Monthly Archives: September 2016

Game/PUA: Flirtatious Signals, the Lack Thereof, and Consequences

Great post here. from Indomitable Thoughts, a blog focused on the plight of the incel.

The incident described occurred in a coffee shop. The woman was Hispanic and 23 years old and I was in my early 50’s, probably 30 years older than she was. I had my shirt unbuttoned a bit and she was staring at my hairy chest like it was a juicy T-bone steak.

I will say though sadly that I usually do not get this type of attention I described in this post these days. In fact, I am lucky if I get much of any attention at all.

However, I still do get some attention from women and even from girls!

But the overall effect is that I feel like an Omega and I am finally starting to understand how Omega males feel. And it does make you angry. I can see that easily.

Flirtatious Signals, the Lack Thereof, and Consequences

In Reading Women Correctly, Robert Lindsay discusses the kind of flirtatious signals women give when they are interested in a man. At the end he notes how some commenters complain about not getting any signals at all. These guys, known as involuntary celibates or incels, are basically invisible to women sexually.

Robert describes instances where women are almost literally attracted to him in a carnal sense – in one case, a girl was staring at his chest hair as if it were a prime rib. This type of animal sexual attraction is rarely experienced by incels, and is a huge stumbling block for them because it’s very difficult to flirt with to a girl when she isn’t putting out any signals of interest to begin with.

Furthermore, this lack of interest prevents an incel from fine-tuning his attraction radar, so he can better piece apart when a girl is flirting or not. This causes the incel to stumble badly whenever an opportunity arises, if it ever does. In the best case, the incel ends up broadcasting his sexual inexperience, and the consequences can be far more severe. These types of outcomes only reinforce the incel’s sense of inadequacy, as he is already suffering from a lack of affection and validation to begin with.

I consider this phenomenon to be the core problem of incel. It is a vicious, self-reinforcing circle, that only gets harder to break out of with time. Poor attractiveness (for whatever reason) leads to a poor reading of signals, if any are sent by girls to begin with, which often results in harmful psychological repercussions.

I will discuss ways to break this vicious circle in a future post.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Little or None, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

PUA/Game: Warning to Men – Teenage Girls Are Dangerous!

Women of all ages hardly look at me at all anymore which of course is due to aging. Most young women are just not into men my age. And I hardly blame them. They say that they do not find us attractive. This makes perfect sense to me and I do not begrudge them for feeling this way. However, even women in their 40’s do not seem all that interested. The overall effect seems to be that almost no one finds me attractive. Of course some women and even teenage girls find me attractive. Actually teenage girls stare at me all the time, and women in their 20’s to 30’s almost never do. I don’t get it.

I even had what must have been an 18 year old girl go into robot/hypnotized/blank stare mode at me the idea. That’s always a good sign. It means you turn her on. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’s going to have sex with you, but it means that a part of her would like to have sex with you. More properly, she is fantasizing about having sex with you in a way. Now whether she is really going to act on that feeling is another matter. People must understand that females probably get turned on by good-looking men on a regular basis, the vast majority of whom they never have sex with. So does that mean your average woman wants to have sex with all of them? Of course not. But women fantasize too. Looking and doing are completely different things.

A year ago, I had a 17 year old girl (only a couple of months short of 18, so she was just barely illegal) after me. She was anywhere from beautiful to cute depending on who you talk to. Before anyone freaks out, let me point out that she had a 100% body of an adult woman. For all intents and purposes, she was a woman. She wasn’t really a girl at all in any real sense if you take girl to mean “little girl.”

She was not underdeveloped in any way, shape or form. Her body was a bit different in that way that girls age 16-18 can be. At that age, many of them are thin but still have all of the perfect curves of a woman. On the other hand, their hips have not completely widened to point necessary to optimally carry a baby (this occurs at age ~19-20). So the effect is something that you do not see often in adult women, a beautiful female with outrageous curves who still has a quite thin body. I am not trying to be ephebephile here and I love older women’s bodies too, but that “thin body with perfect curves” is in some ways one of the best female body shapes of all. Unfortunately, it is usually wasted on females that are basically untouchable.

She kept saying she wanted to hang out with me, and my attitude was, “Sure, why not?” But she wanted me to hold her hand and put my arm around her when we were out in public, and I was really worried about that.

I used to take her around town anyway for coffee and whatnot. I got quite a few outraged stares an more than a few people acted like they wanted to hit me. Some acted like they were going to call the police on us. Every time I pointed that out to the girl, she laughed and said, “Good, let’s piss some more people off.” She was actually getting off on the fact that people were acting like they were going to beat me up for being with her. She thought it was hilarious. She kept trying to up the ante, saying, “Here, hold my hand, that will make them even more mad,” but I was too freaked out to do so. I wasn’t usually scared, but I was terrified to hold her hand or put my arm around her.

Although these are pretty innocent acts, it’s quite possible you could go down on child molestation charges even for something and inconsequential as that. There is a very ugly law in California called “annoying or molesting a child” that cops use frequently to bust me on very little cause. There are defense attorneys who specialize in getting men off of this specific charge. The crime has nothing to do with molesting a minor. If you did that, they would hit you with another charge.

Instead it is an insane “anti-grooming law” which means you can pretty much get arrested for so much as talking to an underage teenage girl. I recall one case where a man was arrested for having a conversation with two 15 year old girls, both runaways, in a pet store. I have no idea what they were talking about. The man said they were just talking. Well someone called the cops and he got arrested. I am thinking maybe if you held hands with a teenage girl or put your arm around her, you might go down on this stupid anti-grooming law.

Even if you don’t go down on that, there are some other moronic laws like corrupting the morals of a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor that you could go down on.

In fact, I was a bit worried about going down on this anti-grooming law just for hanging around this little hottie, but I doubt if they will arresting you just for associating with a teenage girl as long as you don’t do anything. I even had her over a few times. But she kept trying to seduce me. I kept telling her, “I can’t touch you. I can’t touch you,” and she kept laughing and saying, “Yes you can.” She was totally egging me on. I told her I could go to prison and she kept saying, “No one is going to find out.”

After a while of this, I had to diassasociate from her because it was just getting too scary and further, I was starting to get seriously tempted and I was worried that I might cave and give her the dicking she wanted. Everyone acts like some man with a barely underage girt is some sort of a predator scum, but this girl came after me all the way. She befriended me and asked me for my number and then started bugging me to hang out with her. I mean she was a little seductress all the way.

These idiots say that these hot young thing never try to seduce men, but oh yes they do! And I have read other experiences along these lines from other men. Kids grow up fast these days and 17 going on 30 is not unusual at all. I think a lot of men going down on bonking teenage girls are probably being overtly seduced by these girls. Some probably resist for a while, but at some point they just cave, give in and say, “The Hell with it. I’m going to do this little hottie! I won’t get caught and I don’t care if I do!” Of course he does care if he gets caught. And probably a lot of the time, the guy gets turned in by someone. I know that in a huge percentage of cases, the girl refuses to cooperate with the prosecution and tries to get the system to drop the charges, but they usually don’t do it. I’m not completely opposed to these laws but who exactly got harmed when the “victim” insists she was not a victim urges the system to let her “attacker” or “rapist” go.

