Category Archives: Sweden

Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism as “Syndromes”

 Jynxi: I’m glad you cleared that up because that was exactly my conclusion. That being said, how would you go about classifying homosexuality? Would it not be a type of BDD light?

Homosexuality is not a sin and it’s not chosen anyway. I am not much of a Christian, but it seems hard to figure out if it is a sin considering that God obviously made these people gay.

Homosexuality itself is not a mental disorder. Just because a man is turned on by men and not women or a woman is turned on by women and not men doesn’t mean that that man or woman is crazy. It’s not nuts or crazy to have a sexual preference for your own sex and not the opposite sex.

And it makes no sense to call the whole homosexual syndrome a mental illness because many gay men and possibly lesbians are extremely healthy psychologically. You can’t have mental disorders where the sufferers are very well-adjusted and mentally healthy. That goes against the definition of a disorder.

Nevertheless, both male homosexuality and lesbianism, while not being mental illnesses, still resemble them. In other words, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it looks like one! This is because there is so much pathology that seems to go along inevitably with these orientations when you look at them as groups.

The PC claim is that all homosexual pathologies are due to discrimination. However, recent surveys have found high levels of all sorts of pathologies in both gays and lesbians even in places like Sweden and most recently in the Netherlands. Gays are more accepted there than anywhere on Earth, so the gays can’t use the discrimination excuse which they always use to handwave away all gay and lesbian pathology.

Male homosexuality and lesbianism on average cut a full 20 years off your lifespan. The most recent studies showing a 20 year lifespan reduction have come out of Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Gays also say that the 20 year reduced lifespan is due to discrimination, but this is hard to reckon with in places like Sweden and Denmark where there is little discrimination against gays. Gay men who die of non-HIV causes only live a few years longer than those who die of HIV, and lesbians who are not affected by HIV don’t live any longer than gay men.

The implication is that all of the pathologies and the reduced lifespan are simply inherent aspects of this homosexual syndrome when look at the groups as a whole. There is something inherent in homosexuality in many cases that causes you to be unhappy, have all sorts of problems and die young.

However, if you believe in Natural Law, homosexuality seems to be violation of Natural Law. Obviously nature wants men and women to pair off and make babies. When that gets messed up as in women raising children alone or homosexual couples raising children, all sorts of problems seem to develop. The children have quite a few more problems than those raised by a father and mother.

A household with a father and a mother continues to be the best for children. This doesn’t really make sense unless you think that possibly Nature wants it this way, or perhaps we have evolved to raise children this way. If the latter, we might not be adapted to raising children in other ways very well.

Homosexual relationships both gay and lesbian seem to run into all sorts of problems. First of all, they usually end up caricaturing heterosexual relationships with one playing the dominant and masculine man and another the submissive and feminine woman in both gay male and lesbian relationships. That even gays end up caricaturing the basic heterosexual pattern implies once again that this is either Natural Law or we have evolved that way (possibly “Natural Law” might mean nothing other than the way we have evolved).

Gay relationships seem almost inherently pathological. They do not seem to last long. 91% of even lesbians never have a relationship that lasts more than five years, and gay men are even worse. Hell, even I did better than that. Gay male couples are 4-5 X more likely to suffer from domestic violence than straight couples are. Lesbians beat each other up so often and so badly that their rates are off charts, worse than even gay men’s rates.

Lesbians often fall into what is called Lesbian Bed Death where they have sex once a month if that often. No one knows why this happens, but perhaps lesbian relationships lack the male “charge” that may be necessary to fire up female sexuality. Lesbians try to imitate the charge by having one woman play the male role, but maybe it doesn’t work.

Gay men typically have notoriously unstable relationships which are much more temporary even than those of lesbians. Gay male life often revolves around a never-ending swirl of temporary and often one-time or even anonymous relationships. A survey out of Australia in 2000 showed that many gay men were continuing to have sex with more than 100 men per year. And this is long after the wild promiscuity of the 1970’s that preceded the HIV epidemic calmed down to much lower levels in  the 1980’s. Even at this late date, gay men are very promiscuous.

All of this wild sex for some reason does not seem to make them happy and in fact it may make them unhappy. Many gay men seem to be caught in this never ending drug and promiscuous sex cycle in which they seem to be chasing an elusive happiness and fulfillment that they never seem to find.

