Category Archives: Left

A Principal Tenet of the Alt Left – Hostility to Conservatism

Abel Dean’s Alt Left group on Facebook is absolutely swarming with Trump supporters. They did a recent poll on Trump, and I was the only person in the group opposed to him. Trump is a either a conservative, a reactionary, a rightwing extremist or a rightwing populist, however you look at him. Rightwing populism is a stepping stone to fascism. You keep going rightwing from rightwing populism and you get fascism.

See that “left” in the Alt Left? It’s not there for show. We really and truly are liberals, Leftists, socialists, Keynesians, and social democrats, and we are even open to any anarchists or Communists who wish to join us. One thing we are not and will never be is conservatives.

Why in the Hell is Abel Dean’s “Alt Left” group swarming with Trump supporters? Trump is an ultra-rightwing reactionary, a rightwing populist. Rightwing populism is one step away from fascism.

One of the defining characteristics of the early Alt Left was hostility to conservatism. We are not conservatives! This was always a part of my worldview, but it took the important Alt Left thinker Ryan England to figure it out. In fact, he posited Anti-Conservatism as one of the three principal defining tenets of the Alt Left.

The ideal Alt Left person is someone who would never vote conservative or Republican even if you put a gun to their head. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all these “Left” people who think there is anything left whatsoever about this radical rightwing psycho Trump. Alt Lefties are dissident liberals and Leftists.

In the US, we came out the Democratic Party, Green Party or even further left than that. I still vote Democrat and I read Daily Kos on a regular basis. Why? Because those are my people.

Sure, they’ve gone astray somewhat, but SJWism is actually not a large part of what they write about on there. I do not think SJWism is a big movement in the Democratic Party. In parties and groups further left, of course it is. My observation is that it is Western Leftists like the Greens along with Communists and anarchists who are the wildest SJW’s of them all. In fact, PC and SJWism was birthed in US universities principally by leftwing professors, quite a few of whom had at least something of Marxist background. This movement came out of the Far Left in US universities. And any new SJW ideas or concepts seem to be coming out of the Campus Left to this very day. US universities are SJW Ground Zero.

Sure the Alt Left is not happy with the Cultural Left, but that’s not the whole Left. Our principal enemies are the conservatives, especially the Republican Party. Why all these conservatives regard themselves as Alt “Left” or left anything on Earth, I will never understand.

Now granted, this is just my view of the Alt Left, and other wings may beg to differ. In particular, the Right Wing of the Alt Left has gone all in for Trump, and that is one reason why I am dissociating myself with them. I will formally and officially renounce them in an upcoming post. They are not part of my version of the Alt Left. They can come back in the Alt Left when they decide to quit supporting Trump and Republicans, which is probably never. And if it’s never,  they are gone from my Alt Left forever.

205 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Higher Education, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics

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

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

6 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Science, Scum, Sex

Are Straight Men as Likely to Have an Effeminate Affect as Gay Men?

Another question answered in Quora. The Cultural Left BS is that gay men are no more likely to be effeminate than straight men. It’s a lie. A flat out lie. Why they say this, I have no idea. I suppose they think associating effeminacy with gay men will lead to homophobia and bigotry. But that’s not a good reason to lie.  This is just one more thing the crazy Gay Lobby or Gay Identity Politics faction of the Cultural Left lies about, and this faction tells many a lie.

I would recommend Chris’ response below. It’s not PC but it’s correct. Gay men are vastly more likely to be effeminate than straight men. There’s no contest.

Chris:

Straight men, as a group, are far more likely to fear being considered effeminate if they express perfectly normal variations in gender expression.

They are heavily socialized to this view.

Exactly. Straight men are extremely paranoid of being considered gay. Which ones? Well, just about every straight man I ever met? They will go to incredible extremes so as not to be perceived as gay. This is the main reason for the exaggerated hypermasculine behavior you see in so many straight men. To me, one reason for hypermasculine behavior is a way of screaming at the world: “I’m not a faggot!” The more hypermasculine they are, the louder they are making that statement.