What was funny was that even with all the hate looks we got, women started checking me out a lot more just by being with her. Instead massive SMV boost, even though I guess I was a “creepy pedophile.” And the local high school girls at the coffee shop we went to were literally in awe of me when they saw me with her and a lot acted like they would like to take her place.

I ended up playing Wise Older Man with her, but I end up doing this with most women in their 20’s that I date lately. Most women in their 20’s haven’t figured out life as well as you think. She was almost literally in awe of me like I was some sort of a God and I have heard that this is often the case even with women in their 20’s and middle aged men. They almost worship you like you are a statue. It’s pretty good for your ego. Hugo Schwyzer recently made the argument that middle aged men should stop dating younger women because they are in awe of us and almost worship us and they don’t put many demands on us. Whereas a lot of middle aged men say that dating women their age is like interviewing for a job. Schwyzer is correct that older women are a lot more demanding of us. Schwyzer says that by dating young women, we are avoiding the crucial tasks of learning how to deal with women our own age who will be a lot less tolerant of our bullshit and who, yes, will place a lot more demand on us. Schwyzer says we are copping out by chasing young things and not dealing with the realities of life.

I will say though that I have dated women around age 50 recently and I am not afraid of them, nor do I think they are unattractive. I have no preference for younger women and I do not believe that women “hit the wall” and become unattractive at age 30 either. It’s disgusting the way a lot of us older men say that women our own age or even in their 30’s are not attractive. Hell, the guy who is saying is about as attractive as the women he is calling ugly. So it’s pretty unfair. I love older women and in fact I love women of all ages from 18 up to over 50. They’re all great and in different ways too.

In closing, I would just say that not only middle aged men but even men in their 20’s and 30’s need to exercise serious caution around underage teenage girls. The main truth here seems to be not only, “A lot of these (16-17 year old) teenage girls are fuckable!*” but also that, “Teenage girls are dangerous!” You need to be very careful around them. It’s like playing with dynamite.


Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Law, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Sex

“Oh Well, She’s Just a Nigger Anyway”

Hasbrudal writes:

I’m curious about something.

Are there any studies about the violent crime rate of middle class and higher blacks vs the crime rate for the population as a whole and the middle class and higher as a whole? What are the numbers for blacks vs the population as for white collar crimes considering blacks lower propensity to be in a position to commit those crimes?

Those numbers would give some indication of how much is nature vs nurture in black propensity for violent criminality and criminality overall.

This is a very interesting question. Racists of course are going to say “a nigger’s a nigger.” Go on over to Niggermania and read their forum – that’s precisely what they say. Pretty much all Blacks are no good, and that’s that.

They do acknowledge a creature known as the “magic nigger” or “magic Negro” to be more PC about it. According to the Niggermania folks, magic niggers are no more than 10% of the population. A magic nigger is a Black person who is either highly intelligent, accomplished or who behaves quite well, within the standards of say your typical White American town or city. In other words, they act about as good as your average White person.

Now the magic niggers are a big problem for the racists over at Niggermania because they violate one of the central tenets over there, that all Blacks are no good.

I forget how they deal with this.

I think one way they deal with it is to say that 10% isn’t enough to make a race any good.

They also sometimes say, “Well you just wait. Even in that magic nigger, the nigger’s going to come out of him at some point. It has to. He can’t help it. Even magic niggers are not worth the risk. Stay away!”

So in saying that even magic niggers are rather racially tainted, they deal with this problem by saying that magic niggers are no good either because you never know when their Inner Nig is going to come out. So even though he seems nice and normal now, you just wait.

This mindset puts a lot of pressure on Blacks who behave well.

A Black female friend once told me that she tries to avoid anger because if she gets mad, then people will just say that’s her Inner Nigger coming out. She put it to me like this:

“See, if I get real angry, that won’t work because then they will just say, ‘Oh well, she’s just a nigger anyway’.”

So well behaved Blacks have to act extra special good in light of stereotypes about their behavior to make sure they are not playing into those stereotypes. In a lot of ways, they have to act even better than the rest of us do just to be considered normal. See? Now if I get angry, how many are going to say, “Well figures, he’s just another White trash White person. White people are always getting angry. It’s in their blood. They’re an inferior race of cavemen!”? Hardly anyone is going to say that. So you see I have a lot more freedom to act any way I want to than a lot of Blacks who are afraid of setting off stereotypes. Isn’t that rather sad?


Filed under Blacks, Crime, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, White Racism

Black Male, 113 IQ

When we set Black male IQ’s at 113, the Black and White crime rates are equal. Now isn’t that interesting?

So if all Blacks were just as smart as Jews, they would be no more criminal than Whites. But sadly that’s not case.

Now this is very interesting. Let’s look at this group – the Whites with 113 IQ and the Blacks with 113 IQ. Were their life experiences different? If so, how? If the Black experiences were worse, then why were the Blacks immune to them? Let’s look at the genes. Whoa! Genes are not the same. 113 IQ Blacks had a number of high risk repeats and whatnot that can definitely raise the risk of crime. Yet in them, it didn’t raise it one bit. Wow that is interesting! Why not? How were they immunized?

I actually suspect that the answer here is twofold but both answers deal with the same thing – intelligence.

Theory 1: First of all, it is possible that 113 IQ Blacks have some general background criminal tendency risk common to the race. So they were sort of born with their mind wanting to go in these directions. My theory: At some point, IQ is so high that is swarms out your bad genes. At 113 IQ, perhaps the high IQ might enable Black men to “swamp out” their antisocial tendencies like a tidal wave washing over a village. The intelligence just overwhelms the bad drives and renders them moot.

There might be something to that because I am convinced that a lot of low crime people want to act bad too. Bad men do what good men dream. This has always been my thinking. There is one maniac running around raping and murdering women while 100 men are only dreaming of it. The role of repression in human behavior is severely underestimated.

I hate to say it, but I have had all sorts of criminal urges in my life. The overwhelming majority of the time, I was simply able to suppress or repress these urges and forget about them. My superego would come in and say You might get caught, it’s wrong, what about the person, how could you do that to them, what about jail what about prison, imagine what that could be like, you would never handle it, it would ruin your life, don’t do it. They few times I gave in, I decided it was not a bad thing to do and anyway, the victim deserved it. So it was more paybacks and revenge than anything else.

The take home point here may be that as IQ rises, we can suppress more and more of our nasty and antisocial impulses, not to mention our stupid impulses. IQ might be the Great Suppressor or the Great Repressor.

