Category Archives: Culture

Yes, “Soft” Bad Boys Exist in the US

Jose: Here this kind of androgyne or quasi androgyne “bad boys” maybe exist in some little circles, like between goths or something like these. Because there is no place for them being seen as “bad boys” if are quite feminine. Real “bad boys” will kick their asses. A punk, skater, hip hopper, etc., can be accepted as bad boys (according to their behavior obviously). But not effeminate men. They will be mocked, and common “quiet” men will not take them as “bad”.

If a quite effeminate men have wild behavior, at some point, they moment will have to change their feminine side or hide it because he will have problems every day if he deals with “bad boys”. He will be mocked and attacked.

For being a thug you have to act like if you were in jail or something like this. Dress is not so important, as long as you don’t dress effeminate (this can carry many problems).

In other Latin American countries probably this goes much deeper. Something dressed like Marylin Manson or David Bowie pretending being bad (even if is bad) can’t walk quiet in the street with that attitude. It have to “accept” the mocking and be taken as a “faggot”. I think in Paraguay or even little cities of my region of Argentina if someone is like this, people will not be quiet even in a normal neighborhood. Normal people will mock someone like this, not only “bad boys”. Not to mention in working-class places or some towns that are quasi-rural and people that live there are entirely from working-class and lower-class.

In big cities it’s different because people are accustomed to see “rare” persons like that.

Effeminate and feminine are not the same thing. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Here in the US, mostly only homosexual men act truly effeminate. This is the sort of “faggoty” behavior seen in ~75% of gay men. But effeminate straight men are quite rare. I would be surprised in 1% of straight men are effeminate.

These guys were not really feminine at all, but they do have a soft side. The guys I knew were pretty bad. They were juvenile delinquents, drug dealers, surfers and they stole things like ten speeds and marijuana plants. They were almost like gang or street kids. But they were masculine enough that no one would ever want to fight them. It’s just that you could see a feminine side going in a lot of them. In the US we have quite a few men who have a very strong masculine side and then they have a pretty strong feminine side going too. As long as they have that good strong masculine side going, no will fight them or even mess with them. I knew some guys like this who were criminals! One guy was a huge drug dealer in San Fransisco. He kept his cocaine in one house, lived in another house, and I forget what the 3rd house was for.

You are confusing effeminate and feminine. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is just a soft sort of guy. But a lot of White men have hard and soft going at the same time because you can do that in our culture. As long as people can see that masculine side, no one cares about the soft stuff. It sort of becomes invisible. Plus if you have a strong enough masculine side going, most men just leave you alone, don’t challenge you, don’t mock you or make fun of you, and don’t start fights with you.

I live in what is almost a ghetto. It’s a barrio. But no one ever starts one single thing with me here. No one bugs me, starts fights with me, or even insults me. But I have a strong masculine side, and I get into it in this hood, and a lot of people have told me I look scary. One advantage to looking scary is that most people pretty much leave you alone and don’t fuck with you.

This why I doubt Trash’s comments that a White man will get his ass kicked or robbed for sure in this type of neighborhood.

But in US White society, you do not have to be macho or hypermasculine like in Latin American society. Here in the US a soft man can be a bad boy or even a criminal. For instance, I get called bad boy quite a bit. People see me in a store or something, and they start laughing and say, “Hey there, bad boy!” Or I will be talking to a woman and I give her one of my million dollar smiles and she starts laughing and says, “Ohhhh, you’re a bad boy!” And I am a pretty damn soft guy. But somehow I give off a bad boy vibe somehow.

Here in US White society, a bad boy is any sort of rebel who looks like he doesn’t play by the rules and has a sort of devilish air about him. Macho or hypermasculine behavior is not necessary anymore.

I used to wear men’s kimonos! I wore these things called short kimonos. It is actually Japanese men’s wear. You wear it over a shirt and pants. A lot of guys did hate it when I wore that. I would see guys who looked like they wanted to beat me up when they saw me wear that. But nothing ever happened. Plus women loved it when I wore that kimono. They went nuts over that thing, while the guys acted like I was wearing a dress and they wanted to beat me up.

But at that time, I was also a punk rocker with a permanent scowl who wore lots of leather and spikes. A lot of people acted like they were afraid of me, and usually nobody started anything.

20 Comments

Filed under Argentina, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Latin America, Man World, North America, Paraguay, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex, South America, USA, Whites

The AltLeft “Tea Party,” by Rabbit

The AltLeft “Tea Party”

Very nice new article about the Alt Left from Rabbit. I actually still like Rabbit. He is apparently not happy at with Trump. He described most of Trump’s Cabinet picks as “cringey” which is at the very least how I feel about them. Actually to me they are more like “”homicidal rage-inducing” but at this point, that’s a bit of a quibble. Rabbit is on the same page with all the rest of the Left on Trumpism except on the broad race, immigration and possibly trade policy stuff. But he already seems to be selling out the trade stuff horrendously. He’s selling out the immigration stuff too. Too bad the Mexicans aren’t going to pay for the wall. You and me are! Out of our pockets into the mitts of one of one of Trump’s billionaire pals via a rigged no-bid contract. Reverse Robin Hood again, but Reverse Robin Hood is all Trumpism is about anyway. Think about it. Real hard now.

and I don’t see how he could be given Rabbit’s base political beliefs. A lot of the rest of the left wing of the Alt Right has gone over to Trumpism, and to me, that’s all I need to sever ties with them once and for all.

The thing about Rabbit is the same thing that everyone gets wrong about the Alt Left. Rabbit is a Leftist, dammit. He really is a leftwinger. He’s a man of the Left. So many people just cannot wrap their heads around that. If you look at his views across the board, Rabbit is leftwing on just about everything but race and the Cultural Left, and even on the Cultural Left, he is with them on a lot more things than I am. Rabbit holds traditional leftwing notions on sexual orientation, gender identity, feminism, etc. He’s not a social conservative at all. In fact, he is to the left of me on a lot of that stuff. On the other hand, he seems personally red-pilled and he spent a lot of time in the Manosphere and the MGTOW movement before he drifted into the Alt Left.

If he’s leftwing on about everything but race and PC Culture, how the hell is he a rightwinger? I don’t see how missing one check box on the leftwing list of beliefs throws you out of the Left. Suppose we say Rabbit cannot be on the Left due to his views on race (a common notion). In fact, we say, his racial views make him a rightwinger no matter what else gets thrown into the mix. Ok, fine, cast him out.

He’s back over on the Right now. Rabbit gets handed the rightwing checklist. Whereas with the Left he failed to check one box, with the Right he fails to check 95% of the boxes. And somehow he’s rightwing? Forget it. Getting beyond left and right is said to be a well known trope of fascism, but so what? Maybe we do need to get beyond left and right and maybe we don’t have to be fascists to do that. In fact, the Alt Left is precisely all about getting beyond Left and Right to some extent, although we are still mostly on the Left. There’s nothing inherently wrong with heterogeneous politics, and this represents your average person’s views anyway. Homogeneous politics is synonymous with ideologues, and who needs them. Give me a sui generis heterogeneous political mix versus any sort of ideologue any day of the week.