Considering the straight men I have known, one of the worst possible insults would be to tell them that they act or you thought they were gay. Just imagining the straight men I have known and imagining me implying that they act gay, I can see almost every single one of them getting angry about that. Some might get dangerously angry. It’s a real slap in the face. I generally never imply that about any straight man because I don’t want to get hit or killed. To me that’s a good way to get punched. In some places, the person might even try to kill you. It’s not worth it.

I’m not sure why straight men do not want to be perceived as gay but they just do. Obviously it’s all wrapped up in masculinity but there is more to it than that. For one thing, to be a straight man perceived as gay is an endless headache in straight society both with women and men. And don’t even bring up girlfriends. Straight society simply does not accept straight men who are perceived as gay in any way. They’re not ok with it. Period. It’s just one never ending pain in the ass. The best way to not have your life weirded out by this situation is to act as hypermasculine as possible. Problem solved.

Another reason is that if you act hypermasculine, you can often can along better with other straight men. It’s easier to bond with them if they don’t think you’re a pussy. And bonding with straight men is quite difficult if they suspect that you are gay. A close friendship is nearly impossible. Being respected as a fellow masculine man earns massive points in straight society.

One more thing. It sounds nuts, but there is no down side to hypermasculinity. I don’t really act that way as am a bit of a pure androgyne (extremely strong masculine side by also a strong feminine side).

But sometimes I get a complex where I worry about my behavior and I try to compensate by angrily acting in what to me is an absurdly exaggerated masculine way. This behavior seems so odd to me that I am amazed that everyone is not laughing in my face when I act this way. But bizarrely, no one will laugh at you. No one will ever look at you twice. And a whole lot of men who were not friendly to you before show a strange new respect for you. They signal to you, nodding their heads or giving thumbs up. They are saying you are one of us, the hypermasculine guys, oh man do I respect that, Hell yeah.

A lot of these men will be older White men, but others will be “redneck” working class young White men. No one is going to give you any problems for this behavior. Everything is going to go smoothly with every man you meet. Considering that hypermasculine behavior smooths the way so much in straight society, why should we be surprised if men do it.

Another thing is women. Women are more attracted to hypermasculine behavior than you might think and it’s not uncommon that it actually turns them on mentally or physically. Where I live, the women are all Hispanics and they never look at me twice. When I go into hypermasculine caricature mode is the only time they look at me with sexual interest.

There are other reasons too. For instance, if you are straight, the more effeminate you act, the more like gay and bisexual men are going to come after you sexually. So hypermasculine behavior is surely seen as a way of warding off gay advances. I would say that it works pretty well too.

One of the responses to Chris’ answer says that all males have these effeminate behaviors, but the straight men just had it beaten out of them. That’s sad but true. The socialization of straight boys is quite a brutal affair and a lot never really make it out without scars. It’s like Bootcamp for Manhood. Boyhood is training and socializing period for becoming a man. Little boys are quite sissy, sensitive and wimpy. They break into tears a lot. As you get older as a boy, you learn pretty quickly that boys who cry get hit.

There was a boy in 5th grade named DN. He was called “Fig” for short as a first name for reasons I won’t go into. “Fig” got turned into “Fag” awful fast. He was an extremely sensitive boy who always looked like he was going to cry. Worse, he had the habit of always busting out in tears, often at school. My memory is of incidents where people would say, “Look! DN is crying! Beat him up!” Then I would rush over with about twenty other boys to kick DN’s ass.

It was deliriously fun to beat up this boy who cried all of the time. In case you think I am a sociopath, many other boys joined in, and most were quite normal, not the bad bullies at all. Just regular, violent boys. Of course, the more we beat him up, the more he cried, so it was sort of dumb to hit him, but 10 year old boys don’t think like that.