Many gay men seem to be looking for a father figure. Gay men’s relationships with their fathers and male peers were typically quite poor, and it has been suggested that gay men are forever trying to fill the “father hole” that never got filled in them or are forever trying to find the male acceptance and brotherly love that they never got from their peers while growing up. Gay male culture revolves heavily around the notion of the “Daddy,” and many gay male relationships incorporate the “Daddy” archetype. A number of gay men have stated that a theme of their adult lives, particularly sexually, was a search, often wandering, painful, and yearning but ultimately fruitless, for the father relationship that they never had.

Neither gays nor lesbians seem very happy. Gay men have a 3X elevated rate of suicide even in the Netherlands, which is as gay-friendly as you can get. There seems to be something inherent in male homosexuality that causes this suicidality.

One can picture heterosexual relationships in the yin and yang figure. Take them apart and they float alone, missing their other half. Men and women only become completely whole in a heterosexual relationship where the male donates his masculine element to the woman which she incorporates into herself and the woman donates her female element into the male which he incorporates into himself. They are both now whole, locked together in that perfect fitting embrace, the key in the lock of the yin/yang emblem.

Look, I do not think that male homosexuality or lesbianism are lifestyles that gay men and lesbians choose to lead in most cases, although there are some women who seem to choose to be lesbians, and there are a few basically straight men who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but the numbers of the latter are very small.

By age 15, gay men cannot be changed to straight, and they cannot even be made somewhat more heterosexual or somewhat less homosexual. Male homosexuality is incurable, unfixable, or permanent, however you want to look at it.

In early onset cases, lesbianism appears to be quite permanent and incurable too. So almost all gay men and many lesbians are pretty much stuck being gay. 

Still the lifestyles that especially so many gay men in big cities seem to live seem to be very unhealthy both physically and psychologically. In many cases the way they live is simply not a good way to live your life.

I don’t hate gays and lesbians. You can’t hate people for what they can’t help. I wish for all of them the very same happiness and health that I want for myself in life, not 1% less.

Nevertheless, I worry that all of this pathology may simply be somehow inherent in the “syndromes” of male homosexuality and  lesbianism, possibly due to their violations of Natural Law or our evolution, and that these problems may never be fixed much.

And that is quite a sad thing to believe. 

2 Comments

Filed under Canada, Civil Rights, Culture, Death, Denmark, Discrimination, Europe, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Mental Illness, Netherlands, North America, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychopathology, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden

Most Societies Will Always Have a 1%

Jason Y: Another thought is that having a 1 percent isn’t so bad – if only they’d throw out bigger scraps. Isn’t that the Trump message?

You are always going to have a 1% in most societies, surely in all capitalist societies. Even Sweden has some very rich people there. It’s just that the rich in places like Sweden are a lot less rich compared to the rich here. Things are much more equal over there. Most people are more or less some version of middle class. Very rich and very poor people are not common.

The rich will never throw out larger scraps to everyone else. Why should they? Give me one reason why the rich would ever throw out larger scraps for everyone else. What for?

To be nice? I got some news for you. Rich people aren’t very nice. If they were nice, they wouldn’t be rich. They didn’t get rich by being nice. In fact, most of them got rich by being quite the opposite. In any capitalist society the rich are among the worst people in the country. Capitalism is like a pond – the scum rises to the top.

Of course that is Trump’s message though in a sense – trickle down economics. Trickle down economics says that the more money you give to the rich, the more they will share it with the rest of us. It is truly amazing how many White Americans I have met who actually believe this tripe. One thing I have noted is that this year I have seen more Americans catching on to the scam of supply side economics and the general insanity of Republican economics than ever before.

You can’t fool all the people all the time.

And I would add another – you can’t fool people forever.

My attitude is that I don’t care if some people are rich. We had rich people in the 1950’s when we had a 90% marginal tax rate on millionaires. That’s fine with me. But those who have must share with those who have not. If they don’t want to, fine, then we the People (the State) will simply use force to take money away from the rich and give it to everyone else. That means guns, cops, agents, the threat of incarceration, and especially taxation.

6 Comments

Filed under American, Capitalism, Capitalists, Culture, Economics, Europe, Government, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, US Politics, USA, Whites

Welcome to Sweden

DSytO7XW0AAtfnR

Welcome to “Sweden.” 

Diversity is our strength.

Something tells me that this radical experiment is not going to end well. Actually, it’s not even starting well, forget the end. Let’s deal with the beginning for starters.

44 Comments

Filed under Europe, Immigration, Race Relations, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden

Fake Controversies, Fake Settled Questions, and Ideological Authoritarianism in Modern Linguistics, with an Emphasis on Mutual Intelligibility and the Dialect/Language Question

There is a lie going around that the dialect/language question is controversial in Linguistics. It really isn’t. Most linguists have a pretty good idea of where to draw the line. If you don’t believe me, study the internals of the Summer Institute of Linguistics change request forms for languages. The field is a lot more uniform on this question than the cranks think.

Hardly anyone thinks Valencian is a separate language. There were 5-10 experts writing in on Valencian and they were all in agreement.

Romagnolo and Emilian were split with zero controversy. All it took was a few authoritative statements by the experts in these varieties to settle the question.

In other words, the language dialect question is what is known as a fake controversy.

Really the only controversy about this question comes from nationalists and language activists.

Sadly, many linguists are nationalists, and their work has been poisoned by their ideology for a long time now. Some of the worst ones of all are in Europe.

Linguistics in the Balkans and Poland has been badly damaged by nationalist linguists for a long time, with no sign of things getting better.

Similar nonsense is going on in of all places ultra-PC Denmark and Sweden. Bornholmian and Southeast Jutnish should have been split from Danish long ago. In fact, Jutnish was split, but Danish nationalist linguists pathetically had it removed.

The many langues d’oil have never been listed and probably never will be. No doubt this is due to the state of Linguistics in ultra-nationalistic France. There are easily 10-15+ langues d’oil that could be split off.

Greek linguist nationalists have raised their ugly heads over splits in Macro-Greek.

Bulgarian Linguistics is all nationalist and has been lost in retardation forever now. No, Macedonian is not a Bulgarian dialect.

There have been some ugly and ridiculous fights in the Baltics especially with Estonian and Latvian, neither of which is a single language. I doubt that Estonian and Latvian linguists are comporting themselves well here given the fanatical nationalism that overwhelms both lands.

There are easily 350-400 language inside of Sinitic or Chinese according to the estimate of the ultimate Sinologist Jerry Norman. The real figure is clearly closer to 1,000-2,000 separate languages. Chinese nationalism is mandatory for anyone doing Sinitic linguistics. No one wants to bring down the wrath of the Chinese government by pulling the curtain on their big lie that Chinese is one language. I am amazed that SIL even split Chinese into 14 languages without getting deluged with death threats.

Arabic is clearly more than one language, and SIL now has it split into 35 languages.  This is one odd case where they may have erred by splitting too much. That’s probably too many, but no one can even do any work in this area, since Arabists and especially Arabic speakers keep insisting, often violently, that Arabic is a single language. Never mind that they routinely can’t understand each other. We have Syrians and Yemenis at my local store, and no, the Syrian Arabic speakers cannot understand hard Yemeni Arabic, sorry. Some of the Yemeni Arabic speakers have even whispered conspiratorially in my ear when the others were not around that speakers of different Yemeni Arabic varieties often cannot even understand each other, and that’s not even split by SIL. I have a feeling that the Arabic situation is more like Chinese than not.

A Swedish nationalist wiped out several well documented separate languages inside of Macro-Swedish simply by making a few dishonest change request forms. SIL pathetically fell for it.

Occitan language activists wiped out the very well-supported split of Occitan into six separate languages based on ideology. They are trying to resurrect Occitan, and they think this will only work if there is one Occitan language with many dialects under it. Splitting it up into six or more languages dooms the tongue. So this was a political argument masquerading as a linguistic one. SIL fell for it again. Pathetic.

No one has talked much about these matters in the field, but a man named Harold Hammerstrom has written some excellent notes about them. He also takes the language/dialect question very seriously and has proposed more scientific ways of doing the splitting.

SIL was recently granted the ability to give out new ISO codes for languages, and since then, SIL has become quite conservative, lumping varieties everywhere in sight. This is because lumping is always the easy way out, as conservatives love lumping in everything from Classification to Historical Linguistics, and the field has been taken over by radical conservatives for some time now. Splitters are kooks, clowns, and laughing stocks. One gets the impression that SIL is terrified to split off new tongues for fear of bad PR.

