by an overpowering enthusiasm. It is time these remedies were sought; it is time to look the evil boldly in the face, to examine its foundations, to scrutinize its superstructure: reason, with its faithful guide experience, must attack in their entrenchments those prejudices, to which the human race has but too long been the victim. For this purpose reason must be restored to its proper rank,–it must be rescued from the evil company with which it is associated. It has been too long degraded –too long neglected–cowardice has rendered it subservient to delirium, the slave to falsehood. It must no longer be held down by the massive claims of ignorant prejudice.

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World

– Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach, 1773.

As an aside, while reading this, I kept thinking, “This describes just about everyone I know.” Although Holbach may have been thinking about other types of ignorance and another type of reason, the passage still rang a bell. After all, look who we just elected President. The triumph of ignorance over reason right there. Look at our entire political culture. It’s all based on cultivated ignorance. Where’s the reason? There is none.

The only reason or logic that Americans follow is the logic that leads them to making more money. If it makes me money, it’s true. If it loses or costs me money, it’s false. That’s the reason by which most Americans live their lives. Obviously this leads to a lot of irrational if not insane decisions because the thing that costs you money is often a more rational decision than the decision that makes you money.

Guess what, Americans? I got some news for you.

Money does not equal truth.

Loss of money does not equal falsehood.

That’s a most peculiar moral philosophy we have set up for ourselves in this idiot Yahoo Country.

I know few people who want or try to challenge their core beliefs, which I believe is what Holbach is ultimately getting at above. The original purpose of this site – “If I Am Not Making You Mad, I Am Not Doing My Job” – was not to troll the world but instead to force readers to throw more of their beliefs up for grabs. I was out to challenge just about everything you believe in. Why? Because that’s what you need to do. You need to throw as much of your beliefs as possible up for grabs, as painful as that is. It’s very hard to do, so most just don’t bother.

About the book, this looks pretty cool. It was originally written in French, so that translation looks really cool. I am not sure if I could handle 993 pages of that prose though!

15 Comments

Filed under American, Art, Culture, History, Intelligence, Modern, Music, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Writing

Homosexuality Reduces Life Expectancy: Gays and Lesbians Live 20 Years Less than Straights

James Schipper:

Dear Robert

Your claim that gays and lesbians live on average 20 years less than heterosexuals of their gender is incredible. That is a huge difference. What are your sources? I’m quite willing to believe that gays live on average not as long as heterosexual men, but 20 Years?! As to lesbians, what could possibly cause such a big gap in life expectancy between them and heterosexual women?

Regards. James

I don’t have the studies right in front of me, but this is a repeated finding in social science. The gays refuse to accept it though, so we have to keep going back and doing it over and over. It was thought that discrimination had something to do with it, but the finding was recently replicated in Sweden and Denmark. Also this finding goes back to the pre-HIV era I believe. It is notable that only 2% of gay men are over 65. Most of them simply do not make it that far.

To be completely fair, the most recent study of all in Canada did not find a 20 year reduction. They found a 14 year reduction. Just as stereotypes would suggest, lesbians are often overweight. Obesity is a chronic finding among lesbians and it is thought that it contributes to the reduced life expectancy. Also lesbians smoke far more than straight women. They also drink quite a bit more alcohol. These findings go back forever. In addition, lesbians have extremely high rates of breast cancer for obvious reasons.

As far as why gay men don’t live as long, I am not sure what the reasons for that are. Obviously HIV is a factor, but this was going on even before HIV. I suppose the best answer is that the lifestyle that many gay men choose to live is not a healthy one that leads to a long life.

The reason most of you have never heard of these figures is because of our fanatically pro-gay culture in the West. You simply cannot write anything negative about these saints in human form called homosexuals. If you do, you’re a bigot. The gays are getting to be just as bad as the Jews and the Blacks about wearing their glorious victim status as a proud badge. Furthermore, there are people who do talk about facts like this along with many other less than flattering facts about homosexuality (mostly about gay men) but there has been a decades long campaign waged against these people calling them liars and basically evil people.

A very prominent one is Paul Cameron. There have been calls to throw him out of the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association due to his findings. Furthermore, he has had to publish his findings in obscure journals because no mainstream journals of psychological “science” and sociological “science” will accept his work. Further, these groups have claimed to speaking in the interests of science when they bash Cameron’s work. It is frequently stated that everything Cameron says about gays is a lie. His finding that homosexuals live 20 years less than straights has been bashed because he did this study over a period of time simply by reading obituaries and adding up the ages of the people who died. Nevertheless, there were a number of studies after Cameron done with much better epidemiology that replicated his findings. Psychological “science” never discusses these studies.

To be fair, Cameron is a pretty nasty fellow and he definitely hates homosexuals, especially gay men. He recently came out in favor of a bill in the Ugandan Legislature that called for the death penalty for men arrested for homosexual acts. Nevertheless, ad hominem is a logical fallacy as old as man himself and anyone with a brain knows that ad hominem attacks are always false on their face. Still humans simply cannot accept how a horrible person could be right about much of anything (presumably they can’t even tell if it is day or night) much less that could be right about many things.

Here’s some news for all of you out there who can’t think, which is the vast majority of you:

Good people are often wrong, and bad people are often right.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Africa, Death, East Africa, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Law, Psychology, Regional, Sex, Sociology