Why did we beat him up? We beat up for crying, mostly crying for no reason, also just for crying way too much. I never thought twice about why we attacked him instantaneously for crying. It was almost a primal thing. The message is pretty clear, right? You cry and you’re going to get your ass kicked. Man up. Boys don’t cry. A man never cries. Get it?

I am actually afraid to cry nowadays because I honestly think someone is going to hit me because I associate tears with fists. When we were boys, we played a lot of games. One of them was called Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop. It’s a violent game, but boyhood for straight boys is quite a violent affair. You either make it through or you don’t. Boot camp. This game involved riding in a gigantic rubber ball with a handle that you could actually travel along on by bouncing it up and down. You could bounce your way all across a yard on that thing.

In the game, one boy would ride the hoopityhop while all of the other boys would try to throw him off. The boy riding the hoppityhop had to stay on the ball and at the same time fend off all of the attackers. The attackers were pretty violent about throwing you off the ball. Another name for Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop was Smear the Queer.

Think about that. The boy on the hoppityhop was the “queer.” You know what queer means. The job of all of the other boys was to basically destroy the queer riding the ball and throw him of the ball. Whoever was the queer got smeared. Everyone tried to destroy you and throw you off the ball. What’s the message here? Queers get smeared. Queers get attacked and destroyed. If you are a Queer, all of the other boys will attack you with violence. It’s pretty obvious the message that gets internalized with such games.

And that was not the only homophobic of femininephobic game that was played in my youth. It was only one of many.

Are you speaking of effeminate behavior or feminine behavior? Because they are very different. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is very different. A feminine man might be soft, sensitive, pretty, like to cook, gentle, passive, quiet, like to read or write, and maybe do some other stereotypically feminine stuff. He’s just in touch with his feminine side. e 73% – 3%. That is a pretty extreme difference.

I would estimate that 70–75% of gay men are obviously effeminate or very wimpy in some way or another. The figure may even be higher. I have only encountered two stereotypically hypermasculine gay men in my life. Both were on Youtube videos.

There are indeed some effeminate straight men, but mostly they only act effeminate some of the time and not all the time. I would estimate that no more than 1% of straight men are obviously effeminate. The number of very wimpy straight men must also be small. Perhaps 1–2%.

So the figures are like 73% – 3%. That’s a pretty extreme variation.

110 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Scum, Sex

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Ridiculousness, Science, Scum, Sex

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

Filipino NPA Guerrillas in an Alliance with Duterte

TheMaker75: When the NPA was operating in Luzon and the major islands of the Visayas they actually had some power. Being relegated to Mindanao shows how far they have fallen.

Do you know if they clash or are friends with the MILF/MNLF/Abu Sayaf? I wonder if the military is letting them exist to keep the Muslims from spreading out of the ARMM. I have a very close friend from Bukidnon in Mindanao, and she says no NPA there. It’s a very secluded area with lots of coffee and pineapple farming. I’m curious as to exactly where they are.

The NPA used to keep corrupt politicians in check. The only thing to stop these scumbag Filipino politicians was the very real threat of a bullet to the head, and the NPA was very good at assassinations.

The further you get from Manila, the less you count in the Philippines. Mindanao is as far away as you can get, and I’m sure the New People’s Army is using the disconnect as a recruiting tool. In their heyday, the had a lot of control in Bicol and Pampanga. Basically surrounding Manila. They also owned the mountains of Cebu and a few towns along the coast. I’ve hiked straight across Cebu from Tuburan to Cebu City and never saw an NPA. It’s like an urban legend these days. My girl’s family was begging me not to go, as the NPA would surely kidnap me. I actually wanted to meet some, as I’m sure we would have gotten along. I even brought some Tanduay rum and knives I bought in Mandaue City to hand out, but alas, it was an uneventful hike.

In Cebu, at least the coastal towns were not fans of the NPA. The NPA would show up at your house at night and demand food and provisions. Not really the best way to win fans.

The NPA currently has a huge backlog of candidates wanting to sign up as guerrillas and it also has a backlog of people wanting to be candidates. It’s a pretty long process they have to go through to ward off infiltration and ensure loyal and committed cadre.