As noted above, the language/dialect question is not as controversial in the field as Net linguist cranks would have you believe. SIL simply decides whatever they decide, and all the linguists just shrug their shoulders and go back to Optimality Theory, threatening to kill each other over Indo-European reconstructions, scribbling barely readable SJW sociolinguistic blather, or whatever it is they are crunching their brains about.

SIL grants an ISO code or refuses to grant one, and that’s that. No ISO code, no language. The main problem is that they refuse to split many valid languages mostly out of PC fear of causing a furor. Most of the opposition to splitting off new languages comes from linguistic hacks and cranks who exist for the most part on the Internet.

Most real linguists don’t seem to care very much. I know this because I talk to real linguists all the time. When it comes to the dialect/language split, most of them find it mildly intriguing, but hardly anyone is set off. You tell them that some dialect has now been split off as a separate language or two languages have now been merged into one, and they just perk up their ears and say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” Sometimes they shrug their shoulders and say, “They (SIL) are saying this is a separate language now,” as if they really don’t care one way or another.

Linguists definitely get hot under the collar about some things, but not about the dialect/language question, which is regarded more as a quizzical oddity. Most linguists furthermore care nothing at all about the mutual intelligibility debate, which at any rate was resolved long ago by SIL way back in the 1950’s. See the influential book by Cassad written way back then for the final word on the science of mutual intelligibility. Some enterprising linguists are finally starting to take mutual intelligibility seriously, but even they are being much too wishy-washy and unsciency about it. A lot of very silly statements are made like “there is no good, hard scientific way to measure mutual intelligibility, so all figures are guesswork.”

There’s no need for these theoretical shields or hyper-hedging because no one cares. No one in the field other than a few nutcases and kooks on the Internet even gives two damns about this question in the first place. The mutual intelligibility question is actually much less controversial in the field that the linguist kook loudmouths on the Net would have you believe.

We have more important things to fight about, like Everett’s resurrecting of the hated Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (defended pathetically by the Old Guard and under attack by the Everett crowd who everyone hates); not to mention Altaic; and Joseph Greenberg’s poor, regularly pummeled ghost, along with mass comparison in general.

The field is full of many a silly and pretty lie. One for instance is that Linguistics rejected the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis long ago, and now it is regarded as a laughing stock. Actually that’s not true. Really a bunch of bullies got together and announced very arrogantly that Sapir-Whorf was crap, and then it become written in stone the way a lot of nonsense our field believes does.

If you go back over the papers that “proved” this matter, it turns out that they never proved one thing. They just said that they proved Sapir-Whorf was nonsense, and everyone fell for it or just got in line like they were supposed to.

Not to mention that Linguistics is like an 8th Grade playground.

Let’s put it this way. If you advocate for Sapir-Whorf in academia, I pray for your soul. You also damn well better have tenure.

I don’t know how anyone advocates for Altaic these days. I would never advocate for Altaic or any remotely controversial historical linguistics hypothesis without tenure.

The field is out for blood, and they burn heretics at the stake all the time. We’ve probably incinerated more wrong thinkers than the Inquisition by now.

3 Comments

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Chinese language, Comparitive, Danish, Denmark, Dialectology, Europe, France, Germanic, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Occitan, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Romance, Semitic, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Sweden

Suicide: The Ultimate Enigma

Becoming suicidal is often but not always indicative of mental illness. Philosophically, it simply means that you do not want to live anymore, and you don’t have to be nuts to feel way. Life’s hard for everyone, and at some point, a lot of people just can’t take it anymore and want to bail out or end the pain. Indeed, a person certainly feels no more pain after suicide.

People kill themselves for all sorts of reasons. Only 70% of suicides are clinically depressed. A lot of people commit suicide simply out of boredom, believe it or not. Some people seem to do it for absolutely no reason at all. It’s as if they did it for shits and giggles or as a way of trolling the human race. I suppose in a way, suicide is the ultimate troll. Suicides are trolling the whole damn world, every one of us.

Suicide is a mystery.

We have been studying it forever, and we still hardly know a thing about it. A man wrote a big book on suicide a while back, and at the end of the book he said he didn’t understand suicide any better at the end than when he had started.