Theory 2: Another possibility is that the genes that elevate criminal tendency in Blacks are not evenly distributed in the Black population. Alpha and Tulio act good because they simply never got dosed with these repeats. And perhaps, as Black IQ rises, genes are connected with this IQ rise. And the higher the IQ, the fewer antisocial genes one is dealt because these traits sort of run together genetically. Conversely, as IQ descends, perhaps the frequency of high crime risk genes increases because these genes are tied in genetically with low IQ.

Anyway it is figures like this, where the “high crime race” commits exactly the same amount of crime as the “low crime race” and discovers just why it is that this is so that makes race realist research so interesting, even from a point of view of progressive motives.


Filed under Blacks, Crime, Criminology, Genetics, Intelligence, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Whites

Possibilities for Race Realist Research with Progressive Motives and Possibly Outcomes

We know full well that Blacks commit crime at something like 7-8X the White rate.

We can debate this factoid.

If Blacks are genetically tainted somehow, then one would assume that most Blacks would be like this. I do believe that the Black crime has an elevated tendency towards crime and this is biological. But I doubt if all Blacks have this tendency. I doubt if Tulio, Alpha, Jm8 and Phil do. Or do they?

This is one of the great things about race realism.

Crime is such a problem with Blacks that it needs to be studied. By doing this, we should study that ones who act good.

Why is it that they act so good? Do they have the same genetic tendencies as the criminal Blacks but have somehow overcome them? What is the life history of these good behaving Blacks? Make some figures. Now compare to the criminal Blacks. How did the life history including upbringing home environment, etc. of the well behaved ones differ? Was there something in the life history of the ones that act good that protected them from criminal behavior. What factors are those? Let’s isolate them. I would imagine that the environments of Blacks who act good and criminal Blacks might be pretty different. But how different? What specific events/histories raise the risk of crime for this group and which ones act as crime preventive?

Now suppose we could isolate this thing, whatever it is, that makes Blacks more susceptible to crime. It’s a gene or some repeat or whatever. OK and if you have this, you are four times more likely to be a criminal. OK, now let’s look at Alpha and Tulio, etc. What if they have this exact same risk-raising repeat? See? Wow! Wouldn’t that be interesting? How come this genetic thing raised the risk in these guys but somehow Alpha and Tulio had the exact same gene, but it didn’t raise their risk at all. It was like it didn’t happen. Now why would that be? Did Alpha and Tulio have some protective experiences that kept them from this route. What might those have been? We have so many studies we could do here.

I would think that certain things might set off the gene or cause it to express more. We know that genetic expression is a new field. It’s not so much your genes but the extent to which they express – not at all, a bit, moderately, a lot or fully. So maybe Alpha and Tulio got this repeat but they had these protective experiences such that the gene simply never really expressed all that much in them or expressed so little that they were able to deal without a problem. And we may even be able to measure the degree to which genes express nowadays. So what might those protective experiences have been that kept the gene from expressing in these two but not in others.

A common complaint about this thinking, “Why are you studying Blacks? Whites commit crime too!” Yeah, but in Blacks it is so out of control that it is almost a public health emergency.

Anyway, whatever data we get out of these studies of Blacks, perhaps a lot of it might carry over to Whites. If something raises crime risk in Blacks, it might just do so in Whites, too, right? Sure. But what if it didn’t? Wouldn’t that be interesting? This particular life experiences raises Black crime risk by 4X but Whites with that same experience are not affected. Whoa! Now why would that be? Or suppose some experience raises the risk my Blacks by 7 times but in Whites by only 3 times. Or suppose there was some experience that raised the risk in Whites but somehow Blacks were sort of immune. Wouldn’t that be interesting.

You see there is a lot of really cool research we could be doing with race realism but we can’t even study it because the Cultural Left. And studying this stuff could really help us to ameliorate some difficult and terrible problems. Race realist research could maybe help us to ameliorate some of the serious problems Blacks have, and society has for that matter. So race realism could even help NAM’s and maybe help the rest of us too. Sure it is a dangerous tool but so are most things. In the right hands, we could do some great progressive research along race realist lines.


Filed under Blacks, Crime, Criminology, Eugenics, Genetics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Science, Sociology, Whites

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: “A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program”

From Lord Keynes’ page. This is Lord Keynes’ own proposal for an Alternative Left. He first lists his proposal and then lists Ryan England’s proposal. He critiques Ryan’s proposal somewhat but not too much.

He also discusses yours truly here:

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

As you can see, he doesn’t think that The Left Wing of the Alt Right or Rabbit’s wing (Alt Left White Nationalism), really one of the original wings, should be seen as Alt Left at all. Instead he says it should be on the Alt Right. Rabbit agrees with me that his wing is the left wing of the Alt Right and says that he started out on the Alt Right, and he may just go back there.

LZ is correct that I am pretty hostile to the Cultural Left. I believe he was shocked at how hostile I am to them because he implied that I am even more hostile to them than he is, and he’s a bit of a Conservative Leftist in that regard also. I definitely hate these people and they are my enemies. I didn’t choose this. They decided to make me their enemy. I hate the Cultural Left even more than the Alt Right people mostly because the Alt Right folks pretty much leave me alone and have done so for quite some time now. In fact, it was from comments on The Right Stuff (Spencer’s site) that I first saw people saying, “The Alternative Left is Robert Lindsay.” So the Nazis pretty much came up with this term Alternative Left but they invented it for me not for themselves.

Oh well. They also invented the Volkswagen. Few things are all bad in this world.

Anyway I would like to thank these folks for coming up with this great term Alternative Left and giving me the idea for this movement in the first place. Thanks Nazis!

LK is also correct that I have some controversial views, though I might be interested in knowing what exactly those are. It’s been a given that I am controversial as Hell since I showed up. The motto of the site used to be “If I’m Not Making You Mad, I’m Not Doing My Job.” Just your basic provocateur out to make the world safe for demogogueracy.

And of course he is quite correct that I am not motivated for race hatred or White Supremacy. This is right, or at least this is how I feel. Every time I read White Supremacist stuff, I want to hit the screen because it makes me so angry. How is it that I am the same as me? If I’m one of them, why do I hate them so much?

I don’t like nasty racism too much either, though sometimes those guys can be pretty funny. VNN is a hilarious site, and even Anglin’s site is a barrel of ticks if you can don’t mind Nazis and handle the humor. I even used to like Chimpout and Niggermania not because they were racist (the people writing there are the most horrible people) but once again, they were so damn funny.

I don’t go there anymore because Alpha keeps spanking me and making me feel guilty every time I go there, and I need to obey my other Mom on this site here. God bless you, Alpha. You keep this boy away from some pretty nasty temptations and help to cleanse his soul.

A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program

The Alternative Left Facebook group seems to be growing quickly, and I am very glad to see this.

So I have some suggestions for them to create a coherent political program.

First, the Alt Left needs to get a coherent economic theory. This is extremely important. I urge them to read up on why Classical Marxism is a flawed economic theory here and why Marxism is based on the mystical labor theory of value.

At the same time, practically all other economic schools of thought from neoclassical economics (in all its forms) and Austrian economics are also charlatanry and pseudo-science.

The only real and proper economic science for a capitalist economy is Post-Keynesian economics. The Alt Left should adopt this as its economic theory, quite simply because it *is*the only legitimate economic science for market economies.

There are various subschools of Post-Keynesian economics including Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as can be seen  here.

Post-Keynesianism is a radical development of the theories of John Maynard Keynes but also takes important insights from Classical Economics and the theories of the idiosyncratic Marxian Michał Kalecki.

There are all sorts of other ideas and policies that should be combined with Post Keynesian economics to produce a revitalized, rational, humane, and effective Left for the 21st century, as follows:


(1) The objectives of economic policy are full employment, high wages, a tendency for real wages to rise with productivity growth, strong aggregate demand, and ideally, a dynamic economy based on manufacturing.

(2) As in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the Alt Left should reject the myth that taxes are required to finance government spending (see the discussions here and here). Governments with their own central banks and fiat currencies are always solvent in their own currency, and there is even a case for limited Overt Monetary Financing (OMF) (or what is commonly called central bank “money printing” to finance some government spending).

(3) A fundamentally important policy to attain full employment is an MMT Job Guarantee. This is a program in which the government will offer employment to anyone ready and willing to work (but unable to find a private sector job) at a socially-acceptable minimum wage to ensure real full employment at all times.

(4) Governments should generally pursue sensible protectionism and industrial policy not only to protect their manufacturing sectors from the disaster of free trade under absolute advantage but as the best strategy to ensure future economic growth and economic independence.

(5) Governments should reject privatization of social services and infrastructure. Instead, these sectors should be nationalized or run as public utilities and maintained by high government investment, e.g., in health care, education, scientific and technological R&D, infrastructure, etc. There is now even a case for limited nationalization of certain key industries as an industrial policy.

(6) Foreign ownership of public assets, infrastructure, key industries and large-scale foreign ownership of real estate should also be strongly rejected, and instead these sectors should be owned by private domestic citizens, and things like infrastructure should be owned by governments.

(7) The banking and financial sector should be subject to severe regulation and prevented from destabilizing the economy given its tendency to create asset bubbles and inflating the level of private debt to catastrophic levels. There is now a case for nationalization of the commercial banking sector. For many nations, there is a case for discretionary capital controls (see here).

(8) The taxation system should be progressive but particularly concerned with taxing parasitic rent seeking and destabilizing speculative activity.

Social and Cultural Issues

(1) The Alt Left should support reasonable and sensible civil and equity,  women’s rights and gay rights, but strongly reject French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJW cults, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology from Identity Politics. The combination of all these ideas has created a toxic wing of the modern Left called the “Regressive Left,” which needs to be totally rejected.

The Alt Left should also reject extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings because this is not supported by science.

(2) The Alt Left should strongly defend free speech and freedom of expression from its enemies on the Right, the Regressive Left, and from religious conservatives.

(3) The Alt Left should support a secular state and separation of church and state but not alienate liberal religious people.

(4) The Alt Left should continue the anti-imperialist tradition of the Left and be largely non-interventionist on foreign policy, but not isolationist.

(5) The Alt Left should oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and religious fundamentalism and promote the assimilation of immigrants in the West.

(6) The Alt Left needs a sane and pragmatic policy on immigration. It needs to reject mass immigration and open borders on economic, social and cultural grounds and support sensible limits on immigration. It also needs to recognize that promoting “diversity” is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself and that multiculturalism has serious problems (see here).

(7) The Alt Left should consider the importance of the nuclear family, promote pro-nuclear family policies and – at the very least – be open to serious and rational discussion of the breakdown of the nuclear family in the Western world and what harm this may have done to our societies but with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

As a further point of interest, there is an interesting post over at the Samizdat blog on the various subgroups of the Alt Left here.

He divides the Alt Left or the people who are receptive to it into these categories (I have added numbers for clarity):

(1) “The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still. Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

(2) “Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics though they are usually not that far Left. Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory. Remember kids, SJW and social liberalism are not the same things. Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

(3) “Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism, and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically-minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

(4) “True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJWs’ lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the Alt-Left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

(5) “Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support. Used as a pejorative by the ‘Lorettas’ of the present day Left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

(6) “Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

(7) “The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left, you’d find leftypol on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol. A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the Alt Left. I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd Positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

The big-name Gamergate Leftists seem to have a strange tendency to morph into cultural libertarians or even outright Libertarians, and I have noticed the same tendency amongst “True Liberals.” Both Sargon of Akkad and Dave Rubin, though I doubt either are aware of the Alt Left, seem to be morphing into Classical Liberals.

I am placed in the “The New Old Left” category, but the description is not right: I constantly stress the need to understand differences of culture and to reject cultural relativism as Postmodernist irrationalism. I also strongly think the Alt Left should adopt a pragmatic view that mass immigration and open borders are actually provoking a nationalist backlash in many countries. The Left should channel this into a healthy, sensible nationalism, and recognize open borders are wrong on perfectly good economic, social and cultural grounds.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Masculinism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Science, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics

Repost: What Is Pan-Aryanism?

This one from six years ago is getting posted around a lot lately. Most of you have not read it.

A friend of mine went over to the Skadi Forum (basically Nordicists or Germanicists) and read an essay on Pan-Aryanism. I don’t know what sort of Pan-Aryanism they referred to, but I doubt it was the kind that I subscribe to. They were upset that the essay opposed race-mixing. Well, I’m a Pan-Aryanist, and I don’t oppose race-mixing.

Pan-Aryanism just means taking pride in your racial family. Just as the Blacks, various Asians, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians, Hispanics, etc. take pride in their various racial families, such as they may be. Most folks you meet in the US, who are “Priders” of this sort, while often strongly ethnocentric, are not opposed to race-mixing or inter-ethnic breeding. So support for race-mixing can and does go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, even extreme ethnocentrism. In fact, that has probably been the tribal human norm for a very long time now.

The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (35%), White Arabs and White Berbers. Also a few Whites in North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They also hold that all Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus and Iranians are White.

I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 50% of Blacks as being some sort of inferior or mongrelized scum race. So the Pan-Africanists (the Black analogue of Pan-Aryanism) would be about uniting all of the Blacks into one Black Race and screw all the superior-inferior stuff. If you were Black, you would go along with that I am sure. In fact, if you are Black, I think you already do.

It’s all about being part of a family. In the last few years anyway, my race is my family. I simply want to extend the rather limited idea of my family to take in a lot more extended relatives. Why? Because I like having a great big family!