Whatever you think of his stand on race, I believe that Rabbit is a very important thinker in our movement, and besides, let’s get real, race is only part of the package Rabbit is selling. You can still buy a custom package minus the race part. Furthermore, he is a superior chronicler and opinion-maker in our movement as a whole, and Rabbit doesn’t care if you don’t agree

It’s not often discussed, but I also like his media criticism, most of which centers around movie reviews. He has a quirky sense there too, focusing on films from the 1970’s. His architectural musings are also quite good, though I don’t know much about the subject. And there’s something about a guy who unironically lionizes Charles Manson

I also very much like his prose and also a lot of his quirky worldview. I am trained as an editor and Rabbit’s prose is what we call “clean copy.” You needn’t mark it up at all, and he’s saying it better than you the editor could anyway. The rules of English punctuation are quite arcane, and 95% of Americans screw them up. Rabbit’s pretty much got them down. You would think he was a J-major.

But as far as a writer goes, he is one of the finest writers in our movement. He’s a great writer! He should be published, and in fact, I believe he is just now as he deserves to be. As a writer, most of what I read is not really great writing. Only maybe 10% of the time do you read prose on the Net that truly sings right off the page. I don’t know if he’s better than I am, but it’s awful close. It’s at least a tossup, and that’s a compliment, as I dislike most other writers.

As long as he keeps away from racial slurs, his prose is worth it for the political theory and just for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it.

A lot of people want to throw Rabbit out of the movement. Funny because he just about co-founded it. Thing is, Rabbit ain’t going anywhere, nor should he. He’s staying right where he is whether we like it or not. Rabbit is stuck with the Alt Left, and we are stuck with him. We are stuck onto each other like damned remoras. And perhaps after all that is just as it should be.
teapartyalice

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I don’t mean “Tea Party” in the sense of the happy meal conservative movement that emerged in the early part of the Obama administration. Nor am I referring to anything relating to the Boston Tea Party or the American revolution.

I’m talking about the AltLeft and how for me it has come to resemble the tea party in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972 version of course!) This film was always on HBO in the mid 1980s, even though it came out in the early 70s. I believe the reason they began to re-air it in the 80s was because the star, Fiona Fullerton, had grown up and re-emerged as a Bond girl in “A View to a Kill,” which came out in 1985.

Anyway, when I first got involved with the AltLeft about a year and a half ago, in my mind it was always meant to augment the AltRight, not outright oppose it. It was a way to view and examine the affects of multiculturalism and political correctness from a cultural and economically left lens as well as from a secular and futurist perspective rather than the radical traditionalist, socially conservative one that dominates rightwing circles. In other words, recognizing the implicit Whiteness that underpins the identities of progressive cities like Seattle or Portland, and asserting that it must become explicit to some degree in order for those places to maintain their culture, aesthetic and quality of life.

It was to put forth the idea that someone can be pro-White without the albatross of traditionally conservative culture, pre-modern aesthetics, capitalist economics, or widely accepted Republican historical dogma (“the 60s were bad,” “Vietnam draft dodgers were traitors,” “McCarthy was right,” “I hate modern architecture,” etc.)

If you hang around rightwing groups for any period of time, you’ll find they have an assumed historical narrative that informs many of their beliefs. I say “assumed,” because they just take it for granted that everyone who agrees with them one issue such as race also accepts their historical framing of a wide range of other issues such as economic systems, religious beliefs, or aesthetic preferences (just as someone on the “Left” might assume that anyone who supports trans rights and raising the minimum wage automatically accepts the idea that racial diversity is always a good thing.) Not everyone buys the package deal.

manson

Unfortunately, the AltLeft has instead attracted a wide range of bizarre characters, each with their own zany ideas about what the AltLeft should represent. Many of them never read any of the original manifestos that I or Robert Lindsay or anyone else wrote or bothered to do any research. They just started using the term like they’d started a new band without checking to see if some other band was already using the name. That would be understandable if this were the pre-Internet days, but it seriously only takes like two seconds to Google. Others actually did thoroughly read this site and somehow managed to come to the conclusion their peculiar ideology was compatible with mine, despite it being a complete mystery to me what exactly was the point of agreement.

The AltLeft has come to attract all kinds of eccentric personalities, each one adhering to their own pet belief system. Worse than that, many have joined the AltLeft for the purpose of militantly opposing the AltRight, which is something I never intended to do (hence the reason I still use the tagline “the left wing of the AltRight.”) Though I disagree with him on a few ideological points…I happen to support Richard Spencer, and I have defended him numerous times when certain squeamish (and often prudish) factions as well as a few prominent figures of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to throw him under the bus.

So when I interact with other people in the incoherent “movement” known as the AltLeft, it feels a lot like the sitting down at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. It’s a group of outlandish castouts, contrarians, and vagabonds that have little in creatural commonality other than their politically idiosyncratic tendencies and behavioral eccentricities. Part of me finds this demoralizing, wondering why I ever bothered going down this rabbit hole and whether I can just climb out and forget the whole adventure. Yet the other part of me just embraces the gathering of this zany cast of characters for the sheer chaos that they have unleashed as we bounce off-the-wall ideas past each other and revel at the sight confounded normies that stumble into our world.

6 Comments

Filed under Cinema, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sane Pro-White, US Politics, Vanity, Writing

Romantic Orientation: An Unknown Factor in Sexual Orientation

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

That is my very own sexual orientation scale. I use it a lot in my counseling practice. What is odd is that everyone seems to like it a lot, and almost everyone gives me an almost immediate answer to where they are on the chart. This implies that most people know their sexual orientation at least deep down inside and few people are legitimately going round and round about their sexual orientation.

In my practice the only people I met who were going round and round about their sexual orientation were mentally ill. It doesn’t seem to be something normal people do. I think most adults know their orientation very well, but quite a few simply cannot admit it to themselves. Hence you see formerly married men “discovering they are gay” at age 45. They are not discovering a damn thing. They’ve known all along. The only  thing that changed was they stopped lying to themselves.

I like this better than the Kinsey Scale.

We really need another scale for romantic orientation.

I have known some lesbians who identified as 25-75 but identified as lesbian because they said that while men might be fun for sex, they could only fall in love with a woman. So it looks like self-labeling for sexual orientation can be based as much on romantic attraction as sexual attraction.

I have known women who had sex with both men and women but identified as straight as they only had relationships with men. They told me that relationships with women were straight up insanity time.

In fact, a number of bisexual women have confided in me that they did not like relationships with women because they were too nutty, which is something we men have been saying forever now. They told me that relationships with men were much more stable.