Some countries have high suicide rates, and no one seems to know why. Other countries have low suicide rates, and no one knows why.

Hungary had high suicide rates under feudalism, monarchy, fascism, communism and now democracy. People killed themselves at the same rate in all systems.

The Japanese have always had a high suicide rate, and no one knows why. Impoverished North Korea has an extremely low suicide rate while next door ultra-wealthy Japan has a very high rate. There is no good explanation for the difference.

 

It may be cultural. Some societies may be more pro-suicide than others.

Anti-socialists like to say that Swedes have a high suicide rate. They claim that Swedish socialism gives people everything they need and maybe want, but it leaves them bored and unmotivated and hopeless to improve their lot, so they end it all. But all places on Earth at that latitude have a high suicide rate. It is so dark half the year that the sun only comes out for a few hours a day, and it is cold all the time. There are high suicide rates in Norway, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, Russia (especially Siberia), Alaska, Northern Canada, and Greenland. Anyway, the Swedes had a high suicide rate even before socialism. Other countries have an identical system to Swedish socialism, and they have low suicide rates.

Actually, the suicide rate was comparatively low in the USSR and Eastern Europe under communism. However, with the transition to capitalism in 1990, suicide rates skyrocketed over the next 10-15 years as did forms of slow suicide such as drinking oneself to death. So the Communism/socialism causes suicide theory seems to be washed up. If anything, suicide seems to be linked to capitalism a lot more than it is linked to socialism or Communism.

Nigeria is one of the most hellish and nightmarish places on Earth at least from my perspective, and from any point of view, it’s basically a shithole. In fact, it is probably one of the foulest shitholes on Earth. Yet Nigerians typically among the happiest people on Earth. They’re smiling amid the stinking, crime-infested, ultraviolent ruins, while the Swedes and Japs are blowing their brains out in lavish apartments drowning in luxury.

Go figure.

Bottom line is that a lot of human behavior is either not easily explained or simply doesn’t seem to make much sense at all. People feel however they do for whatever reasons they do, and it’s often hard to figure out why.

At the end of the day, human behavior is largely a mystery.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Asia, Canada, Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Left, Marxism, NE Asia, Nigeria, North America, North Korea, Norway, Psychology, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, USA, USSR, West Africa

Alt Left: Chaos Amidst the Ruins: The Insanity of Female Rule in the West

This is a repost of an older post with a slightly different title. I would like to point out that this is also a position statement of the Alt Left, that is, the Alt Left strongly opposes Female Rule (basically Feminism in Power) and urges a return to male rule. Females may serve in power as long as they do not impose feminism on society, but the record is not good and seems to indicate that any time women take power, they always impose feminism, which is always catastrophic and causes nothing but chaos. Hence, the Alt Left are MRA’s or even strong MRA’s. However, the Alt Left opposes the extreme misogyny that characterizes most of the movement.

Female Rule or Male Rule means simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on either male or female views of the world.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society amidst the Ruins

Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. Domestic Violence. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with, looks at, or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with, looking at and asking out women at the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right? This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you want to touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first, and she has to say, “Yes.” If want to you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.”

If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape, as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even if a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent; a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it. See the lunatic Evans case for more, where a star footballer served 2.5 years in prison for having consensual sex with a drunken woman who was in the habit of doing such things.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden, and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have sex with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic whereby the normal male attraction to teenage girls that all healthy males experience is insanely conflated with pedophilia or attraction to little girls 12-under, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing.

Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

  • A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who says he thinks about having sex or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old little girl, a “small child.”
  • Being aroused by a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old little girl.
  • Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
  • Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
  • Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia,” and if minors are caught having such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation,” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
  • It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend teenage girls. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
  • A man who speaks to a teenage girl is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to her is if he is scheming to have sex with her.

In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule, which is the Rule of Emotion. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

7 Comments

Filed under American, Britain, California, Crime, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Higher Education, Jailbait, Labor, Law, Left, Lolitas, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West

Cultural Left Lies about Homosexuality

We do not choose our sexual orientation. This is actually the official pronouncement of the American Psychological Association, and there is no basis whatsoever for making that statement, although for men there seems to be something to it. Plenty of women have obviously chosen lesbianism and then chosen to be straight again.

Sexual orientation is inborn. Then why do these lesbians date men for years and decades before they finally “wake up” and realize that they are lesbians? If they are born that way,  what happened? Did their true nature go into hiding until they were 40?

Male homosexuality is inborn or genetic. It is almost certainly not genetic, but it may be a developmental disorder, so in that sense, it may be inborn. And while it is fixed in adolescence or even before, we still do not know if or how childhood factors play a role in male sexual orientation. In other words, it’s not proven that prepubertal boys already have a preset sexual orientation.

Gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. On the contrary, they are 12X more likely to molest children than straight men, and we are talking little kids here, under 13, not teenagers.

10% of all people are gay. This is called the “10% lie.” It’s been disproven so many times that we should hardly bother to disprove it anymore, except that we have to because the gays keep lying about it.

The rate of homosexuality is not increasing. False. The background rate may be ~3%, but among the youngest generation in the UK, 6% of all men are gay. The same study showed that only 45% of men said they were completely heterosexual. Previous studies put it at 60-65%. Clearly the rate is increasing. This also calls into question the “born that way” theory.

The rate of homosexuality is the same all over the world. False. In Ancient Greece and Rome, rates approached 95% of men. Among certain groups in Afghanistan, the rates are extremely high. There are also societies where it seems to barely exist at all. Sexual orientation may not be up for grabs so much, but at least men can engage in homosexual behavior at vastly different rates.

Gays do not recruit or convert. False. Gay men continuously try to seduce straight men, with young, very handsome straight men being hit the hardest of all. It’s dubious whether straight men can actually be converted to a homosexual or even bisexual orientation, but they can definitely be converted to bisexual behavior.

The Gay Lobby does not have a subversive agenda. False. The Gay Lobby has long stated that one of its most important goals is to abolish gender, as they put it. That’s subversive in my book.

Everyone is at risk of HIV. Hardly. The vast majority of Americans either have zero to extremely low HIV risk. The HIV rate among lesbians is close to zero.

HIV does not discriminate. Like Hell it doesn’t. Gay men are 1.5% of the population and 70% of HIV cases. Sounds like a discriminatory disease to me.

Sexual practices play no role in HIV. Like Hell they don’t. The crude equation of HIV is this: Humans who get fucked in the ass fuck other humans in the ass (with their penises). Sure, a woman can practice receptive anal sex and get HIV, but there is almost no way to give it to anyone else as she lacks a penis full of semen to transmit it. Hence, as the New York Department of Health noted in the 1980’s, HIV goes from men to women and then it stops.

Gay men are no more likely to have sex with young teenagers than straight men are. False. 25% of all gay men over the age of 25 have had sex with a boy age 13-15 when they were over age 25. Only 6% of all straight men over the age of 25 have had sex with a girl aged 13-15 when they were over 25.

The only difference between gay and straight men is the PIV sex. Hardly. There are extreme differences between gay and straight men even outside the bedroom.

Effeminacy and masculinity have no relationship to sexual orientation. In fact, gay men are much more likely to be effeminate, and masculinity is deeply rooted in male heterosexuality. Perhaps ~70-75% of gay men are effeminate, and perhaps ~1-3% of straight men are effeminate. I have only see two truly masculine gay men in my life, both on Youtube videos. The rate of seriously masculine gay men must be vanishingly small.

Gay men are just as mentally healthy as straight men. Studies consistently show that gay men have higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders than straight men.

Increased psychological problems among gays are due to societal discrimination. Recent data out of Denmark and Sweden, as gay friendly as anywhere, show that the rate of psychological problems remain elevated even in perfect conditions. No one knows why psychological problems seem to be part of the package that male homosexuality comes wrapped up in.

Gay teens have an elevated suicide rate. Not true. They have a higher rate of suicide attempts, but the rate itself is not elevated.

Gays have a high suicide rate. Not so for gay men or lesbians.

Children raised by gays are just as psychologically healthy as children raised by a man and a woman. False. They have more problems and are about as psychologically healthy as kids raised by single Moms. The best environment for children is a man and a woman.

Children raised by gays are no more likely to be gay than anyone else. The latest studies show that ~12% of children raised by gays are gay themselves, which is vastly higher than the background rate. This calls into extreme question notions about sexual orientation as inborn.

Gays live just as long as straights. Nope. Their life expectancy is shortened by a full 20 years.