The other races: the NE Asians, SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians, Amerindians, Africans, mestizos, mulattos, well, a lot of them are perfectly fine people. Often better than my racial family on an individual basis. But it’s the difference between friends (or lovers) and family. They can never be part of my family. They can only be friends, or at best lovers.

I expand the Net Pan-Aryanist definition thus such that most anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe is White.

Whites are:

All native Europeans
All Europoid Russians
All Turks
All Jews
All Assyrians and Kurds
Many Berbers
Most Arabs
All Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Caucasus
All Iranians
Many Afghans (especially Pashtuns)
All Nuristanis
NW Pakistanis
Some Indians (mostly NW Indians)

All of the other Caucasian or quasi-Caucasian types are non-White Caucasians. They might be part of the family, but they are sort of like 2nd or 3rd cousins, so far apart they are almost more friends than family.

As far as the real Net Pan-Aryanists, they are a bunch of assholes. Sure they are against mixing, but they allow European Whites to mix with 100’s of millions of more humans! And most of them are a bunch of Nazis too. Bastards.


Filed under Afghans, Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Azeris, Berbers, Caucasus, Central Asians, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Georgians, Iranians, Jews, Kurds, Near East, Near Easterners, North Africans, Pakistanis, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russians, South Asia, South Asians, Turks, Whites

Response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay

This is my response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay by NotPoliticallyCorrect. His piece is also on my site here.

I do not believe that the facts of HBD, if they are facts at all, are racist. The thing is, in general, we have not proven that they are even facts. Officially, science is still agnostic on this stuff. Nevertheless, HBD is a perfectly legitimate position to take, and it’s not a racist position at all assuming it might be true, and perhaps quite a bit of it might be true.

It’s absolutely wrong for the Left to say that believing in HBD is racist. It’s not racist at all, and even less so if it’s true. That’s a bad definition of racism.

Even the “superior or inferior” argument is wrong because even leaving aside HBD, statistics show that different races score either superior or inferior on various metrics. Clearly Whites have a superior (lower) crime rate than Blacks. If you point this out, you’re racist? Insane! Even pointing out that presently, intelligence tests show that Whites are smarter than Blacks (true even leaving HBD aside) is somehow racist. But that’s just true. It’s a fact of science.

Nevertheless, look around you. 98% of HBD’ers are some pretty ugly, vicious racists, aren’t they? Or is it even more than that? And most of the rest of them are not all that nice.

How many HBD’ers do you meet who seem like they actually like those dirty inferior NAM people? Zero? How many HBD’ers do you meet who actually like those nasty “low IQ” people, most of whom are not even low IQ? Human IQ is 89 average, and HBD’ers routinely claim that IQ’s at that level are “low.” Zero! How many HBD’ers do you meet who don’t think that higher IQ are superior to lower IQ people? Zero!

Nasty, nasty people.

Now I agree that some HBD’ers are ok, but they barely even seem HBD. I had no idea Will was even HBD because he’s so mild. Tulio is much the same way.

Well, of course they’re all reactionaries. That’s another reason no one wants anything to do with them. Progressive or liberal HBD’ers are like four leaf clovers. There’s not many about.

Whenever I meet someone spouting HBD, I check and see what sort of a person this is. Almost inevitably, it’s someone who leans rightwing, usually hard rightwing. Usually they are aligned with the Alt Right. Usually they hate NAM’s, low IQ people and think people with higher IQ’s are superior to people with low IQ’s. And usually they give off a very ugly vibe somehow.

Now this philosophy either attracts people who are already racist or it turns people that way. It’s up in the air. But it’s still pretty much poison.

What good does talking about this HBD stuff do? The only reason 99% of HBD’ers talk about this stuff all the time is so they can use it as a club to beat up those evil NAM people and those scummy “low IQ” people. That’s why they talk about it all the time.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean we have to talk about it. I took some shits in the past month. That’s a fact. They had a certain consistency about them, though it was variable. If I wanted to, I could have charted all my shits, taken some photos and made a nice essay called My September Turds. 100% fact. 100% science. 100% true. But why should I talk about that? Why would anyone want to hear about that? They wouldn’t.

Can someone tell me why we need to talk about this HBD stuff all the time? Someone give me a reason why this needs to be discussed all the time. What good does it do? All the HBD’ers say HBD means everything is hopeless anyway. If it’s all hopeless, why talk about it? I always say if you don’t have a solution to ameliorate a problem, don’t bother talking about it. HBD’ers admit there is no ameliorating HBD facts (they are wrong by the way). Well, if there is no way to better these problems, then why in God’s name are we talking about them? Why don’t we rail about the horrible problem of death instead? There’s no solution to that either.

There’s no evidence that the world naturally sucks, that people are lousy or that the world is a vicious, nasty place. There’s also no evidence that Social Darwinism is the natural state of man. These are all just opinions.

We don’t live in jungles. Unlike wild animals, we can actually decide not to live by the law of the jungle. Wild animals can’t make decisions like that. Conservatives think the world is a nasty, vicious place because their philosophy is nasty and vicious and typically they are nasty and vicious little monsters  themselves. It’s all self-serving belief.

Nice try with the oxytocin and other biological attempts to justify racism. Sure, humans are often racist jerks. That doesn’t mean it’s normal to act that way. That doesn’t mean we are doomed to act that way. Every racist person made a conscious decision to feel racist. There’s no oxytocin BS that made him feel that way.

People’s ethnocentrism varies all over the world. You go to San Francisco or Hawaii these days, and there’s really no such thing as ethnic or racial ethnocentrism. It’s gone.

Don’t want to get into the Communism death toll BS, but you ought to know that India probably killed 200 million more people than Communist China did, even under Mao. Even looking at the Mao era, India killed 100 million more than Mao did. We know that as of 1979, India had killed 100 million more people than Mao. I assume that nothing has changed since and India killed another 100 million since then. That’s 200 million more than Mao. Communist death toll, get real.

That data is from Amartya Sen, by the way. You can look it up.

Most of those deaths were from starvation and malnutrition.

Since 1986, capitalism starves 14 million people to death every single year. There are 14 million deaths due to starvation every year in the world, and in the last 30 years, very few of those have been in Communist countries. Most of those deaths were in South Asia. That’s 420 million starvation deaths in the world since 1986, mostly in South Asia, almost all killed by capitalism. How many people did Communism kill since 1986?

Mao set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time. That’s called saving lives. Sure Mao killed people, but he saved so many more lives, and he gave so many people more time on Earth.


Filed under Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Conservatism, Death, Economics, Health, History, India, Intelligence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Modern, Nutrition, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South Asia

NotPoliticallyCorrect’s Rejoinder to My Piece on HBD and Racism

This was posted over at NotPolitcallyCorrect’s site. I hope he doesn’t mind my reprinting it here with a link to the original. He doesn’t copyright his stuff, and I see no Creative Commons license. His site’s not monetized anyway. I’ll take it down if he requests it. I also posted my own rejoinder to his response, which I will post after this.

Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay

A nice special post today, Robert Lindsay’s accusation of HBD being ‘racist’ is on the table today. As always, I want to hear what you want me to write on so send me an email, address is in the sidebar.

Robert Lindsay asks “Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?” It, of course, isn’t. Today I’ll rebut his piece saying that it is “hatred and ‘racism’ (whatever that means)”. He says that HBDers who resist ‘racism’ (which I will address later) are “swimming against the tide” and “probably have to exercise a bit of self-control to not go over to the dark side.” What is he even talking about? What “dark side” is there? Being ‘racist’?

This is because HBD facts tend to lend pretty regularly to quite a bit of racism and the hatred that goes along with it. And if you notice, the more hardcore the HBD’er is, the more racist they tend to sound.

Of course these facts lead to ‘racism’, however, these ‘racists’ will be ‘racist’ with or without the facts of HBD. I will touch more on that later. In the meantime, he says “the more hardcore the HBD’er is, the more racist they tend to sound.” Robert, are you just making broad generalizations? Do you have anything to back your claim on this statement? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

HBD in and of itself is not racist of course, not in any sane sense of the word.

I agree with him saying that the Left has destroyed any “meaning” that the word “racist” has. However, even without the overstating of the word “racist”, HBD itself would not be a racist ideology. It is, however, racist to the average person who doesn’t know the science involved in racial differences. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has two definitions for ‘racism’. It defines ‘racism’ as:

  1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

  2. Racial prejudice or discrimination

Well, “superiority” is meaningless. Race is not a primary determinant of human traits as there is a lot of crossover. However, there are racial/ethnic differences in phenotype which of course are caused by differences in genotype. That is not up for discussion, but the term ‘inherent superiority’ is.

Of course to the average person, HBD is seen as ‘racist’. But is researching/reading about human differences and being interested in their causes and what they mean today really ‘racist’ or a want to learn more about human evolution and how and why we got here?

But the ones who are very deep into it and talk about it all the time, well, it’s quite clear that they have a pretty low opinion of NAM’s. Even worse, a lot of them are just out and out racists. Some are even vicious racists. And almost all of them have the worst rightwing politics, usually Libertarian, that you could imagine.

‘Racists.’ There’s that word again. I did say at the beginning of the year that we should petition to have ‘racist’ changed to ‘ethnocentrist’, as what is being described when one cries ‘racist’ is actually ethnocentrism in action. This is mediated by the brain hormone oxytocin. I would wager that ‘racists’ and other, closely related people (ie Arab Muslims with high consang rates) would have higher levels of this brain hormone. This would be the reason why these groups stick to those who are phenotypically to themselves; it’s hormonally driven, like most, if not all things in life. Stop using the word ‘racist’ and use ‘ethnocentrist’ as it makes much more sense.

More importantly, HBD is a profoundly pessimistic doctrine. Just to give you an idea, they hate the idea that the environment or even free will has any role to play human affairs. Look at how furious they get about the Flynn Effect. Look at all the bending over, twisting themselves into weird yoga positions, hand waving, magic wand waving, “Don’t look over there”, and “just-so” explanations they have come up for to deny what is an obvious rise in human intelligence. The idea that the environment could actually increase intelligence fills them with rage because they are all wrapped up in this “intelligence is purely genetic” argument. (Bold is my emphasis)

Yes HBD is pessimistic, as is life, Robert. Who hates the idea that environment has any role in intelligence? Any sensible individual would acknowledge that environment does play a role, but would also know that intelligence is highly heritable. I’m pretty sure he’s just talking about the average ‘racist’, as I’ve never seen an HBD blogger every state that intelligence is fully genetic. Sure there are some intelligence researchers (a minority) who believe that intelligence is fully genetic but just like extreme environmentalism in regards to causes for IQ, extreme hereditarianism is also a stupid view to hold.

Genes and environment interact to give the phenotype. We can take an African from, say, South Africa and place him in America. Due to better nutrition and better schooling among other things (like lessened parasitic load and disease), in my opinion African IQ would be about 10 points higher, give or take a few points. We know that environment and genetics (GxE) affects all phenotypic traits, but those like Robert like to play up Flynn gains as if they are on actual g – they aren’t. Flynn Effects are not genetic and are UNRELATED to race differences (Rushton, 2000).

On another note, I seem to have been wrong with my statement that Flynn gains were 3 points per decade in every country. I would wager that since intelligence is affected by nutrition that those countries with lower Flynn gains that showed the least improvement with nutrition would show the lowest IQ gains. I will write on this in the future.

Of course, that argument is a death knell for Blacks and other NAM’s. These people have enough problems as it is, but HBD just drives a stake through their heart to make sure the Black man (or other NAM’s) never rises again. It pretty much condemns them forever as genetic inferiors in sense.

They have enough problems as it is because of their biology which HBD speaks about, the supposed ‘racist ideology’. It pretty much does ‘condemn them’ as ‘genetic ‘inferiors” (whatever that means), but that’s Nature! Nature is not a kind Mistress. Nature is harsh, nature doesn’t care about feelings.

Intelligence isn’t either fully genetic nor fully environmental, but shifted considerably over to the hereditarian position.

It says “niggers ain’t got no brains,” and while that may be true in a very ugly and racist sense that most us don’t want to think about, instead, the HBD’er is overjoyed at this fact. “Black people are stupid!” he hollers to the sky with joy. “And they will stay that way forever!” he yells gleefully. “Environment can’t help them. They are condemned!” At this point, he is nearly gleeful and ready to party.

I laughed out loud at this. Environment can help, to a point (if they come from Africa or some other down-and-out place), but mainly, as seen in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, blacks didn’t end up doing better than whites when environments were equalized.

And most of them are racist lousy people, but they are quite smug about their racism because now their racism is given the imprimatur of science. “If science says it’s true, I can’t be racist,” he chortles.

Idiotic. Everyone is ‘ethnocentric’ to a degree, whether consciously or subconsciously. Robert, you are an HBDer yourself whether you admit it or not since you recognize racial differences, so I guess you are ‘racist’.

After all, science isn’t racist. I agree, but distortion of science for racist means sure is, and delighting in the disturbing “racist truths” of science is doubly so.

Sure, gay men are at very high risk of HIV, and up to 20% are infected. That’s a fact of science. So does that make you want to get up and party for 30 days and 30 nights? I hope not, and if so, you are one ugly homophobe.

Science is not racist. But, as Leftists love saying ‘Data isn’t racist, interpretation of it is!!!’ is idiotic. Of course a lot of people distort racial science, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘wrong’. Like with making myths on how Europeans were always in Europe 40 kya (not true) or how Europeans were always white (not true) he is right here. Most people do not keep up to date on the newest data that comes out so they still hold to these ‘mythologies’ and ‘identity politics’ and push out outdated and straight untrue statements. But all that means is that they are extremely misinformed.

What would I do with that stat of gay men and HIV? Be cautious around gays, just like I’d be cautious around blacks knowing how much crime and murder they commit as a group. This is a sane position to hold. One group is overrepresented in a certain (negative) stat? Keep an eye out while around those of that demographic. That makes sense. Self-preservation always wins out. Robert is of course using the Leftist playbook on ‘racist’ namecalling. Most everything in this article I’ve seen around countless times being spewed to any HBDer who went against conventional wisdom. The term ‘racist’ is just used as a silencing tactic. Robert, you are a Leftist HBDer. You do know that a lot people you align yourself with politically consider you ‘racist’ right?

This notion that anyone who believes HBD is ‘racist’ or any other buzzword is used to shut down any and all discussions on matters. Something that, it seems, flew over his head. When one cannot rebut something an HBDer puts out, they get called ‘racist’. However, the term is pretty much close to meaningless nowadays as it’s been so overused by the Left. All of the HBD bloggers I follow are not racist (hell, one who is most certainly not racist is PumpkinPerson who has a very unhealthy obsession with Oprah. =^) You know it’s true, PP). Others like Razib Khan, JayMan, hbd chick, and Cochran and Harpending, just to name a few, have gotten numerous accusations of being racist. Hell, Razib Khan was hired and fired the same day by the NYT after going on board as a science writer when someone discovered his ‘racist’ writings.

Whether or not people believe HBD doesn’t change how true it is. Racial and ethnic differences still persist, so by just disregarding it we completely go over causes of it other than ‘systemic racism’!!! HBD is true and a valid, non-racist (whatever that means) ideology. We segregate with people like us. Hell, even you, Robert, prefer whites over others (oh no, racist!!!!). Once we start understanding how and why people are ethnocentric (with oxytocin playing the main role), then we can have a more peaceful society as we understand causes for actions, both negative and positive, and better curb violence.

HBD itself is not a hateful ideology, it’s just one based on facts and solid reasoning. Just because people use HBD to justify their own preconceived notions or to use ‘hate facts’ doesn’t mean that it’s a racist ideology. Nice job using the word ‘racist’ as invented by Trotsky. But knowing your political leanings, Robert, that’s A-OK, right?

It’s worth noting that Robert banned me for my politics. He claims his comments are ‘free speech’, yet when I said the truth about socialism and the amount of deaths it caused (way more than National Socialism), I got an immediate ban. Truth hurts, huh?


Filed under Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Flynn Effect, Genetics, Intelligence, Left, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

Which Gender Are You?

From the Gender Master List. I understand that at one time, Facebook allowed you to choose between 144 different genders. I am laughing as I write this. A lot of people think this stuff is evil, but I mostly just think that this is sheer, utter, insipid idiocy. I couldn’t even read more than a handful of entries before I was laughing so hard that I had to stop reading.

This is stupid! It’s retarded. I can’t believe that people actually talk about this stuff with a straight face without busting up laughing at the idiocy of it all. It should be disturbing that there are so many people who take this crap seriously, but mostly it’s just ridiculous.

Oh one more thing. I believe that almost all of these people are homosexuals if I am not mistaken. Every nonbinary idiot I have met so far was a homosexual. Have any of you met anyone who claimed to be genderqueer? Have you any of you ever run into a genderqueer idiot who was not a homosexual? Just testing my theory here that these are all gay people.

But I did meet one very normal straight female in her 20’s who told me she was a little bit genderqueer. I was stunned when I heard that, but then I started laughing. You have to realize that asinine behavior is somewhat contagious, especially when the people engaging in it think it is dead serious and don’t realize how preposterous it is. There’s hardly a fad too moronic that lots of humans won’t take it up.

One more thing: I must warn you to be aware that there are trigger warnings in this list. Be careful when you read this and make sure to have a Med-Alert handy in case you feel like you’re dying or whatever. With that word of caution, I urge you happy reading.

Gender Master List

This is an ongoing list of gender identities. If you see an identity with a confusing or wrong description, feel free to message us about it and we will answer as soon as possible. Feel free to mix and match your own prefixes and suffixes to create the identity that best describes you.

Any gender named _gender may be made into _boy, _girl, _nonbinary, etc. (example: demigender, demiboy, demigirl, deminonbinary)

Abimegender: A gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox.

Adamasgender: A gender which refuses to be categorized.

Aerogender: A gender that is influenced by your surroundings.

Aesthetigender: A gender that is derived from an aesthetic; also known as videgender.

Affectugender: A gender that is affected by mood swings.

Agender: The feeling of no gender/absence of gender or neutral gender.

Agenderflux: Being mostly agender except having small shifts towards other genders making them demigenders (because of the constancy of being agender).

Alexigender: A gender that is fluid between more than one gender, but the individual cannot tell what those genders are.

Aliusgender: A gender which is removed from common gender descriptors and guidelines.

Amaregender: A gender that changes depending on who you’re in love with.

Ambigender: Defined as having the feeling of two genders simultaneously without fluctuation; meant to reflect the concept of being ambidextrous, only with gender.

Ambonec: Identifying as both man and woman yet neither at the same time.

Amicagender: A gender that changes depending on which friend you’re with.

Androgyne: Sometimes used in the case of “androgynous presentation”; describes the feeling of being a mix of both masculine and feminine (and sometimes neutral) gender qualities.

Anesigender: Feeling like a certain gender yet being more comfortable identifying with another.

Angenital: A desire to be without primary sexual characteristics without necessarily being genderless; one may be both angenital and identify as any other gender alongside.

Anogender: A gender that fades in and out but always comes back to the same feeling.

Anongender: A gender that is unknown to both yourself and others.

Antegender: A protean gender which has the potential to be anything but is formless and motionless, and therefore does not manifest as any particular gender.

Anxiegender: A gender that is affected by anxiety.

Apagender: A feeling of apathy towards ones gender which leads to them not looking any further into it.

Apconsugender: A gender where you know what it isn’t, but not what it is; the gender is hiding itself from you.

Astergender: A gender that feels bright and celestial.

Astralgender: A gender that feels connected to space.

(POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING) Autigender: A gender that can only be understood in the context of being autistic.

Autogender: A gender experience that is deeply personal to oneself.

Axigender: When a person experiences two genders that sit on opposite ends of an axis; one being agender and the other being any other gender; these genders are experienced one at a time with no overlapping and with very short transition time.

Bigender: The feeling of having two genders either at the same time or separately; usually used to describe feeling “traditionally male” and “traditionally female”, but does not have to.

Biogender: A gender that feels connected to nature in some way.

Blurgender: The feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with genderfuzz.

Boyflux: When one feels mostly or all male most of the time but experiences fluctuating intensity of male identity.

Burstgender: A gender that comes in intense bursts of feeling and quickly fades back to the original state.

Caelgender: A gender which shares qualities with outer space or has the aesthetic of space, stars, nebulas, etc.