Woman = chaos + drama is how the equation works. All men have woman troubles. If you have a woman, you have woman troubles, period. Maybe you don’t if she’s mute, but even then she probably is capable of murderously dirty looks. Mute women have the advantage of knowing when to shut up and plus they can never give you the silent treatment. I think more men should look into relationships with mute women. It sounds like a neglected demographic. Generally the man is a stabilizing influence to the drama + chaos and women from partriarchal cultures are encultured or even terrorized into acting sane and decent most of the time.

Now you have two humans. One is drama + chaos and the other is drama + chaos. Ok, what do you think the result of that is? A Type 3 emotional hurricane I would say.

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

The Old “Arab Israelis Have It So Good” Argument

Malla: Well, I did some research on this and it seems the Mizrahi had a more realistic opinion about Arabs and non Whites in general, while the Ashkenazim (and maybe Sephardics), especially during the early days of Israel, had a more idealistic opinion of the Third World. But the Mizrahi themselves are non-Whites. If Arabs and non-Whites then so are Mizrahis because Mizrahis are just Arabs. Besides, many Ashkenazis came with socialistic ideas of kibbutz farming and hippieness, while the Mizrahi were more realistic.

Check this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80NnYflDU8

Check out the Ashkenazi/Mizrahi couple at 6:52. So it seems more Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) are more right wing and support predatory violent behavior towards Arabs and Palestinians, while the Ashkenazis (Euro Jews) vote more left and are friendlier to Arabs (idealistic mindset). I do not know how the Sephardics and Ethiopians Jews vote.

Besides, Israel has a massive poverty rate, one of the highest in OECD countries. No wonder they get pissed by migrants from Africa taking way their jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSd0rgTc1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPuQwFX2J2A

But Israel has an overall high standard of living. Arabs in Israel, in spite of whatever racism they face, have a higher standard of living and social freedoms than most other Arab countries. Only Tunisia and Christian-dominated Lebanon come close in social freedom, and the Gulf states are the only ones who have more income among Arabs.

This is similar to the case in Rhodesia and South Africa where the Blacks had a higher standard of living than Blacks in the rest of the African continent. Or Singapore, where the Indians and Malays have a higher standard of living than Malaysia and definitely (much, much, much) higher standard of living than India thanks to the huge Chinese population. Singapore’s quality of life is comparable to other Chinese majority developed places like Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. One may ask that if Anglo-Celts and other Northern Euros never came to Australia would such an Australia (Australia full of only aborigines) be so developed as it is today or it would be more like Papua New Guinea.

It’s pretty bad to compare the surrounding Arabs with New Guineans and Aborigines. The whole Arab World is built up to Hell. They’re all modern countries over there. I have seen photos of Libya before the war, and it looks like Miami. I saw a recent photo of Casablanca, and it looked like LA. I have seen photos of the rest of the region, even war-torn Syria and Iraq, and they look like regular modern countries. There’s not a lot of difference between in the ordinary street scene between Amman, Beirut, Damascus or even Cairo and Tel Aviv. It all looks the same, like any modern built-up country.

There is none of the horrible poverty you see in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Latin America or Black Africa.

Arabs will not tolerate that sort of abject shantytown type poverty. They are basically socialist people who don’t care about money too much and believe that everyone should be well taken care of. Social safety nets are ordinary things in every Arab country. There’s no debate about this sort of thing. They are not individualists. They are collectivists. And they don’t think rich people are better than poor people. They are not particularly greedy, and they have a “We are all part of one village” mindset wherever they live.

Semi-feudalism came late to the Arab World via the Ottomans, and it never worked well. There were landed gentry and fellahin, or landless peasants. Nasser was the man who confiscated the land from the land barons and gave it to the landless peasants. If you went around the whole Arab World back then, even in say Yemen, there was a portrait of Nasser on every wall. Now in Western or Latin American culture, doing that is called Communism, and everyone hates it. But the Arabs love this sort of thing.

Baath nationalist parties came in in Syria and Iraq around 1960, a revolutionary socialist state arose in Libya in 1969, and another one was birthed in Algeria in 1964. Land was confiscated from feudal latifundiaists in all of these place and distributed to the peasants. The governments were all officially socialist, secularization was enforced even at gunpoint if it took that, huge safety nets were set up, and the state even got involved in quite a few of the larger industries and became a major employer. All of this was wildly popular all over the region.

US style radical individualism and Libertarian free market capitalism is totally anathema to all of those societies. For one thing, it goes against Islam, as Islam is a socialist religion. In feudal times, large Arab landowners enlisted the help of the local imams in interpreting parts of the Koran where it said, “Some are rich, and some are poor, and that’s all just fine” or something to that effect, but it never worked well. It ended up turning the local imams into hated figures like the priests of Catholic Church in the West and Latin America who always sided with the rich against the people.

So this whole idea that the Israeli Arabs have it good for having some extra money falls flat on Arab and even Arab Israeli ears. Standard of living is not number one on their list of the most important things in life.

If the Arabs are all so jealous of Israel, why are the non-oil Arabs are not jealous of the oil Arabs? Typical Jews to reduce everything down to money. Arabs don’t care that much about money. They don’t revolve their whole lives around money or sit around hating Jews for having more skyscrapers. That’s not important to your average Arab.

I have never in my life heard one Arab tell me they were jealous of Israel.

In Palestine, White European racist fascists invaded the region, started wars with everyone around them, and, being high IQ, produced a developed economy. So what? These jerks get brownie points because they are rich? I’m supposed to love them because they’re rich and hate those Arabs because they’re poor?

The commenter is an Indian, that’s why he thinks that way. We are socialists here; we don’t think like this. Actually I think the more money someone has, the worse of a person he tends to be, but that’s just me.

All of these arguments were used by the South Africans who practiced a very similar White settler-colonial project far after this stuff went out of style.

Arabs in Israel are not happy people. They’re angry, and they have no loyalty to the state at all. The Jewish fascists say the Arabs are traitors, and the Jews are actually correct on that score. Indeed they have no loyalty to the state and do not even see themselves as Israelis.

The similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. It’s notable that Israel was long one of South Africa’s strongest allies, and towards the end, it was one of their only allies. Arab Israelis are are institutionally treated as second class citizens in exactly the same way the Blacks were under apartheid. 

Were those Blacks happier on their South African Nigger Plantation because they had a higher standard of living? They were not, but this was the argument that was used to show that they were happy Negroes toiling away cheerfully in the sun for their beloved White slavemasters. Similarly, South Africa moved into the neighborhood and in a matter of time, like Israel, it was soon also embroiled in wars with most if not all of its neighbors. Similarly, South Africa, like Israel, had zero friends in the region.

Blacks in South Africa and Arabs in Israel don’t want money and stuff. White Gentiles and Jews only care about money, and they don’t care about humans, so they think everyone else feels that way too. But they don’t. People want to be free, even if being free means not having as much stuff. Stuff doesn’t make people happy. You can keep giving your slave the latest gadgetry in his slave quarters, but he’s still not a free man.