The NPA have always had an excellent relationship with the Muslim guerrillas down there.

As ceasefire is in effect with the election of Duterte. The NPA has actually formed some sort of an alliance with Duterte believe it or not. They are very pleased that he declared himself a socialist. The NPA’s aboveground organ gave him a list of Leftist suggestions for his Cabinet and he actually appointed a number of them. So the NPA in effect is part of the Cabinet of the Philippines government now. Duterte was apparently a politician of some sort down in Mindanao and he had an excellent relationship with the NPA when he was down there.

However, the NPA is very worried that the army which they call fascist will prevail over Duterte’s pro-NPA sentiments. Also the NPA says that the army has been violating the ceasefire mostly by doing propaganda, intelligence gathering, civic action programs, etc. in NPA areas. However, there has been no armed combat to my knowledge in six months. The NPA is also angry that the army has murdered four peasants in that six month period.

71 Comments

Filed under Asia, Economics, Islam, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Philippines, Politics, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Socialism

Chinoys in the Philippines: Oligarchs and Revolutionaries

My association with “Chinoys” in the Philippines was a result of joint ventures. If you are doing any kind of business in the Philippines you will interact with Chinese-Filipinos whether you want to or not.

Fuji Chinese can be incompetent but their economic grip on the Philippines means that even the morons among them who would be homeless in China hold some position in the Philippines.

You realize that the head of the armed Maoist rebels called the NPA which wishes to destroy, overthrow and sweep away Chinoy rule in the Philippines is a Chinoy himself, right? His name is Jose Maria Sison, and he is one of my heroes.

The ruling class in the  Philippines is indeed stone evil, but it also includes some Malays. Aquino, Marcos and Duterte are all Malays. Much of the ruling class is actually landowning Mestizos. There are also a lot of Chinese, but Malays in the ruling class are not unknown. I have had three different psychiatrists and one physician from the Philippines, and all were Malays, albeit with Chinese in three cases or possibly Hispanic blood in one case. That’s a high-paying job. Physicians are part of the elite.

They were all staunch defenders of the Philippines ruling class, although one doctor said he went back to his home village one time, and the whole  place was run by the NPA. From 10 miles away in, it was one rebel checkpoint after another. The village itself was full of NPA walking around in broad daylight in full uniform and armed to the teeth with AK-47’s. Everybody acted like this was completely normal. The army in the area knew about the situation but had apparently simply ceded the area to the guerrilla and had decided not to go in there. Mexican standoff.

He went back and looked up his old school friends and they had all joined the armed revolutionaries. They found out he had an MD, and they asked him to join to them to be a field doctor for the guerrilla. He declined. He did not hate the NPA though. His attitude about them was more, “What do you expect? Of course we have armed revolutionary movement in our country. Why would that surprise you.”

14 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Left, Malays, Maoism, Marxism, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, SE Asians, Sociology

Are Brownshirt Gangs a Necessary Component of Fascism?

In many respects, Trump and Trumpism looks like the Latin American Oligarchic Right. He also looks a lot like the rightwing, basically fascist Right in Latin America. Every time I look at his regime, I think of the Venezuelan Opposition Right. In fact, the Republican Party increasingly looks like the Latin American Oligarchic Right, and it has been slowly resembling them for some time now.

The rightwing fascists in Latin America do not all have Brownshirt street gangs, do they? Where are the Brownshirts of the Latin American rightwings? They have death squads, yes, in a number of countries, and they have street rioters, but Brownshirts who actually go around attacking the Opposition? Not really.

But there is something like this in the Chilean Right, which regularly engages in all-out street riot-wars with the street fighters of the Left. In this sense, Chile represents Germany in the interwar period.

Something similar goes on in Venezuela, where the Right engages in relatively continuous rioting, and sometimes there is fighting with leftwing mobs. Most of the fighting is with the police though.