Cassgender: The feeling that gender is unimportant to you.

Cassflux: When the level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates.

Cavusgender: For people with depression; when you feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed.

Cendgender: When your gender changes between one and its opposite.

Ceterofluid: When you are ceterogender and your feelings fluctuate between masculine, feminine, and neutral.

Ceterogender: A nonbinary gender with specific masculine, feminine, or neutral feelings.

Cisgender: The feeling of being the gender you were assigned at birth all the time (assigned (fe)male/feeling (fe)male).

Cloudgender: A gender that cannot be fully realized or seen clearly due to depersonalization/derealization disorder.

Collgender: The feeling of having too many genders simultaneously to describe each one.

Colorgender: A gender associated with one or more colors and the feelings, hues, emotions, and/or objects associated with that color like pinkgender, bluegender, yellowgender.

Commogender: When you know you aren’t cisgender, but you are settling with your assigned gender for the time being.

Condigender: A gender that is only felt during certain circumstances.

Deliciagender: From the Latin word delicia meaning “favorite”, meaning the feeling of having more than one simultaneous gender yet preferring one that fits better.

Demifluid: The feeling of your gender being fluid throughout all the demigenders; the feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluid.

Demiflux: The feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluctuating.

Demigender: A gender that is partially one gender and partially another.

Domgender: Having more than one gender yet one being more dominant than the others.

Duragender: From the Latin word dura meaning “long-lasting”, meaning a subcategory of multigender in which one gender is more identifiable, long lasting, and prominent than the other genders.

Egogender: A gender that is so personal to your experience that it can only be described as “you.”

Epicene: Sometimes used synonymously with the adjective “androgynous”; the feeling either having or not displaying characteristics of both or either binary gender; sometimes used to describe feminine male-identifying individuals.

Espigender: A gender that is related to being a spirit or exists on a higher or extradimensional plane.

Exgender: The outright refusal to accept or identify in, on, or around the gender spectrum.

Existigender: A gender that only exists or feels present when thought about or when a conscious effort is made to notice it.

Femfluid: Having fluctuating or fluid gender feelings that are limited to feminine genders.

Femgender: A nonbinary gender which is feminine in nature.

Fluidflux: The feeling of being fluid between two or more genders that also fluctuate in intensity; a combination of genderfluid and genderflux.

Gemigender: Having two opposite genders that work together, being fluid and flux together.

Genderblank: A gender that can only be described as a blank space; when gender is called into question, all that comes to mind is a blank space.

Genderflow: A gender that is fluid between infinite feelings.

Genderfluid: The feeling of fluidity within your gender identity; feeling a different gender as time passes or as situations change; not restricted to any number of genders.

Genderflux: The feeling of your gender fluctuating in intensity; like genderfluid but between one gender and agender.

Genderfuzz: Coined by lolzmelmel; the feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with blurgender.

Gender Neutral: The feeling of having a neutral gender whether somewhere in between masculine and feminine or a third gender that is separate from the binary; often paired with neutrois.

Genderpunk: A gender identity that actively resists gender norms.

Genderqueer: Originally used as an umbrella term for nonbinary individuals; may be used as an identity; describes a nonbinary gender regardless of whether the individual is masculine- or feminine-leaning.

Genderwitched: A gender in which one is intrigued or entranced by the idea of a particular gender but is not certain that they are actually feeling it in themselves.

Girlflux: When one feels mostly or all female most of the time but experiences fluctuating intensities of female identity.

Glassgender: A gender that is very sensitive and fragile.

Glimragender: A faintly shining, wavering gender.

Greygender: Having a gender that is mostly outside of the binary but is weak and can barely be felt.

Gyragender: Having multiple genders but understanding none of them.

Healgender: A gender that once realized, brings lots of peace, clarity, security, and creativity to the individual’s mind.

Heliogender: A gender that is warm and burning.

Hemigender: A gender that is half one gender and half something else; one or both halves may be identifiable genders.

Horogender: A gender that changes over time with the core feeling remaining the same.

Hydrogender: A gender which shares qualities with water.

Imperigender: A fluid gender that can be controlled by the individual.

Intergender: The feeling of gender falling somewhere on the spectrum between masculine and feminine; note: do not confuse with intersex.

Juxera: A feminine gender similar to girl but on a separate plane and off to itself.

Libragender: A gender that feels agender but has a strong connection to another gender.

Magigender: A gender that is mostly gender, and the rest is something else.

Mascfluid: A gender that is fluid in nature and restricted only to masculine genders.

Mascgender: A non-binary gender which is masculine in nature.

Maverique: Taken from the word maverick; the feeling of having a gender that is separate from masculinity, femininity, and neutrality but is not agender; a form of third gender.

Mirrorgender: A gender that changes to fit the people around you.

Molligender: A gender that is soft, subtle, and subdued.

Multigender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and omnigender.

Nanogender: Feeling a small part of one gender with the rest being something else.

Neutrois: The feeling of having a neutral gender; sometimes a lack of gender that leads to feeling neutral.

Nonbinary: Originally an umbrella term for any gender outside the binary of cisgenders; may be used as an individual identity; occasionally used alongside of genderqueer.

Omnigender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and polygender.

Oneirogender: Coined by anonymous, “Being agender but having recurring fantasies or daydreams of being a certain gender without the dysphoria or desire to actually be that gender day-to-day.”

Pangender: The feeling of having every gender; this is considered problematic by some communities, and thus has been used as the concept of relating in some way to all genders as opposed to containing every gender identity; only applies to genders within one’s own culture.

Paragender: The feeling very near one gender and partially something else which keeps you from feeling fully that gender.

Perigender: Identifying with a gender but not as a gender.

Polygender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and omnigender.

Proxvir: A masculine gender similar to boy but on a separate plane and off to itself.

Quoigender: Feeling as if the concept of gender is inapplicable or nonsensical to one’s self.

Subgender: Mostly agender with a bit of another gender.

Surgender: Having a gender that is 100% one gender but with more of another gender added on top of that.

Systemgender: A gender that is the sum of all the genders within a multiple or median system.

Tragender: A gender that stretches over the whole spectrum of genders.

Transgender: Any gender identity that transcends or does not align with your assigned gender or society’s idea of gender; the feeling of being any gender that does not match your assigned gender.

Trigender: The feeling of having three simultaneous or fluctuating genders.

Vapogender: A gender that sort of feels like smoke; can be seen on a shallow level, but once you go deeper, it disappears, and you are left with no gender and only tiny wisps of what you thought it was.

Venngender: When two genders overlap creating an entirely new gender; like a Venn Diagram.

Verangender: A gender that seems to shift/change the moment it is identified.

Vibragender: A gender that is usually one stable gender but will occasionally changes or fluctuate before stabilizing again.

Vocigender: A gender that is weak or hollow.


Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Idiots, Ridiculousness, Sex