Same with South Africa. Hey look, these White European racist fascists came in here and built up the region and made a big economy because they have higher IQ’s! So what. I am supposed to like them more because they are rich and hate those Africans because they are poor? I realize this is Indian thinking, but we socialists do not think that way.

Arabs have more political rights in all of the Arab World. In the Arab World, they are not systematically discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity.

I would argue that those Arabs in Israel do not want all of those social freedoms. Freedom to do what?

And what social freedoms do they have there that they do not have in the rest of the region? How are the social freedoms of Arab Israeli Christians better than those of Arab Christians in Lebanon or Syria? Someone needs to clue me.

429 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Egypt, Europeans, Fascism, Government, History, India, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Lebanon, Libya, Malays, Malaysia, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Morocco, Nationalism, North Africa, Pacific, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, SE Asians, Settler-Colonialism, Singapore, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Whites

More on Israel and Its Neighbors, or How Christians Invented Suicide Bombing

Jason Y: So do you think Israel is more hated by its neighbors and people it oppresses than by the neighbors of Apartheid South Africa and the people it oppressed? Possibly the settler colonies run by Europeans had a mix of NAM’s who either liked them or didn’t. Perhaps Israel is unable to win any friends at all among NAM’s.

It’s because of how they act! South Africa, same thing. Look at how they acted.

First of all, about half of Israeli Jews are affectively NAM’s themselves! 50% of the Jewish population of Israel are Mizrachi Jews. These are the Jews of the Arab World. They are pretty much just Arabs who happen to be Jewish. Their culture is Judeo-Islamic as the Ashkenazi culture is Judeo-Christian. They lived around Muslims so long that they become rather Islamicized culturally.

Most of them have become some of the most fanatical Israelis of them all, but that’s another story, and they’re not all like that. They are caught between two worlds. They really are just Arabs who practice a different religion like Arab Christians. They have  IQ’s to match. Their IQ’s are ~90. Apparently they never went through the brutal selection for intelligence that occurred under Talmudic Ashkenazi Jews from 1000-1800. High Jewish IQ is the result of a direct selection for intelligence. However, now most of them ferociously deny being Arabs to the point where if you call a Mizrachi Jew an Arab, you might get punched.

There are not many non-Jews over there who liked Israel. There are practically no Arabs who like them. No Iranians like them. Even Turks and Greeks hate them, and they are not even in the neighborhood.

The Israelis are bullies. Have you ever noticed what happens when bullies bully lots of victims for long periods of time leaving the victims with no way whatsoever to fight back? The amount of absolutely insane and frequently homicidal rage that builds up in victims that are not allowed to fight back is terrifying. This is what is going on with the Arabs and Israel.

There some Israeli Druze who fight in the Israeli Army. Why the Israeli Druze support Israel, I have no idea because the Syrian, Lebanese and Golan Druze hate them with insane fervor. And Druze are so weird that if you ask me, they’re not even Muslims. That religion is completely outside of Islam for all intents and purposes, and Druze are very secular people.

Many Israeli Bedouins have sided with Israel for some crazy reason even though the Israelis treat them horrifically.

The Maronites in Lebanon have long been Israeli allies for complex reasons. For one, they hate Arabs with a passion, especially Muslim Arabs, and they insist that they are not Arabs, even though they are. They say they are “Phoenicians.” It’s bull.

The Gamalist Maronites are the people who first brought fascism to Lebanon. I mean the real deal. The ancestors of the present day leaders were open Nazi sympathizers. One had Nazi flags in his locker at school. I suppose they hate Arabs and Muslims and Israelis do too, so there’s your alliance. For many years, they served as a proxy army for Israel in Israeli-occupied South Lebanon. Many of them went to Israel after the occupation ended because they were afraid they would be killed as traitors in their own country. Incidentally, this Occupation is what created Hezbollah. That’s right. Hezbollah is Israel’s baby.

Now since then, this group of Maronites still hates Hezbollah, but things have calmed down. In the 1996 Israel-Lebanon War, the Maronites were officially neutral. Mostly they set up checkpoints outside their neighborhoods. They said they were defending them against Hezbollah. After that war had gone on for a while, even the neutral and formerly pro-Israel Gamalist Maronites started getting mad, and they said if they wear did not stop soon, they would take up arms against Israel themselves. They said they would not fight with Hezbollah but instead would fight separately.

A separate group of Maronites, the Aounists, are in an alliance with Hezbollah for some years now. So about half of even the Maronites in Lebanon are allied with Hezbollah!

During that war, the Israeli army went into a Christian village in South Lebanon in the middle of the night. They got about halfway into the village. The Lebanese Army was in the village and knew the Israelis were there but refused to come out and fight. That’s because the Lebanese Army is pretty useless.

The village appeared to be deserted. Every light in town went off when the Israelis came in and the whole place went dead silent. It was rather eerie. The Israelis got halfway inside the village, when out of nowhere the whole village opened fire on them with automatic weapons out of complete darkness. The Israelis rapidly retreated from this village. This village is 100% Greek Orthodox Christians.

There is a party with its own army called SSNP which is pretty much the party and army of the Greek Orthodox Christians in the region. It was SSNP who opened up on the Israelis. The SSNP are some of the most crazed and fanatical Israel-haters of them all, and they’re all Christians! During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, we saw mass suicide bombings for the first time. For some time, almost all of these suicide bombings were the work of SSNP fighters, often women. So you see that the suicide bombing phenomenon was largely started by Christians! If you want to know why the SSNP hate Israel so much, it’s because they are some of the craziest Arab nationalists of them all.

Israeli officers work alongside Turkish, US, British, Saudi, and Qatari officers inside Syria alongside Saudi, Qatari, US, British and Jordanian officers in Jordan to help the Syrian rebels. One of the main groups that those officers are helping in Jordan and Syria is Al Qaeda.

That’s one of the reasons Arabs on the street often hate the Saudi, Qatari, and Jordanian governments – they work with the Israeli military.

The Israelis and the Saudi Royal Family have long had some crazy alliance. I have no idea what it’s all about.

The Israelis and Jordan have some sort of an alliance.

Egyptian and Israeli officers work together in the Sinai at the Gaza border. That’s one reason a lot of people hate Sisi. His army works with the Israeli military.

53 Comments

Filed under Africa, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Bedouins, Christianity, Culture, Druze, Egypt, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Jordan, Judaism, Lebanon, Middle East, Nationalism, North Africa, Orthodox, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorism, War

“Hinduism Versus Confucianism: An Analysis and Comparison,” by Dota

Nice essay from Dota, former commenter here who now blogs at Occident Invicta with Bay Area Guy, another former commenter here.

The societies of India and China have been structured along feudal lines for much of recorded history. Despite both societies placing a premium on hierarchy and authoritarianism, their internal motivations and ethical paradigms are widely divergent. The Chinese mind has been shaped by Confucianism, whereas the Indian mind has been shaped by Hinduism.

Let’s begin by analyzing Confucianism.

Confucianism stresses social order and postulates that no society can attain political stability by precluding social stability. Confucianism views society as a massive collection of interdependent networks that are comprised of relationships on the atomic level.

The genius of the Confucian model is that it recognizes the inherently relative nature of power and how power is also a zero-sum resource. Those that possess power do so because others do not. An emperor may possess power over a subject, but that subject isn’t powerless, only merely so in relationship to his sovereign. This same subject may be a teacher and wield power over his students.

To ensure social stability, Confucius ordained that relationships be guided by the principle of ren or benevolence. This is Confucianism’s highest virtue and arguably the philosophy’s overarching universal ethic. A sovereign treats his subjects benevolently by ensuring that they are fed, protected, and generally want for nothing (materially speaking). The subjects then reciprocate with obedience and loyalty. Those in power must treat those without (in the context of their relationship) with benevolence, while the latter reciprocate with obedience and loyalty.

Benevolence is often strictly interpreted as each party honoring their respective obligations. It would be unjust for a wife to expect her husband’s kindness if she herself were disobedient. Conversely it would be unjust for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience if he himself failed in his husbandly duties. We see a glimmer of this idea even in Western tradition. Plato argued that interdependence was at the heart of justice, and that social order was maintained when members of social classes refrained form crossing lines.

Confucianism’s approach to social justice is not dissimilar to other Eastern philosophies. The primary aim here is to ensure the prevention of abuse rather than empowering the disenfranchised (a preoccupation of modern day social justice). Sumeria’s Ur-Nammu famously proclaimed that: “The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” Not unlike other ancient societies, the Chinese also believed that class structures were an inherent feature of any civilized society, as men of greater talent would naturally rise above their peers. The ancients thus focused their energies on ensuring that men of ability did not use their powers unjustly against those lodged beneath them in the social order.

Before we move on to discussing Hinduism, a few comments are in order pertaining to the success of feudalism in China. It is my opinion that feudalism was wildly successful in China for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was successful in Europe. The Church absorbed some of the most talented men in society by giving them an avenue to express their talents. Such men could not ascend in a strictly feudal order despite their talents and thus gravitated towards the church.

The Chinese state implemented that very approach and absorbed men of resource into its ever growing bureaucracy. This also had another unexpected benefit – it prevented the formation of a class of dissidents that could prove to be a source of agitation. I believe the Communist Party of China absorbs talent in such a manner even today. Men who wish to ascend the rungs of power often choose the political route (via the party) as opposed to the riskier route of commerce.

Hindu society, like its Chinese counterpart, was similarly structured along feudal lines. There is, however, one key difference in their underlying composition – Confucianism stresses the interdependence of relationship networks, whereas the Hindu caste system is the world’s oldest pyramid scheme.

As we are well aware, a pyramid structure is one where every level attempts to profit (by exploitation) off the labor of the level below, and so it goes all the way down until one reaches the base – the most crucial level and also the most exploited. Pyramids are inherently unstable and one way to ensure their longevity is by means of force. Individuals must be coerced to remain at their stations so that the structure may endure. This method leaves the structure vulnerable to rebellions and a constant tension between the levels. This point is obvious from British history alone where Barons often clashed with the monarchy.

In order to allay this source of instability, some pyramids permit upward mobility. But this makes the crucial base unstable by putting it in a constant state of flux as individuals at the lower stations climb up and leave their former stations vacant. This problem is alleviated by constantly recruiting newer members into the base so that there is always a base available for exploitation.

The genius of the Hindu caste system is that it combines both the aforementioned approaches. Hinduism forbids caste mobility in the current life, thereby ensuring the perpetual hegemony of the upper castes. However, in order to prevent tension, Hinduism allows caste mobility but only through rebirth/reincarnation. This system ensures that the lower castes are given some hope of improving their station in the social order so long as they serve the interests of the upper castes in the current lifetime. It is karma, the cosmic recruiter, that ensures that the base will always remain staffed with compliant serfs.

The ultimate difference between Hinduism and Confucianism is that the former is an escapist religion whereas the latter is at its core an ethical philosophy. While many a Westerner would disagree with the ethical rules of Confucianism, it is impossible to deny the ethical focus of this philosophy. Ethics reside within the horizontal space between individuals. Any ideology or mode of thought that attempts to address this space is ethical in nature, even if we may disagree with the rules that regulate this space and by extension the human relationships bound to it.

By contrast, Hinduism addresses a very different space: the gap between man and the universe (cosmic order). The goal of Hinduism is to escape the world and become liberated from karma once and for all. Karma and Dharma are cosmic forces that to the best of my knowledge have no equivalent in Chinese philosophy; the focus of the latter being on social and ethical matters as opposed to metaphysics.

To illustrate this point, consider the life of an ascetic. Hinduism places a great degree of value on the ascetic lifestyle. But the man who renounces the world resides in (to quote Arthur Danto) a space “beyond good and evil.” In such an environment, an agent’s actions have no moral content. A hermit who lives outside society will always act in a morally neutral way. The closest analogy to this in Chinese philosophy is the Taoist wanderer, who is essentially a loner. But the wanderer is not seeking escape from the world, merely freedom from discomfort and anxiety that plague those that haven’t discovered the way (Tao).

Confucianism on the other hand, by its very essence, rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Man’s place is rooted firmly in society, for as Confucius put it: “One cannot herd with the beasts or flock with the birds. If I am not to be a man among men, then what am I to be?” It is this space that Hinduism ultimately seeks release from. Consider the following illustration from India’s Bhakti tradition:

In the basic story, Tiruppan grows up as part of an ‘untouchable’ panar caste of bards and minstrels in a town near the temple of Srirangam, arguably the most revered of all Vaisnava pilgrimage sites and indisputably the single most important temple for Srivaisnava devotees. From the moment he is able to speak, Tiruppan sings beautiful songs praising the qualities of Rangi (or Ranganatha), the form of Visnu worshiped in the temple of Srirangam just across the river from his home town.

Every day he travels to the south bank of the river and sings from a distance to his beloved Rangi. Tiruppan yearns to see the image of his beloved but is unable to enter the temple due to his ‘untouchable’ status. Eventually, the beauty of his songs and the intensity of his devotion awake the compassion of Rangi, who comes in a dream to the Brahmin priest of Srirangam and tells him to bring Tiruppan into the temple on his shoulders.

The priest goes to get Tiruppan, but he refuses to come, saying, “How could you do such a thing with me, your slave, who belongs to the class of untouchables?” In another version, he states, “How can I step with my feet on to the holy temple of Ranga?” And the Brahmin replies, “Never mind! You can go [sitting] on my shoulders.” In yet another version, Tiruppan is so insistent that he cannot come to the temple because of his low birth and sinful life that the priest must physically force him onto his shoulders.

Eventually, Tiruppan enters the temple riding on the shoulders of the Brahmin priest, and gazing at Rangi in devotional ecstasy, he sings ten verses of praise describing the God from foot to head. These are the very verses that are still remembered and recited today in the Srivaisnava community. The story concludes with Tiruppan miraculously uniting with and disappearing into the image of his beloved Rangi.

This story illustrates how a man can close the gap between himself and the divine (Tiruppan and Rangi) whereas leaving the glaring gap between individuals (Tiruppan and the Brahmin priests) unaddressed.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. What is Hinduism’s overarching ethic? Western civilization’s universal ethic is moral universalism, and Confucianism’s is Ren (benevolence). It is my view that Indian civilization is unique precisely because it failed to do something which other advanced civilizations have done: produce a universal ethic. This view was shared by three individuals whom I have listed here in chronological order:

  1. St Francis Xavier
  2. Max Weber
  3. Dr Ambedkar

Francis Xavier, the Spanish missionary, made a series of observations about Indians that are quite illuminating. It is obvious that he did not think too highly of Hinduism, but it is one particular interaction that I wish to draw your attention to – a conversation between Xavier and a group of Brahmins:

When Xavier asked a group of Brahmins to summarize what Hinduism stood for, he was told that their gods “required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshipers of the gods.”

Max Weber arrived at a similar conclusion when he stated:

“There is no universal ethic but only a status and professionally differentiated dharma according to caste”

The Religion of India the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar’s observations in his book The Riddles in Hinduism were identical to Weber’s. The very first chapter, The Difficulty in Knowing Who Is a Hindu, is centered around an attempt to define some common ethic or even creed that binds Hindus together. Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that one is a Hindu precisely because one is born into the faith and not due to any universal ethic that binds individuals together under a set of agreed-upon moral rules.

Just as it is impossible to practice larceny in a culture that has no concept of private property, similarly it is impossible to practice intolerance in a culture that believes in nothing. I suspect this is the secret of Indian ‘tolerance.’ Tolerance can only be measured in opposition to what one cannot tolerate. The act of enduring what one cannot tolerate is in effect practicing tolerance. It is only in this context that tolerance acquires a moral quality. One however cannot practice tolerance when one subscribes to no real beliefs whose limits can be tested. The Indian approaches the world with extreme apathy and conflates his indifference for tolerance.

In conclusion, the difference between Confucianism and Hinduism can be observed in their differing worldviews despite some overlap in social conventions. Hinduism’s focus is on mystical objectives, as it dismisses reality as we understand it as illusionary. Confucianism’s focus is squarely on this world, and its chief emphasis is social and political harmony.

217 Comments

Filed under Asia, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Guest Posts, Hinduism, India, Jurisprudence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South Asia

Trump’s Sexist Remarks about Women

All of these remarks by Trump about women have been called sexist by feminists, the Cultural Left, and the popular culture at large, which is really just the Cultural Left as we are getting to the point now where the Cultural Left is actually our mainstream culture, which is pretty sorry. The remarks were rated on whether they were really sexist or not, and reasons were given for my opinions. Sexism really does exist. Misogyny is real and an awful lot of men are guilty of it. In fact, you might say that misogyny is the norm in male culture. It’s simply normal when among men to be a sexist pig and have a low view of women. That’s just the way men talk when they get together.

To some extent it’s understandable as women tend to make us insane, but it’s still not ok. You guys don’t like females who hate men, right? Well then,  don’t be a woman -hater. Anyway, I feel that most of the serious complaints against women are due to things women cannot help. Their brains just work in a certain way and most male complaints about women seem to be due to women’s brains working in exactly the way they are programmed to work. In other words, I don’t think there is a whole lot women can do about this stuff and I doubt if they are deliberately going out of their way to act horrible when they act bad. They  probably do not have a lot of control over it, and to some extent, women, like men, are probably prisoners of our biology.

Comments welcome.

“I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?” Sexist – lousy attitude to have towards your wife.

That women are essentially aesthetically-pleasing objects: In his 2006 book Trump 101: The Way to Success, Trump wrote: “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.” Not sexist – true.

That sexual assault in the military is totally expected. 26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?  Not sexist – true.

That women on The Apprentice need to rely on sex appeal. “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on The Apprentice were to a very large extent dependent on their sex appeal.”  Sexist – was the show supposed to be about how sexy the women were?

That bad press doesn’t matter as long as you have a sexy girlfriend. “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” Sexist – poor taste and a lousy way to talk about your woman.

That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist. “I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters,” Trump said to a female reporter in a clip featured on Last Week Tonight. “Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.” Sexist – sex appeal should not be a factor in whether a woman is a good journalist or not.

That pumping breast milk is “disgusting.” When a lawyer facing Trump in 2011 asked for a break to pump breast milk for her infant daughter, The Donald reacted very poorly. “He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me, and he screamed, ‘You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting,’ and he ran out of there,” attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN. Trump’s attorney does not dispute that his client called Beck “disgusting.” Sexist – lousy attitude towards breastfeeding.

That all women hate prenups because they are gold diggers. “The most difficult aspect of the prenuptial agreement is informing your future wife (or husband): I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband solely for himself but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.” Sexist – probably not all women are this avaricious.

That women have a “great act” going on to trick men. “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.”  Not sexist – true.

That Hillary would be a bad president because of her husband’s actions. “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, how can she satisfy America?” Sexist – the behavior of her husband has nothing to do with how good of a President she would be. Poor taste to imply that she is lousy in bed.

That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive. “[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby… And, I just don’t even find her attractive.” Sexist – slut shaming.

That Bette Midler’s “ugly face and body” are offensive. While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct. Sexist – that is not a good reason to dislike a person.

That Rosie O’Donnell is “crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb. My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner, and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.” Sexist – Lousy way to talk to women on a habitual basis.

That a journalist who offended him had an ugly face. New York Times columnist Gail Collins recalled: “During one down period, I referred to him in print as a ‘financially embattled thousandaire’ and he sent me a copy of the column with my picture circled and ‘The Face of a Dog!’ written over it.” Sexist – her looks are not of any importance.

That Cher is ‘lonely’ and ‘a loser’ because she doesn’t support him. @cher should spend more time focusing on her family and dying career! “Cher is an average talent who’s out of touch with reality,” he said in a 2012 Fox News interview. “Cher is somewhat of a loser. She’s lonely. She’s unhappy. She’s very miserable.”  Not sexist – he does not like this person. Has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful. “Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred,” Trump said about himself one time. “Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.”  Not sexist – probably true.

That the ladies on “The Apprentice” are all super into him. “All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”  Not sexist – possibly true.

57 Comments

Filed under Culture, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Left, Politics, Psychology, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics, Women

“A Bit about Northeast Indians,” by Magneto

A Bit about Northeast Indians

by Magneto

Not many people are aware that there’s an entirely different race of people living within the boundaries of the Indian nation. On the far eastern side of India to the north and east of Bangladesh, there are seven “Northeastern” states consisting of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. The population in these states is basically Asian, and they look like a mix between Chinese and Thai.

They have a totally different culture than Indians, and quite frankly it doesn’t make sense for them to be living within the boundaries of the Indian nation. In fact, most Northern people are quite unhappy with India and Indians and hate Indian people to boot. A lot of the rape that happens in the big cities is targeting Northeastern women, who Indian men perceive to be easy.

all-are-chinki

Two Northeastern women.

Northeast girls are quite beautiful, and if you like Asian women, you’ll like them a lot. They are a lot more culturally open than Indians, and they are mostly Christian. Northeastern people face a lot of racism in India, but a lot of it is probably due to the fact that Indians are jealous of them because Northeastern people tend to be a lot more intelligent than Indians.

culture-2

More Northeastern women.

Many Northeastern peoples are fighting for and demanding independent countries because they are sick of being abused, raped, and tortured by Indians. Indians are a vicious, racist, and psychopathic race of people, easily the most racist people on the planet.

maxresdefault

Beautiful women from a beauty pageant.

Northeastern people are living in the 21st century, and the women wear mini-skirts, short shorts, tank tops, and other revealing clothing. This drives the morally hypocritical Indians insane and in particular makes the men go crazy as they drool in lust over them. If you’re a White guy living in India, I would suggest entirely avoiding Indian women (unless you have a fetish for them, as I unfortunately do) and go for Northeastern girls instead. They all speak very good English and are very culturally compatible  with Westerners. Northeastern girls have hot bodies and don’t have any body fat. It’s extremely rare to meet an Indian girl who doesn’t have body fat, but Northeastern chicks have good figures,and that’s another reason they are quite popular in the prostitution market.

mizoram-girls

Some hot women from Mizoram.

The food is quite interesting from the Northeast. They don’t use a shitload of oils and butter like Indians do, so their food is a lot healthier. It mostly consists of rice, light soups, steamed leafy greens, and a few interesting other vegetable dishes.

All in all, the Northeastern people would be better off if they became independent from India and perhaps even joined China. China would definitely develop their area and make it ultra-modern. It could also help China’s marriage problem, since there are a shortage of marriageable women in China.

If an Indian ever accuses you of racism or “White privilege”, just ask the Indian about how Indians treat Northeastern Indians in their own country or African students, for that matter.

northeastgirls1

Some pretty Northeastern women around college age.

55 Comments

Filed under Asia, China, Christianity, Culture, East Indians, Guest Posts, India, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, Whites, Women

Taking the Sex Stuff out of the Alt Left Manifesto

The edited manifesto is here.

  • Promotion of mass sexual perversion to the masses: group sex, threeways, bisexuality, opportunistic or experimental homosexual sex, orgies, sex in public. *see Note 5*
  • Note 5. All of these are perfectly acceptable private lifestyles and sexual choices, but they should be private, not openly promoted, sexual styles. Straight men should not be hectored to engage in experimental homosexual sex, bisexuality should not be promoted as a fad, and the masses should not be openly encouraged to have orgies, engage in group sex, threesomes or public sex. Would you want people encouraging your mother, sister, brother, daughter or son to do such things?

OK, so what’s the problem then? Well, everybody is freaking out about it, calling me homophobe, Puritan, sex-hater, etc. If you know me and know how I have lived my life, you would laugh pretty hard at that idea. It’s also suggested that I dislike kinky or perverted sex. Once again, if you know me, you might laugh at that  idea too. But nevertheless a lot of people do not like this stuff.

My Mom doesn’t. I don’t think my Dad did. Are my mother and father hung up old no-fun Victorian fogies because they don’t want to do threeways, go to orgies, experiment with gay sex, or do it in the middle the street? Is my Mom a hang-up old prude because she isn’t down with getting gangbanged (and I’m quite sure she’s not down with that)? This is where this is all heading. The Cultural Left has so taken over the mainstream culture that you now see articles in the mainstream press cheering on and celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality, orgies and threeways.

I now read in the mainstream  press about how I need to have my girlfriend peg me in the ass with a dildo (look it up if you are not familiar). If I don’t let her peg me, I’m hung up. I have hangups. I guess I need to go to a sex therapist to straighten all this out so I can take it like a man from my strapped-on girlfriend.

I also read articles about how I need to go out and see what a penis tastes like, otherwise I guess I’m just no hip or something. The articles have heads like, Men: Have You Gotten in Touch with Your Bisexual Side? If you read the article, that’s if you can even stand to, it’s all about a bunch of men who are not biological homosexuals at all going out and experimenting with screwing guys just because it’s hip and groovy nowadays to do that. If they were biological homosexuals, surely we could forgive, tolerate, accept or even cheer them on. Because if they can’t help it, they need to have as happy and healthy of lives as we do.

I read articles about how I need to get cucked. That means I go and get great big studly Black guys (bulls) to have sex with my girlfriend while I sit back and watch and enjoy the humiliation of this spectacle. My girlfriend and the bull also join in and insult me, mock, and laugh at me for being so pathetic. I enjoy being made fun of and ridiculed like this, I guess because I am a great big pussy idiot.

Some men even have their women lock their penises in little penis cages so they cannot have sex with the woman. Often they are not allowed to masturbate or at least not much. These guys apparently get off having sexual pleasure sadistically denied to them, I guess  because they are masochistic idiots. It’s not unusual for the woman and bull to want the man to service the bull bisexually at some point. Or to clean up the woman after it’s all done, which is also pretty bisexual.

Oh yes, and the man and woman are always White, and the bull is always Black. So it’s a Black guy cucking the wimpy White guy’s woman while the White man enjoys the insulting nature of this spectacle. The sexual/racial political implications of this are quite clear. If you know how the Cultural Left hates White man and how much they venerate and worship Blacks, you can see why the Cultural Left might want to promote this stuff. Is it “White genocide?” I doubt it, and I don’t even know what that is, but I imagine the Alt Right White Genocide crowd is not very happy at this latest sexual kink, to put it mildly.

I’m supposed to do this! This is presented as the latest coolest, hippest groovy thing to do, and I guess I’m just not with it if I balk at doing this.

I see an article about how a man throws a birthday orgy for his wife’s birthday. I guess he’s perfectly happy with a bunch of other men having sex with his wife. Whatever. The thing is, if I’m not down with this, I’m uncool. I’m not a hipster. I’m not a cool guy. I’m uptight. I have sexual hangups, from too much religion no doubt.

New York Magazine ran an article a while back about a week in the life of a gay man in New York. Well, it seemed to be a nonstop whirlwind of casual encounters and hookups along with an orgy or two thrown in for spice. By the end of the week, he may have had sex with 5-10 different men, I have no idea. This was written up in a, “Wow isn’t this cool and groovy!” style.

Well is it? I mean everyone knows that most gay men are anywhere from quite to sureally promiscuous, but is this something that should be celebrated in the mainstream media? If the gay media wants to celebrate it, it’s one thing. The Advocate or Frontiers or whatever the latest gay press outlet is can sing the praises of wild homosexuality all the want. But keep it behind the doors of the gay press, please, like I say keep the other stuff behind the doors of the adult press. Why should the rest of us have to read about this sort of thing?

Sure, insane promiscuity has caused all sorts of  problems for gay men, HIV just being one of them. There have also been epidemics of Hepatitis A and B, various parasites, syphilis, gonorrhea, and genital herpes and warts. And I assume there are others. All of these combined have resulted in something resembling a public health crisis among gay men, but once again, I think that’s there problem to deal with on their own. If they want to be crazy  promiscuous and catch all these diseases, that’s their business.

I don’t think their diseases make it out into the straight population that much with the exception of Black women, but that is the Black community’s problem to deal with, not mine. But once again, why should we, mainstream media readers, be subjected to celebratory articles about the wildly promiscuous lifestyles of gay men in our big cities?

I also notice that the Cultural Left sings the praises of gay men marrying straight women. I guess lesbians can marry straight men too. That’s pretty weird, but the Cultural Left says this is wonderful.

First of all, almost all of these often-young men are lying through their teeth about their homosexuality. For another thing, many if not all of these men are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum. How many are truly bisexual and how many are just gay men having sex with women, I have no idea, and this sort of thing is very hard to figure out in part because almost all such men are pathological liars.

Now this has actually turned out to be a significant social problem. There are many closeted gay and bisexual men married to women in the US. How many? No idea, but I would not be surprised if it was within the hundreds of thousands. In the vast majority of cases, this situation is a catastrophe. The men are hiding and lying about their gay sex lives from their wives, and the marriage ends up being more or less a disaster, certainly for the woman. Many or most women in this sort of marriage seem to be damaged by it. Further, the women often consider the time they were married to such men as a huge waste of the limited valuable time they are allotted in life. The women consider the years of these marriages to be wasted years.

85% of such marriages end in divorce, which is not surprising. Now you would think considering what a bad idea this is, the Cultural Left would not promote it. Nope. It’s just one more groovy bit of sexual weirdness, and if it’s sexual and weird, the Cultural Left must sing the praises of it, no matter how bizarre it is.

Why in God’s name would a lesbian marry a straight man? That’s so bizarre. Even a lot of lesbians think this is horrible, and they are dead-set against it. But the Cultural Left has promoted this idiocy in articles. I assume they even promote gay men marrying lesbians. Now why any two such humans would want to do that in the first place, I have no idea. The very idea is so weird, it is hard to even contemplate. I haven’t seen an article on this yet, but I have heard of a few cases.

Now look, back in the day, we had all sorts of kinky people advocating this sort of thing too, but I did not mind it one bit. That’s because this stuff was relegated to the adult magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. Because that is where it belongs. It belongs in the adult media. If you want to go read the adult media and hear about all the latest kinks and even be harangued to try them, it’s perfectly fine with me. And on the web, there is the whole porn side of the web where all of these kinks are well on display. And there is adult media too. There are sex zines and media outlets that report on the adult industry.

I don’t care, as long as they make it clear that it’s a sex or adult magazine so you know what you are getting into. I just don’t want this stuff in the mainstream media. I don’t want my Mom to pick up the LA Times and read about how she needs to get gangbanged or go do a three-way tonight.  I don’t think she wants to read that either.

I would call this the Pornographication of General Culture. Once again I don’t mind, but it ought to be kept behind the walls of the adult media so people can read about this if they want to or not. I just don’t want to see it on Alternet or Slate.

Do you follow?

Now being against this sex stuff or not wanting to have it officially promoted, sanctioned, and strewn through the mainstream media  is apparently very controversial. People are up in arms about it. I’m a Victorian prude. I’m against sex. I’m uptight. I’m no fun. I’m a fuddy duddy.

I’m none of those things. Actually I am more like the opposite of those things, and this actually a bit of a problem in itself, but that’s another matter.

  • Support for anything goes pansexuality. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?

This is still in there, but people are already yelling that this is too puritanical. I am leaving it in for now.

What do you all think about this subject? Do agree with me on this or do you agree with my critics? Chime in please.

156 Comments

Filed under American, Blacks, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Idiots, Illness, Journalism, Left, Political Science, Pornography, Public Health, Race/Ethnicity, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Weirdness, Whites

Why Are Straight Men Generally More Depressed and Repressed Than Gay Men?

From Quora.

My answer: 

They aren’t. Repeated studies done over many years have shown that gay men have much higher rates of depression than straight men. And anxiety for that matter. It’s not even debatable. Now why this is, is not known.

Repressed? Well gay male culture is pretty wild, and sex is a lot easier to come by. Gay men have told me that getting sex in gay culture is as easy as filling up your gas tank.

Straight men have to deal with the inhibitions of women, so that may well make us more inhibited. It’s just not so easy to get sex from women if you are a straight man. It’s much easier to obtain sex of you are a gay man, which is why gay men statistically have far more partners than straight men.

Straight men have to be careful about everything we say and do. Talk to the wrong woman? Whoops, you’re a creep. Looking at that woman over there? Call the cops, that’s creepy! And that’s not to mention anything remotely resembling a come-on, where people’s reaction often seems like you set off a grenade in the room. And on and on forever and ever.

Straight society is full of cockblocking idiots of both sexes. Married men are some of the worst cockblockers of all. A lot of young married men seem to have no other goal in life but to cockblock all the single men in sight. Modern feminism is extremely puritanical, and the idiotic specter of “sexual harassment” looms over much if not all straight interaction in public and even in private. When I go out in public, it often seems like the whole world is deliberately cockblocking me. White people are by far the worst cockblockers of them all, vastly worse than Blacks or Hispanics.

Gay culture is much more Wild West when it comes to sex, and they do not have to deal with a lot of the anti-sexual nonsense that women put out as the gatekeepers of sex.

Still, a lot of straight people are really opening up about sex and having lots of sex nowadays, so we are less repressed that we used to be. But most straight men would probably be uncomfortable in orgies and maybe even threeways. On the other hand, the number of gay men who have gone to such things as orgies or have threeways is extremely high. Group sex is definitely a common aspect of modern gay life.

What with the orgies, threeways, very high partner counts and general anti-Puritanical atmosphere of gay culture, it should be no surprise that gay men are more loosened up about sex than we are.

9 Comments

Filed under Culture, Depression, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Whites