The death squads of El Salvador were often made up of the fanatical anti-Communist street thugs of the lower middle class neighborhoods. Have you ever seen an ARENA rally in El Salvador? That looked something like a Brownshirt mob, but they did not take to the streets.

Yes there is a thuggish rightwing in Brazil, but is it really of the Brownshirt variety? The recent coup was a legislative one.

There are something like Brownshirt mobs in the east of Bolivia (who also fashion themselves as White supremacists), but they have not been very active lately, and they are countered by leftwing Indian mobs in the capital and east of the country.

There were rightwing Peronist mobs a while back, but that seems to be through. The only mobs in Argentina anymore are with the Left. The Right only has the support of the out of touch Rich.

The only rioting mobs in  Peru are on the Left, and riot they do, on a near-constant basis. There is no rightwing presence on the streets in Peru, as once again, the Right here is simply an out of touch White wealthy elite.

There are death squads in Ecuador, but they are not active anymore. The Right only has a presence in the security forces. The huge street mobs are in the capital and are of the Left.

The mobs in Nicaragua are mostly pro-Sandinista, as the Right down there has no street presence, since nobody much likes them.

The street is owned by the Left in Honduras too. The Right only has presence in a small number of rich and the security forces.

There are no street mobs of any kind in Guatemala. The murderous Right is present in the security forces.

In Colombia, the Right does have support, but there are no rightwing street mobs. The violent Right down there are the death squads run by the security forces who work in concert with civilian paramilitaries. There are not even many leftwing protests since a few weeks after huge leftwing protests, 10-15 of the protesters will end up murdered. So the Left in Colombia is armed to the teeth yet underground by necessity.

I do not think you need Brownshirt mobs to have a deadly fascist state as many examples in Latin America show us. When the rightwing government is running around murdering the Left, I am not sure if it matters whether that government is classically fascist or not. They are murderous rightwing thugs whether they earn the official fascist moniker or not. Officially fascist or not, they are still coming out to kill you, so at the end of the day, what difference does it make?

68 Comments

Filed under Americas, Brazil, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, Guatemala, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Nicaragua, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, Venezuela

Trump Is Catastrophic No Matter What His Stance on Globalism Is

Jason Y: OK, one choice is taking up Ron Paul anti-globalism, which would reduce him to Jimmy Carter uselessness, or just lie and actually be a globalist, and a massively militaristic one at that.

Why is it down to globalism versus anti-globalism? Leaving that aside altogether, looking at his Cabinet appointment shows him to be an ultra-rightwing fanatical reactionary. Look at those Cabinet appointments. That’s all you need to know right there. Those are some of the scariest people I have ever seen in my government.

Actually, the truth is that he is an out and out fascist. That’s no exaggeration. It is absolutely correct. People have been calling the Republicans fascists since the election theft of 2000, and I think they were onto something. That is, they were moving more and more in that direction.

The Republicans are now about as evil as a typical brutal and corrupt Latin American ultraright fascist oligarchy. This is exactly what they remind me of. I look at them and I think of the oligarchical Right in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay.  The only thing missing is overt coup attempts and death squads. To be more precise, they remind me of the Right in Venezuela, but comparisons to Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Haiti and Ecuador are not far off base.

The leaders of the Latin American Right pretty much deserved to get killed based on how they act. I do not blame the Left down there for killing those people. They very much deserve it. Look at how they act!

They have an extreme hatred for democracy, and basically their attitude is that they will not tolerate the Left being in power for one day. And when the Left gets in, they will try everything in the book, legal, illegal and in between, to get rid of them. There is nothing too low for them. If they have to tell 10 million lies, they will do it. If they have to steal elections, then they will do it. If they have assassinate leftwingers, they will do it. If they have to destroy the whole economy, they will do it. If they have to riot in the streets, they will do it. If they have to run death squads, then they will do it. If they have to mount coups, military or legislative, than they will do it. The ends justifies the means, and it’s “whatever it takes to get rid of the Left, damn morality.”

9 Comments

Filed under Americas, Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, Government, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela