Category Archives: Feminism

Serial Killers – Psychotic or Psychopathic?

Gary Palin: I see your points Robert, and your way more knowledgeable about these types of psychotic sociopaths than I am. When I saw the picture of Libby in the hat and how young and innocent she looked, this crime really struck a chord with me. When I was younger growing up in the 70’s this was relatively “uncommon,” but there were some (Charles Manson, etc) Also there were very few homosexuals, at least out in the open, and there were no transgender people ( not that I have disdain for them). This goes for where I grew up, but maybe in liberal California it was different for you.

I just wonder if this escalating type of violent crimes against women has anything to do with “feminism” and men feeling slighted and emasculated, and this is their way of rebelling against women. I think there may be a lot of truth to this.

I would bet in the 1950’s where divorce was uncommon, and families were mostly all the patriarchal type, when men were the head of the household, I think people and families were a lot happier than in today’s world, even though they didn’t have as much material wealth. Maybe you should do a blog on that subject, as you’re truly a student of human nature.

As far as being a student of human nature, I work in mental health. I have dealt with very few psychotic or psychopathic people, but I often have to rule out psychopathy or psychosis. In the group I am dealing with, I almost always rule it out. But to rule it out, you have to understand it.

Actually there were quite a few serials running around in the 1970’s. I like to think of the 1970’s as the Decade of the Serial Killer. There were an amazing number of them running around right here in California. We regularly had them running loose here in the LA area. Randy Kraft, the Hillside Strangler, the Toolbox Killers, the Sunset Strip Killers, Rodney Alcala, William Bonin, on and on. In California proper there was the Zodiac, the Hitchhiker Killer, and the Keddie Murders. Ted Bundy was running around the West.

My Mom thinks she saw Bonin and crew pick up a young male hitchhiker on a freeway entrance in Garden Grove. She thought that may have been the last ride that boy ever took.

A good friend of mine had an encounter with Randy Kraft and drank some beer and smoked some pot with him. The beer was one of Kraft’s specialty Valium-laced beers, but my friend caught on that something was wrong. Kraft tried to stop him from leaving the car, but my friend screamed at Kraft like a maniac, and Kraft was taken aback and let him go.

Back then we did not have DNA and advanced forensics, so most of these guys killed a number of times (4-10) before they were caught. It was so much easier to be a serial back then due to the more primitive forensics. Serials often targeted regular females or males, but now a lot of serials are targeting druggy street prostitutes, truck stop whores, and other marginal women whose disappearance is not even known because they are so far outside of society. It is quite hard to catch these killers because they are targeting such marginal women who hardly anyone even knows. When the serial starts targeting ordinary members of society, it’s a bit easier to catch them.

I do not think the rate of rapes or rape-murders of women has gone up since the 1970’s. I have heard that child killings have been at a flat rate of ~150/year since the 1970’s. If anything, I would assume the rate of rapes and rape-murders has gone down since the 1970’s. Sure, there has been a much-needed backlash against the sexist hate movement called Feminism, but it doesn’t seem like men’s rage over it is causing us to rape and kill women at any higher rate than we ever had. Instead a lot of men seem to be dropping out of dating and dealing with women altogether for fear of a sexual harassment, sexual assault or fake rape charge. See the Men Going Their Own Way Movement for more on this phenomenon.

The concepts of psychosis and psychopathy are often confused in the public mind. How many times have you heard about “psychotic killers?” Thing is, when someone says that, they are almost never referring to killers who are actually psychotic. Instead they are referring to psychopathic killers and confusing them with people who are psychotic. Most people do not understand the difference between these psychological states, and this is the reason for the mix-up. Also most people assume that any maniac running around like Jack the Ripper slaughtering other humans for no good reason has to be insane or psychotic. They say this because to them such an act seems to be so outside of normal behavior that only a crazy person would do such a thing.

Psychosis and psychopathy are too different things. I suppose there are some cases where the two conditions overlap. Some paranoid schizophrenics seem to have also been psychopaths, but this is not common.

These sociopaths are not psychotic. This is an important thing to note. Only 2% of serials are psychotic. It is fairly easy to catch a psychotic serial because they are completely insane. It’s hard for crazy people to organize a trip to the bathroom, much less a serial killing spree.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are not the tiniest bit crazy. If they were even 1% nuts, they would be easier to catch. They are almost too sane in that they don’t have to worry about emotions slipping them up. These humans are like machines. If they are serials, then they are killing machines.

I would agree though that outside of the former definition of craziness which tends to emphasize impairment, sociopaths/psychopaths are indeed crazy. They’re morally crazy. And in some ways, these are craziest humans of all because they simply lack a conscience.

Instead of being crazy, sociopaths and psychopaths are better seen as sick. Or even evil. We need to take our analysis of these folks outside of the sanity/insanity paradigm and over into the moral universe of good/evil. These people aren’t crazy. They’re just evil, that’s all. This is the only way to properly understand such people.

10 Comments

Filed under California, Crime, Evil, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Regional, Serial Killers, Sick, Sociology, Sociopathy, USA, Women

Destroying Many Myths about Teenage Girl-Adult Man Relationships

Women always want the best.

– Oscar Wilde

I would add teenage girls to that. Women and teenage girls always want the best.

First of all, I would like to point out that one of the main drivers of Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria has been feminist therapists exactly like this woman.

A teenage girl is with an older man. People end the relationship and everyone starts screaming about how she got abused and molested and damaged and ruined and how now she has to go a therapist now get over her being a victim of “child molestation.” The girl is typically utterly baffled and doesn’t feel 1% harmed by the relationship which she probably started herself anyway.

They ship her off to the feminist therapist who drills it into her head endlessly about how she was a victim of “child molestation,” about how she is a “child,” presumably the same thing as what are known as little girls, and how if she doesn’t “recover from the damage” she will be scarred and crippled for the rest of her life.

At first the girl thinks this is insane and stupid and probably wants to slap the therapist. But after a while, the therapist brainwashes her very well. Now the girl is going on and on about how she got molested, abused, raped, damaged and potentially ruined. What was formerly probably the peak experience of her young life is now regarded as a horrorshow of nightmarish abuse. She starts to develop a number of mental symptoms due to all the “abuse” she got. She was quite sane before. She was sane before and now she’s crazy! Iatrogenic therapist-induced mental disorder. Way to go feminists! Instead of making crazy people sane, you’re doing the opposite. You’re making sane people nuts. Good job! You want a medal for that?

Rebecca Patrick-Howard:

“On another note, how can you possibly “groom” a teenage girl? You can only groom children, and teenage girls are not children.”

Children, teenage girls, and grown women can ALL be “groomed.” Grooming occurs when a power figure (teacher, parent, dominant partner in the relationship) deliberately establishes an emotional connection and relationship with another person in order to exhibit control and to lower their inhibitions, usually for the purpose of exploitation or abuse.

Little by little, a seemingly healthy relationship becomes darker as the person is isolated from their family and friends, suffers mental and physical abuse-and sometimes sexual, becomes mentally and physically dependent upon the other person, and begins suffering from self-esteem issues and other behavioral and mental health problems.

Battered women are “groomed” every day. Just ask the formerly confident, attractive, independent woman who, after years of mental and physical abuse, finds herself kowtowing to their partner’s every wish and demand, losing her autonomy, and finding herself mentally unable to leave the relationship.

Women and teenagers are groomed in a different way. They’re taught to sit quietly without asking questions, to immediately respond to any text or phone call, to put their own needs and desires aside to focus on what their partner wants, to dress and behave in public the way the other person wants, to give in to sexual desires that make make them uncomfortable, to respond to things in a manner in which they are uncomfortable. They’re groomed to do these things in the beginning by being rewarded, just like a dog is rewarded for treats. And later, when they’re not complacent, they’re punished.

Certain women are targeted. Perhaps they appear vulnerable or weak. Or maybe they’re just young. They learn to gain the other person’s trust. They find their needs being met. Then the relationship becomes sexualized. From there, control is maintained. At that point, they’re often so entangled within the relationship that it’s difficult to get out.

If you’d like, I can provide data, research, case studies, and message boards where you can read many experiences from women and teenagers who have been “groomed.” From women and teenagers who have escaped abusive relationships and even sex trafficking situations.

“She probably seduced him. That’s how this stuff usually goes.”

I would like to see citations for peer-reviewed studies that show that the “most men having sex with teenage girls are doing it because the girls seduced them” and that “Also in almost all cases it is consensual”. Because I can tell you, as a woman and former teenage girl, that’s not been MY experience. As a family therapist, that certainly goes against the studies I’ve seen and read – not to mention the experience I’ve had with dozens of my young clients.

Regardless, a 13-year-old is a child. No matter how “mature” they appear, no matter if they’ve started menses or not, no matter if they have the body and vocabulary of a 20-year-old-they’re are NOT a woman. Either legally or emotionally.

Do you have a daughter?

I don’t have one, but if your daughter is a teenage girl, I bet she is pretty angry about the way you are trying to “protect” her from a harmless thing she doesn’t even want to be protected from in the first place! From her point of view, you’re annoying and in the way, big time.

In every case I heard about personally, the girl seduced the man. In all the cases I have read about on the Net, the girl went after the man. Teenage girls like men, you know. They mostly like boys, but there’s definitely a fair number of them who like men too, usually the better looking ones.

And underage teenage girls did this too me more times than I can count when I was having sex with them from ages 18-21 and then later when all relationships were platonic. I never sought out underage girls even as a young man when I was dating them. I didn’t have to. I just sat back and waited for them to come to me. They approached me or mutual friends said the girl wanted to go out with me. “Hey Bob, do you want to go out with Clarissa (14 year old girl)? She wants to go out with you.”

And I certainly never sought them out as “easy lays,” mostly because they aren’t. Teenage girls are not easy targets. It is actually quite difficult to date them if you are an adult. If we lowered the age of consent right now, it would be murderously difficult for me to date a jailbait. I’m too old for them, and they’re too hard to get anyway.

I have never in my life heard of men seeking out teenage girls as “easy targets.” Why would anyone do that? Girls like men enough that if you are into teenage girls and you are goodlooking and have good Game, all you have to do is sit back and wait for them to come to you, or at least make the first signals.

I have never in my life heard of a man who “could not get a woman his own age,” so he went after teenage girls. It boggles my mind that women and feminists actually believe this ludicrous notion. It doesn’t work that way! If you can’t get a woman your own age, of course you cannot get a teenage girl because they are far harder to date than grown women your own age.

I am 59 years old and although somehow I do date attractive young women in their legal teens through 20’s (against all odds and to my own astonishment), I must say that it is horribly difficult. And when I have to deal with young women in my regular doings around town, most of them look at me like, “Get the Hell away from me, creep!” It was never like that before. It was the opposite. Obviously I am too old for them. This is 100% due to age and 0% due to anything else. Even if it were legal, dating teenage girls would be even harder for me than young women because honestly they harder to get if you are older. The younger the female, the harder it is to get her if you are an older man.

For one thing, teenage girls are much pickier than women. In every case I have known personally, the girls seduced the men and the men were basically studs, players, playboys, womanizers, or whatever you want to call them. These were good-looking men with great Game who did great with women. Even in the cases I read about in the paper, the girls seem to be targeting the “Alphas.”

I have talked to teenage girls about this, and they told me, “We are not really into older men that much. But if we are at all, we only want the best, the cream of the crop.” Teenage girls are boy-crazy, and they will date all sorts of teenage boys. You don’t have to be an Alpha at that age. Many teenage girls have Beta or even Omega boyfriends. They are not so selective about boys their age. But once you start getting above the boys into the men, teenage girls get far pickier.

Bottom line is as far as I can tell, Beta and especially Omega men cannot even hope to get a teenage girl. Those girls only want the ~20% best men in your age group.

Look at cases in the paper. How many times have you heard of teenage girls pursuing movie directors (Roman Polanski repeatedly), rock stars (Bowie, Steve Tyler, Jimmy Page and surely many others, rich men (Trump, Jeffrey Epstein), teachers (strong authority figure with a good job and better than average smarts), writers (JD Salinger). See? They make a beeline for the best men.

Which has exactly been my experience. There are men out there who are attractive to most of the women. Call them the Alphas. Typically there are a number of women who would gladly date these men. These are the men that “all the women want.” Well, guess what sort of men teenage girls like? Exactly that type. Girls want the same cream of the crop men that all the women want. Girls and women are not all that different when it comes to sex. They all want the same thing.

Why on Earth would you get involved with a man if it wasn’t consensual? If it’s not consensual then it’s rape. If it was rape, why didn’t you report it to the police? Color me baffled. You say in your practice you have met many teenage girls who were in nonconsensual relationships with men. Leaving the family aside (where coerced sex with minors is very common) how many girls get into nonconsensual relationships with men? Why would anyone do that? Are you saying that all these girls were raped? That every time they had sex, it was a rape? That’s what nonconsensual means. Rape. If all these girls got raped, why didn’t they report it to the police?

If most of these cases are really rapes and not consensual, why doesn’t LE file rape charges against the men? Instead it’s usually some statutory type charge that merely says his only crime was having sex with a female in some restricted, off-limits age range.

I’ve never heard a typical older man-teenage girl relationship that was not 100% consensual. If it’s not consensual, why would she be there in the first place. Teenage girls are pretty damn smart. You can say that kids don’t have the ability to consent because they are unclear on the concept in the first place. But to conflate the lack of agency of little girls with the wariness,  worldliness and sophistication and argue that somehow teenage girls can’t figure out what consent means is nuts. Of course they know what it means. Only kids don’t know, and teenage girls aren’t kids. Their neither children nor adults. We might as call them girl-women. I know them very well. They are far smarter, wiser and sensible about this stuff than most people think.

Every case I read about in the paper appears to be consensual, especially long-term relationships. How many times have you read that the girl refuses to testify against the man because she loves him, thinks he did nothing wrong or regards the relationship as consensual.?

I have read that so many times that I can’t count it. She often pleads with the court to release him, saying she hasn’t been harmed in the slightest. The court disregards that fact that this was a crime involving two people where there somehow was no victim and heaves the guy into prison and throws away the key. In fact, so many teenage girls refer to testify in these cases that it is almost epidemic or expected. The only reason the men ever go down is because someone else reported the case. The girl almost never reports the case. Why would she? She’s doing what she wants to do.

This non-testimony is such an epidemic that many states had to dig out their laws and make new laws and rules so that the testimony of the victim was not even required for a conviction. They had to throw out proof of harm because most of these teenage girl fake-victims will swear on a stack of Bibles that they were not harmed at all.

I would say that the one group that is probably most angry at all about this Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria is the girls themselves. Quite a few of them want to get with hot men, but every time they nab one of their dream men, people like you grab her beloved boyfriend and throw him in prison. Hell, the “victims” themselves probably hate this mass hysteria more than anyone else. Most of the “victims” probably hate the law that is supposedly “protecting them.” Isn’t that rather idiotic?

I still don’t believe a woman can be groomed. The author says grooming occurs whenever there is a power discrepancy. Does she realize how often there is a power discrepancy between adult men  and adult female sexual partners? Does the author think it should be illegal to “groom” women? Would she propose an anti-grooming law for women victims of grooming?

40 Comments

Filed under Crime, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Law enforcement, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

A Girl in Every Woman, a Woman in Every Girl, and a Chicken in Every Pot

I have been meaning to write this post for some time now but I have been terrified to do it. But it is an excellent subject of discussion. The stages of biological life that all humans go through is an interesting subject and it is perfectly sensible and normal for any human to be interested in such a topic. If we put this topic anywhere, we should put it under Medicine, which is the study of the human body after all. Problem is anyone who broaches the subject is going to get bombarded with accusations of pedophilia and perhaps ever reported to the police. In that case, let the bombarding and reporting commence.

The vast majority of people flipping out about a post like this are going to be persons of the hysterical gender, that is females. This makes no sense because the stages of biological life development ought to be very interesting for any curious woman. After all, every woman was once a girl, though no doubt most would probably deny it.

I would actually go further and say that there’s a girl in every woman.

Based on what? Based on years of experiences with relationships with many females, some of them even long-term. After a while, a student of women starts to learn quite a bit about them. Who knows more about women? A man who has been married to one woman his entire life or a man who never married and dated 200 women? I put this question to the smartest woman on Earth, which is of course my mother. She instantly said it would be the guy who had had experiences with all sorts of women. I don’t think having sex with prostitutes 200 times is going to cut it, though I guarantee you will learn a bit.

Sure the other guy gets to look at one woman down through the years, but one woman does not say much about Womanhood as a whole. He has a blinkered perspective. Whereas a man with many experiences (especially deep, prolonged and long-term ones) is going to sample the a good cross-section of Womanhood. As they say in statistics, sample size is everything. The larger the sample, the more accurate the results. The married man above has a sample size of one. The other guy has a sample size of 200. Whose study is going to be more accurate?

Women are mysterious and confusing and often make no sense at all. My female friends tell me that women are weird and impossible to figure out. But get a nice sample size, get to know some of them long-term and deeply, and after a while, you are going to see some real patterns.

As I said, there’s a  Girl in every Woman. And if you can get that Girl to come out and play, you can have a lot of fun with women. Some women have apparently killed their Girl. They are too serious and no fun, stuck in the dull and drab monotony that we drearily call Maturity. Yawn. But only some women have killed their Girl. Most have a Girl in there romping around somewhere. The trick is luring it out. And here’s where your Game skills will come in extremely handy.

And another thing I noticed, though not from dating, is there’s a Woman in every Girl.

If you watch little girls long enough, you can actually the Woman coming out in a lot of vague ways. Watch little girls playing house and tell me those are not tiny Women. I think Girlhood is a trial run at Womanhood. Girls seem to be in the process of learning how to be a Woman.

Of course as girls get older, you see the Woman more and more. But even in teenage years, girls are trading Woman and Girl back and forth and mixing them up.

  • Teenage girls are not children.
  • Neither are they adults.
  • They are girl-women, something in between that is neither a child nor an adult. A transitional phase.

It would be nice if rational people would believe this obvious fact, but alas, common sense has run away from our fair land and has not been heard of in some time.

A 16 year old girl has a complete woman’s body and a full-blown sex drive to boot, I assure you. But observing one lately, I was stunned at how much of a girl a 16 year old girl still is. Sure, she’s partly a woman. But she’s still so much  of a girl.

My latest revelation came from observing one seriously hot 16 year old girl at a function I attended in the Fall. Why was I looking at her? Well for one  thing, the feminists haven’t made looking illegal. They’re working on it, but that’s still a ways into the future. For another thing, she was staring at me, checking me out, and giving me bedroom eyes and zombie stares all night long, so what was I to do?

What did she want? No idea. But obviously I was making her horny. I’ve been around enough females to know what a horny female looks like. I can almost spot one half a mile away, blindfolded, at night, by now.

Not that she necessarily wanted to act on that feeling. What females feel and what they actually want to do about that feeling is a major part of female psychology that is poorly understood by almost everyone, including most women. See that woman staring at you all night long? Well, obviously you’re making her horny. Duh. So that means she wants to have sex with you then, right? Ay, there’s the rub. That’s not necessarily true. Maybe she just likes to look. Females probably encounter 10,000 males who make them horny in a lifetime. They don’t exactly jump on all of them you know. Thoughts and actions are two different things, although every day tens of millions of idiots can never seem to figure that out.

That 16 year old girl? Yes, it’s a woman. But in so many ways,it’s still such a girl. You don’t notice this until you get older because only then can you see immaturity for what it is. A young man gets too caught up in thinking these are little women because he’s not old enough to see how immature they are. Plus he’s thinking with his dick, and your dick doesn’t have a lot of brain cells last time I checked.

But you get to be my age, and you can see that girl as clear as air.

A 17 year old girl, ok, now we are getting somewhere. Especially right before they turn 18, a lot of them are after older men aged 29-59. This like graduation from Girlhood and on to Womanhood on a fast track. A 17 year old girl can be surprisingly mature. Nearly a little Woman. She’s way beyond a 16 year old girl, half a world away and past the International Dateline. How do I know? Guess. I told you I understand women pretty well. And that includes those little women called girls too.

But if you are around 17 year old girls enough, you are going to see that the girl is still quite prominent. She’s just having a dueling match with the Woman is all.

A few years back, I dated an 18 year old girl at age 56. How I pulled off this impossible task, I have no idea, but somehow I did it. She was interesting. Maybe I can only see it with age, but while there was a little Woman in there for sure romping about, I was stunned at how much of a girl this young woman still was. Even at adulthood, legally adult with all that comes with that, she was still quite a bit of a girl.

Although it was hard to obtain this information and the only way I got it was from men confessing to crimes, as soon as that sex drive hits, the Real Sexual Woman is out and about. There is a lot more to female sexuality than just sex. It’s a whole huge area of study that they could probably offer PhD’s in. The fun house mirror maze of Female Sexuality is what those Game/PUA blogs are trying to figure out. And they are doing a good job of it.

I read on the Net about a couple of men who had had sex with 13 year old girls. The girls seduced the men. Happens more often than you think. And they really did. Grabbing a man’s penis out of nowhere is pretty much open seduction, no? Because that is what these girls did. 

One was the mother’s boyfriend, and the other was the stepdad. These men described the sex that followed, and I almost fell out of my chair.

Because some of the things those girls did, I thought, “You know, that’s exactly what a woman would have done.” Precisely. Something happens in the female brain with the onset of the sex drive. They somehow get attracted to other humans (How does that work?), and the whole weird ball of wax called Female Sexuality comes out in full-blown form. A lot of this is cognitive stuff. I assume that the rush of hormones causes changes not just in the female body via a sex drive but also in the female brain to create a whole new cognitive way of looking at the world. I’m not going to go into it too much because you guys should know:

  • Confusion of love and sex, mixing them together, and mistaking one for the other.
  • Suddenly feeling very vulnerable and even frightened.
  • A desire to be not just protected but dominated.
  • A desire for a strong masculine man for this purpose.
  • The allure of the mysterious bad boy.
  • A bit of masochism or often more than a bit.
  • A desire for pain of different kinds and an association of sexual arousal with this feeling.

This is all cognitive stuff, and apparently somehow the estrogen creates all these cognitive effects in the brain. Amazing or what?

A girl after the full-blown onset of the sex drive is indeed a Woman in some very important ways. Now at that age, the girl predominates obviously, but I am stunned at how mature 13 year old girls are. The difference between a 12 and 13 year old girl is like a light year. A 12 year old girl is still not just a girl but a little girl. A 13 year old girl is no longer a girl. She’s a girl-woman beginning her maturational curve. And a girl that age is way smarter than you think.

So you see, the roles of Girl and Woman trade back and forth throughout the lifespan of a female. Girls are Little Women. Just ask Luisa Alcott. And women are big Girls. It’s a nice part of a woman, and it’s pleasure to see because usually woman are usually so happy when they let the Girl out. Happy, silly, joking, role-playing, nonsensical, absurd and even childish. But that’s a great thing to see in a woman, unless you’re all hard-faced and mature and all that. Plus she might be in love with you because women really let that Girl out when they fall in love. And she’s probably horny as Hell too, because you and I that know by a certain age, most girls are boy-crazy.

 

 

27 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Child Molestation: Are We Making a Bad Thing Worse?

I have known a number of women who were molested (in two cases, by teenage boys) and they just got over it. Apparently they attempted to come to terms with and make peace with this and were successful. I am not bashing women who are damaged by this sort of thing, but to say that every woman who was molested as a girl is ruined forever is nonsense. People didn’t use to freak out about this stuff so much and apparently the damage was much less.

My mother told me that he deceased sister was molested a little girl. They found the guy who did it and I do not know what happened to him. The attitude back then was, “Oh don’t worry about that. He’s just a stupid fool acting like an idiot. He was wrong to do that to you. You best just forget about that for now. It’s not important. But don’t let any males do that to you again.”

My mother said she suffered absolutely no damage whatsoever from this.

I can’t help thinking we are making a bad thing worse. A girl gets molested. We find out and flip out and try to prosecute the guy, which in many cases, is the right thing to do. But in many cases, he just gets away with it. We scream and yell, “Oh that was a horrible thing that was done to you! How awful! How terrible! You must be so damaged and ruined and destroyed over this!” We rush them into therapy with some dingbat feminist therapist who treats this as a much bigger deal that it probably was. The theme is, “You were violated! You were damaged! You will be ruined forever unless we fix you now!” And maybe even, “You will always suffer damage from this, but we are here to lessen the damage.”

Tell people they got damaged and they are going to act damaged. Exaggerate a violation and people feel a lot more violated and a lot worse.

I can’t help thinking we are not doing this right.

69 Comments

Filed under Crime, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Mass Hysterias, Psychology, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Female Rule Is Feminism In Power and Nothing More or Less

TJF: To Rob:

The West is under female rule..? Not sure if I understand, what are you labeling as female rule aside from some rules passed on college campuses regarding consent…?

Look! Female Rule is feminism! Female Rule occurs when feminists gain so much power that they can start imposing their rules and laws on society. Female Rule is Feminism in Power, period.

Female Rule is imposing rules and laws on society that are based on the rules and mores of women and against those of men. We have generally had Male Rule because male rules and mores at best are at least sensible, but they don’t lead to this World of Justice that women want and demand because life is messy, unfair and often cruel with no legal or societal repercussions for this nastiness.

The crazy Consent Rules came about because women are determined to stop date rape on campus. Thing is you cannot stop it. Date rape will go on. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is a horribly unfair thing. But men will just shrug and say life is imperfect and unfair. Yet women will try to create a Just World when there is no such thing and there probably cannot ever be such a thing.

First women tried “No means no!.” That’s not even true for starters, but to women it made a lot of sense, and they took it up as a Female Rule mantra. Well, “no is no” did not stop date rape because women were too stupid to make the rule work. Turns out that women are so dumb that a lot of times when they didn’t want to have sex, they were too frightened or frozen or whatever to say no. So they said nothing and the sex went forward. However it was rape because the man could not read her mind to determine that she was not willing even though she never said no. This led to the lunatic “silence is not consent” bullshit that has taken campuses by storm. Men are now expected to be mindreaders.

Because “no is no” was such a miserable failure, women upped the ante to “Affirmative Consent” which has got to be the most insane sexual rule ever imposed by humanity in its history. That’s not working well either as a lot of men are just bailing out of sex altogether rather than negotiate that minefield and women are complaining that men won’t ask them out.

This is the way women try to solve problems. Men just shrug their shoulders and say, “What are you going to do? Life’s not fair. We can’t solve every problem. Some problems cannot be solved. Some problems are best dealt with outside the structures of administrative law and the judicial system.

In the UK and in parts of the US, there are now major moves to make it illegal to have sex with a woman who is intoxicated. I have asked some women about this and they get those hard faces and say that if she’s drunk or loaded, you can’t have sex with her. Well that ends 50% of the sex in the US, as that’s how much is done under the influence. Once more, it’s women trying to solve an unsolvable problem, that of women getting so wasted that they are blacked out and then they have sex against their will. This is an unsolvable problem. It can be solved by women refusing to get blackout drunk,  but women won’t do that, so the problem goes on.

Indeed. But those campus rules are very important. They are spreading across to many other states now. And you are guilty until proven innocent. This is another aspect of Female Rule because women don’t believe in fairness or fair fighting.

The lunatic Pedophile Mass Hysteria that has conflated statutory rape with pedophilia and child molesting was caused by Female Rule. The new Creeper Mass Hysteria in which all men who women are not attracted to are labeled creeps and society agrees was also a creation of Female Rule. Female Rule has also created a situation whereby men are being charged with child molesting for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age. Incidentally, this is a mitigating factor in federal law but not in states’ laws.

Female Rule created the craziness that says that if a US man goes overseas, if he has sex with one under 18 year old girl one time, he has broken US child molestation law, even if he comes from a state where the age of consent is 15.

Female Rule created the sheer idiocy of domestic abuse law where a woman was able to hit me or try to hit me 35-400 times in one night, and I hit her back once and according to Female Rule, I would have had to go to jail. I just barely avoided going to jail that night. Female Rule says any time a man hits a woman, even in self-defense, he’s going to jail. Under Female Rule, you can’t even fight back if a woman hits you, and they hit us all the time now as Female Rule has emboldened them and encouraged them to bring out the innate but suppressed basic insanity and indulge it as much as possible.

Female Rule created idiotic child support laws that throw men in jail for nonpayment even if they are unemployed or disabled. Many homeless men have gone to jail for nonpayment of child support. You can’t make payments if you’re broke!

Female Rule created the lunacy of sexual harassment law which has now spread across the land according to which apparently if I ask any woman at work for her phone number, or ask her out, or make funny comments, or God forbid even look at her too much, I can be fired for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment law, creep-shaming and Feminism’s general hatred for men expressing sexual interest in females at all in any way has led to a lot of men becoming very shy around women for fear of being called a “creep.” There are university campuses where women are openly complaining that men won’t ask them out anymore. It’s because of Female Rule which has made them afraid to even flirt with women.

54 Comments

Filed under Britain, Crime, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Law, Law enforcement, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, Women

Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

Fantastic. This is the example I was thinking of talking about an African culture where women pretty much run things.

Judith Mirville: There are quite a few traditional cultures like that where all the brainy and managerial work is done by women, and the men keep content with mere physical work and a more childish, happy-go-lucky personality throughout life. That is the case with the Bamileke culture of Cameroon. But these cultures, by their own avowal, never evolve and keep content with a minimalist standard of living. These cultures, though matriarchal in a technical sense, have no use for any form of vindictive feminism or other left-wing ideology.

Women as a rule are conservative, and the societies where they have the highest real say tend to see all form of progress and experimentation as negative. Instead they idolize a mythical past without technical progress.

Women as a rule when having been in power for a few generations tend also to devalue learning in the academic sense. In the societies where they alone access it, learning is devalued except as an utilitarian means of day-to-day economic survival or of social interaction, so such societies prefer to stay backward.

If feminism is to last as a dominant ideology in the West (which supposes it jettisons all references to any resentment-based progressive thought and also to non-standard sexuality), it will turn the countries it rules into underdeveloped ones, so the Winnipeg picture of the women construction business manager with an attaché-case with a construction worker as a servant is a wholly disconnected fantasy.

What you could get instead as a picture of things to come (in the halcyon case everything goes on well for the feminist cause and their beneficiaries grow wise) is a woman open-air market manager with men acting as cowboys in the background (if the Plains of Winnipeg still exist), the only modern businessperson in the further background being a Chinese or Arab. You may also see male tourist adventurers coming to visit Manitoba as a quite primitive country. Whenever women are really at the top for good, they have no taste for construction, and they prefer to look for a greater profit to be made by existing things that require no invention.

Anyway, right now in Winnipeg, construction workers, especially when they are part of criminal organizations and part-time bouncers, make more money and enjoy higher social status than the nerdy people they despise. The bosses they obey are quite often Sicilian ones who have no use for any feminist manager.

That supposes the feminists in question rediscover a morality and also connect to a traditional spirituality approving of their approach. Maybe an Amerindian one, who knows? But that is far from their present-day perspective: these modern feminists are intent on destroying all morality which they resent against as being of male nature. They may be acting at the behest of vested interests who want to establish a dictatorship based on pure corruption.

Once every whiff of past morality is destroyed, all that remains is self-interest, and even feminism ends up waning as all collective identity causes of the past fade away once the elites have effectively succeeded in rooting out all political idealism and no longer need Identity Politics to divide the masses, a kind of late Ottoman imperial regime is installed, and there are no longer state subventions to special interest groups.

Once public ideals are all destroyed, and all what remains is materialistic self-interest, what do these would-be princesses want? Marrying princes or billionaires, preferably from One and  Thousand Nights-style patriarchal countries such as Qatar or Colombia. The fiercest feminists will be the first to revert to pure gangster-style patriarchy. This just like the fiercest Jewish Marxists were the first to turn into the neocons. Most are now before moving even further to the Right as we see in Israel. That country is growing into another Iran or Qatar with a slightly different Semitic religion.

These feminists only object to idealistic men of ordinary revenues doing the kind of non-work they envy like university tenured professors. When they meet gangsters, even of low life, revenue and status, they enjoy having regular sex with them and settle for traditional family life.

Women are also more egoistical by temperament, and feminism can last as long as there is a progressive ideology justifying the cost of their subventions.

But feminism is not as progressive as it seems since normally women don’t side with their less fortunate sisthren. Even the present-day radical feminists don’t object to FGM as practiced in other cultures.

The reality untold is that sexual pleasure itself however carefully mastered is just contrary to any moral decency and ideal. There is such a thing as carnal sin.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Cultural, Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Labor, North America, Philosophy, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Alt Left on the Net: Someone Gets Us Right

Here.

A: Ugh. Yes. And don’t even get me started on the motherfuckers who are glad Trump won because they think if it REALLY gets worse, people will rise up and there will be a revolution. But not this “incremental progress” pussy bullshit.

A REAL revolution. You know, the kind that makes their dicks hard.

They are almost always straight white dudes.

How very brave of them to sacrifice thei- er, I mean, minorities’ well-being in the name of The Revolution.

Good luck getting any Muslims, POC, LGBT+ people and women to march with you backstabbing assholes. They’ll all be too busy trying to stay the fuck alive, healthy and functional in this incoming hellscape you’ve voted them into. Or not voted, as it were.

In any case, fuck all the way off, get your head out of your ass, start fucking LISTENING for a change, then get *off* your ass and then maybe you’ll be forgiven.

B: Yeah, that ideology is called “accelerationism” and it’s a hackneyed idea from Marxism. It is literally a Bolshevik ideology: “the worse, the better.” It yielded Stalin. Can’t believe this idea has adherents in the 21st Century.

You are dead right that it’s an irrational form of machismo rather than a legit program of change. It’s a Che Guevara t-shirt, not a plan.

In 100-plus years, Marxism has literally accomplished next-to-nothing in America except a presidential assassination and a few cushy academic jobs for its more bougie adherents. By contrast, the Civil Rights movement (and its offspring, women’s liberation and gay liberation) has accomplished quite a bit. But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

The more fact-based and sanity-based model of political change in modern democracy is the Overton Window. I pray we still have a modern democracy in which to apply it.

This comment here:

But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

Describes us very well. Almost perfectly in fact. The Alt Left are not much MRA’s as masculinists. But then we are feminists too in a sense. Masculinists as in equal rights for men, and feminism as in equal rights for women. Surely there was a patriarchy in the past, but the Alt Left doubts that is extant much anymore and in some ways, we now have a matriarchy as the women and their wuss/White knight/Captain Save-A-Ho/male feminist allies rule society in some respects and they use their rule to attack men. In that sense, in some ways, men are an oppressed class nowadays being abused by an oppressive Matriarchy.

So we are brocialists or even ultra-brocialists. That does not mean so much that we are sexist pigs but more that we are ordinary guys, regular, normal guys who act like normal masculine heterosexual men. The Alt Left is “socialism for the regular guy.”

The part about the Alt Left being a 1930’s WPA mural come to life and that this model is being pushed by some of the older Alt Left men, is completely right on. This is absolutely what we are pushing. I do not know about any other older Alt Left men, but I am an older Alt Left man and this is indeed my vision.

It’s seldom that anyone on the Net gets us right.

32 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Socialism, US Politics, 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.

5 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

Realist Left Replies to Robert Lindsay

Originally from my own site, then a response by Realist Left here on the Alt Left page on Facebook which is reprinted below, then Lord Keynes’ response below that, the latter two of which are reprinted below in this piece. 

Robert Lindsay has an interesting post here on the Alt Left.

Realist Left (whose Twitter account is here) posted an excellent reply to this on the Alternative Left Facebook page, especially on the question of Marxism/Communism in the Alt Left:

A not-so-brief reply to Robert Lindsay with regards to the role of Communists, Anarchists, Marxists, the ‘Left Wing of the Alt-Right’, conservatives, etc. within the ‘Realist Left’ and ‘Alt Left’ in general (to the extent that we and I are a part of it).

I agree and yet also respectfully disagree.

To me, the anti-Regressive Left, anti-SJW, anti-post-structuralism/PoMo, etc. in many ways is the bait. People are sick of it from across the board, and if that means that Libertarians (cultural or ideological), populist-conservatives, moderates, or even the Left Wing of the Alt Right get attracted to it, all the better for us because that gives us a platform to listen to our economic views, which in popular discourse have been completely neglected. Ultimately though, our ‘base’ will be ‘liberal’, ‘Center-Left’, and the Non-Marxist ‘Left’.

In my experience, Communists, Anarchists, modern Marxists, etc. are a lot more trouble than they are worth. They’re tiny, and yet they’re incredibly divisive, prone to conflict and moreover give off a terrible message to anyone else given their cataclysmic human rights and economic failures.

We (or I at least) don’t want them around or to be influential, or to be the ones holding up the microphone for our groups (or at least mine). I especially don’t want them in any position of power or influence within our groups. They’re welcome to join, listen in. There’s even some room for Marxian analysis here or there when it’s interesting (and especially when it comes from those who are the most interesting and prescient, i.e. Kalecki, Baran & Sweezy). But I don’t want to hear about ‘bourgeoisie’, neo-imperialism, Labor Theory of Value or any other buzz-words and simplistic forms of analysis.

It doesn’t matter too much anyways, since most Marxists/Commies/Anarchists are themselves Regressives as well. So when the opportunity comes around to distance ourselves from Communists/Marxists/Anarchists, I’ll gladly do so. Castro is terrible; Stalin is far worse. The theory concerning the Falling Rate of Profit is wrong, and no, the Revolution is not coming.

Clearly, I do not put Ryan England/Agent Commie in this group. He, unlike many Marxists, has actually read Capital and articulates its good points. And of course he’s not really a Marxist/Commie as we all know.

Same thing goes for the ‘Left Wing of the Alt Right’ – you’re welcome to hang around, bash Regressive Leftists, et al, but I don’t want to hear about proactive White Identity politics, minority bashing, Jooish Conspiracy, etc. There is NO place for that here. Period.

I DO want more conservatives to read things like the Realist Left / Alternative Left or at least a certain type of them. I will always be against the Religious Right (of which the Reg-Left seems like the new moral puritans), against neoconservative hawkery, and I will of course always be against the ‘neoliberalism’ or worse, libertarianism and corporatism that’s found within modern ‘Conservative’ movements.

But you have to realize, ‘Conservatism’ is a VERY malleable concept. 150-200 years ago, Conservatism was busy trying to keep the last vestiges of feudalism, monarchy and agrarianism alive and even included protectionism and industrial policies. 40-60 years ago, we had ‘Tory Keynesianism’ and Nixon’s ‘We are all Keynesian now’. I’d like Conservatism to go back to being more sensible on economic policy and perhaps better on foreign policy too as they were. They may be more socially conservative or religious than we are, but that’s okay. Conservatism will always be around, so let’s try to make the best of it, instead of ceding it to the worst forces possible.

One extremely important thing is we absolutely cannot become another mirror image of ourself. We cannot become the Alt Right to the Regressive Left. We cannot become the Communists to the Fascists. We’re basically somewhere between the center and left, and we’re non-dogmatic about what the ‘truth’ is; rather we’d prefer to intellectually be in pursuit of the ‘truth’. Let’s not become another religion or ideology as has befallen so many of the others (Marxism, Intersectionality Feminism, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Alt-Right and Fascism).

– Realist Left, comment here.

Lord Keynes responds below:

Yes, this more or less nails it.

In my experience, a lot of Communists/Marxists and Anarchists are already utterly indoctrinated in Cultural Leftism and SJWism and so are doubly wrong – both on their cult-like Marxist ideology and Regressive Leftism.

There is something of value in Marx’s economic thought, as I have pointed out here, but you can strip out the insightful points and reject Marxism as a political ideology.

My own final thought in this is: we need to *reclaim* the Center. The political Center – at the moment – isn’t much to boast about. It’s mainly neoliberalism and Cultural Leftism-Lite.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Religion, US Politics, Vanity

“Why Do Indian Women Have Huge Egos?” by Magneto

Why do Indian Women Have Huge Egos?

by Magneto

I’ve often pondered this question and been a bit dumbfounded by it. One reason why it confuses me is because Indian women are probably the second most unattractive women on this planet, with the first being African women. How is it that a very ugly race of women walks around thinking they are God’s gift to humanity? The only reason a White man would find Indian women attractive is if he has a fetish for them. Otherwise, I remember back when I was more attracted to White women, it seemed that Indian women were literally invisible to me. I didn’t even register them on the attraction scale.

The main reason for this is due to how desperate and thirsty most Indian men are. By thirsty I mean they have zero game at all and will just write out stupid shit on Indian girls’ public Facebook or Instagram profiles like, “Hey, I wanna talk to you” or something like that. Never mind that she is a complete stranger and probably has 1,000s of men messaging her.

Actually I did a test once to confirm this. I created a fake Indian female account on Facebook along with a couple of pictures of an Indian woman. Within three days I had gotten over 500 messages. I also did the same for OKCupid, an online dating site. I created a fake profile of an Indian girl, and within 24 hours, I had reached the 300 message storage limit. This is called Indian male thirst.

Put yourself in the woman’s place. If you have literally 1,000’s of men messaging you, you are naturally going to develop an abundance mentality and not put much importance on any one man, since you know that you can find a new man within seconds. On the other extreme, Indian men are operating out of a scarcity mentality and think they are lucky to get just one or two replies from a girl.

It’s therefore natural for women to develop “bitch shields” when they are being hit on from 1,000’s of different men. Unfortunately it ruins it for men who have Game because it makes it a lot harder to approach such women. Are there any solutions to solving male thirst? I’ve thought of a few solutions.

  1. Men need to stop putting women on a pedestal and thinking of women as some lofty creature
  2. Men need to develop an abundance mentality in relation to women. This will solve the problem of stalking because an Indian man won’t put all of his efforts on one woman anymore and thus the tendency to send 100s of messages to the same girl will vanish
  3. Legalize prostitution so that any male who wants sex can get it by simply paying for it.

Implementing these solutions will not be easy though, as women enjoy their privileged positions. Taking women off of the pedestal that thirsty men have put them on will require some fight. After all, there is nothing more empowering for men than to legalize prostitution and thus create a sexual abundance market. Therefore it’s not surprising to know that it was primarily Christian women who demanded that prostitution as well as drugs, alcohol, and gambling should be made illegal back in the 1920’s.

On this topic, there is a very intelligent Indian blogger named Rookh Ksatriya who has written a few articles talking about how Christianity and feminism are intertwined because they both share common values like sexual repression. I’ve also wondered why feminism seems to take hold very strongly in some countries but not others. For example, let us take the countries of East Asia like Japan or South Korea and compare them to America and Europe. Both East Asia and the West are highly advanced technologically, but feminism and Cultural Marxism have only caught on in the West, whereas in East Asia, it really isn’t very strong at all.

The primary differences between these two geographic areas are race and religion. Ignoring race, Western countries are founded on Christian values, whereas East Asia is founded on Buddhist or atheistic values. The question could therefore be asked – Does Christianity put women on a massive pedestal? Another interesting point is that as Europe has been moving away from the values of Christianity for the past few decades, society has been becoming less repressed, and drugs, marijuana, and prostitution are legalized in a few European countries now.

Hinduism as a religion and culture puts women on the highest pedestal ever in history, far higher than Christianity ever did. And that might be the explanation for why women in India are put on such massive pedestals, with society considering them  to be “living Goddesses.” It doesn’t take a degree in psychology or sociology to understand that if you’ve been put on a massive pedestal your whole life and told you are a Goddess, of course you are going to develop a massive ego and act very rude towards people.

As we continue to pull the old Gods off of their pillars, it will also have the effect of bringing all humans down closer to the earth. Humanity has had its head in the clouds for so many thousands of years now that it’s time to come back down to earth and realize that the Divine exists right here on Earth. This is the missing key in all religions.

In the East it is known as Tantra. In the West it is known as the “Left Hand Path” or Luciferianism. It’s also interesting to note that the rise of these ideas began in the West around the same time as the mass usage of LSD and other psychedelic drugs became popular in the 1960’s. I remember when I was on LSD, I had the realization, “We are all Gods and this Earth itself is Heaven”. When you realize something on acid, it’s not like something theoretical, like you maybe think this is true. It’s a realization that is coming from the core of your being with complete conviction.

With this understanding, you do not put any person higher or lower than another. If women are Goddesses then men are Gods and therefore equal.

17 Comments

Filed under Asia, Buddhism, Christianity, Cultural Marxists, East Indians, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Guest Posts, Heterosexuality, Hinduism, India, Man World, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asia, South Asians, Women