The shortened gay lifespan is due to discrimination. False. Gay men like 20 years less in Sweden and Denmark too, the most gay friendly countries on Earth.

Lesbians live just as long as straight women. False. Lesbians live a full 20 years less than straight women.

Gay men are not more promiscuous than straight men. False. A huge percentage of gay men have had 100+ sexual partners. Only 6% of straight men have.

HIV is not a gay disease – straight men can get it too. False. It is nearly impossible to get HIV from PIV insertive sex.

Reparative therapy does not work. False. It does not work for gay men. However, surrogate sex therapy for lesbians has been shown to work. Lesbians who were incapable of sex with men can become capable via surrogate sex therapy.

Gay men are no more likely to be serial killers. False. Gay men are 12X more likely to be serial killers than straight men.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anxiety Disorders, Asia, Britain, Crime, Denmark, Depression, Europe, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Public Health, Regional, Serial Killers, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, Sweden, USA

No Conservatives Allowed on This Website!

We have had a few conservatives posting here in the past few days. These are US-style conservatives, which are the worst kind of all. US-style conservatives are absolutely banned from posting here in any way, shape or form.

Conservatism means different things in different countries, so conservatives from much of the rest of the world (except Latin America and the UK) can continue to post. Even Canadian conservatives can continue to post, as I do not mind them. It’s not conservatism itself that is so awful. Almost every country on Earth has people who call themselves conservatives, and there are conservative parties in almost every country on Earth. But being a conservative just about anywhere outside of the Americas is more or less an acceptable position for me. I probably won’t like their politics much, but I could at least look at them and say that this is an opposition I could live with.

US conservatives and their brethren in the UK, Latin America, the Philippines, Nepal and and Indonesia are quite a different beast.

I have to think hard about conservatives in Eastern Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. These fools had such a bad experience with Communism that they went 180 degrees in the other direction. I would have to see the positions of these conservative parties in those countries to see whether they would be OK or not.

Just to give you an example, Vladimir Putin is considered to be a right-winger, and his party United Russia advocates a politics called Russian Conservatism. Looking at the party’s platform, this is not only a conservatism that I could live with but one I might even vote for!

Conservatives in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and most other places in Asia are acceptable. The conservatives in the Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia can be rather awful, particularly in the nationalist sense, but I will not ban them.

I dislike Indian conservatives, but I will not ban them.

Conservatives from the Muslim World are all acceptable. In the Muslim World, conservatism just means religious and sometimes nationalist. I can live with that. Even the ones in Iran are orders of magnitude better than the US type.

Conservatives in the Arab World are acceptable. They are mostly just religious people.

Turkish conservatives are awful, but I will not ban them. They are just religious and a particularly awful type of nationalist.

African conservatives are OK.

Conservatives in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany,  the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania are sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad, but they are all acceptable here. Conservatism in Europe mostly means nationalism. I am actually rather fond of the conservative running Hungary, Orban. LePen conservatives leave something to be desired, but they are acceptable. They’re mostly just nationalists. Hell, I might even vote for Marine LePen! If it was down to LePen versus Macron, I would absolutely support LePen!

Conservatives from Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines are not OK. These are an “everything for the rich elite, nothing for anybody else” type of conservative. Some of them even hide under the labels of Socialist or even Communist.

The word conservative has no real inherent meaning. It means whatever people say it means.

Anyway, the conservatives in the US are pure garbage and recently they have become out and out fascists after moving in that direction for a long time. And a particularly horrible type of fascist at that, a Latin American/Filipino/Indonesian style fascist. I will not allow any US conservatives to post on this board. You all are lucky I even let you lurk here. That’s an idle threat as I can’t ban lurkers, but if they all stopped lurking, I would not mind frankly.

You all really ought to go back to the gutters you crawled out of.

PS This especially applies to Libertarians, the very worst of all the US conservative vermin. We shoot Libertarians on sight here, so you better watch out.

*This applies only to economic conservatives. If you are not an economic conservative, and your conservatism is only of the social variety or you are only conservative on race, religion, guns, law and order, respect for tradition, American nationalism, the military, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity issues, you can stay. I’m not crazy about some social conservatives, but I can live with them. I will probably even let patriotards post as long as they are not economic conservatives.

I am an American nationalist myself. I just don’t like patriotards. Of course, I very much dislike and even hate the country as it is right now, but I sure don’t want to make it worse! I have to live here too you now, and it might as well be as pleasant as possible as long I stay here.

I want what’s best for my country. I don’t want to harm this country or screw it over. That will be bad for me! And believe it or not, most US patriotards do not want what is best for the country! I have dreams of a greater and better America. It’s not impossible, but we will have to undergo some serious cultural changes. One of the reasons I am so against illegal immigration is because it is ruining my country and making this place even worse. Also illegal immigration is terrible for US workers and I am for the workers. I am against H-1B visas for the same reason – they are wrecking my country. IT workers are workers too, so they are my comrades. I want what is best for America and American workers.

I cannot live with economic conservatives. I like cancer way more than I like US conservatives. Cancer is much more decent and respectable.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Armenia, Asia, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Cambodia, Conservatism, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Fascism, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Illegal, Immigration, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Islam, Italy, Japan, Labor, Latin America, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Political Science, Portugal, Regional, Religion, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, USA

Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

Yee: This is just male chauvinist nonsense. Either rule will work when you enforce it, people learn to adapt. Taliban and Saudi societies are so difference from the Philippines, still people in these places live a normal life.

As for the rulers themselves, as long as they’re good at organizing things, it’s will work. This is the main quality that required to run a society. Females actually are better.

Depends. Are the women ruling according to the rules and mores of women or according to the rules and mores of men. Look what happens when you let women make the law. Prohibition was put in by women. Women’s long-term activism was the only reason that Prohibition was passed at all. Although it came one year after women were given the right to vote, Prohibition was a societal change that was made by the rules and mores of women. All over the world, whenever alcohol is made illegal or restricted, it done most of the time by women.  The result of Prohibition? Total chaos.

That’s what happens when you let women make the rules. And in Communist insurgencies, typically Maoist ones, they often put women in charge of the local village and town governments. What’s the first thing they do? Over and over I have read that the first thing they do is make alcohol illegal. Result of making alcohol illegal?

Chaos.

Sweden is governed according to the rules and mores of women. That’s why it is a nightmare state for men.

Female rulers are fine. You can have an all-female government for all I care. But they must govern according to the rules and mores of men, not women.

Look what happened in California when we let women make the rules. The state of California just voted that on all university campuses, you must have affirmative consent for every sex act. Like you want to kiss her, you have to ask, “Can I kiss you?” You want to touch her tits? You have to ask her, “Can I feel your tits?”

Guess who put those rules in?

Women.

What is the result of this stupid-ass “affirmative consent” nonsense?

Chaos.

Those are the sort of lunatic rules and laws that you get when you let women run the show and govern according to the rules and mores of women. According to the rules and mores of women, that idiot affirmative consent rule is 100% rational. That’s how women actually think. They think a rule like that is completely reasonable and sensible.

19 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Local, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West, Women

Female Rule Doesn’t Work, and Men Are Necessary for Any Societal Achievement

Betty: It’s right that the reaction of these women is exaggerated but to say that they are incapable of running a country is plainly wrong. All war, chaos and problems were and are caused by male presidents like Hitler, Erdogan, Trump, etc. So it’s rather males being drama queens.

Saying that all women would make these memes illegal just because SOME have that point of view is almost equal to saying that all Muslims are terrorists because ISIS members consider themselves Muslims.

On top of that, many years ago when women weren’t allowed to work they were controlling a whole household of like 10 kids while cooking and cleaning every single day without help. So I’d say women are very capable of running a society or country, as for example Maria Theresia reigned Austria instead of her husband, which went perfectly fine.

Women can govern in partnership with men but countries must be ruled by the laws and mores of men. Women are free to help us run countries only as long as those countries are run according to the rules of men.

If you let women govern according to the rules and mores of women, things will fall apart pretty quickly. A lot of Communist groups put women in charge when they took over small rural villages. It was always a catastrophe. The first thing women do when they get in charge is make prostitution, gambling and booze illegal. Those are the three things that men need to make like tolerable enough so they don’t kill themselves, and those are the first things women outlaw. Thanks a lot, ladies. This rule does not work very well. Men are not very happy, but really no one is very happy. Things rapidly become pretty chaotic.

Sweden is currently being ruled by women. It’s under Female Rule – I mean women ruling according to the rules and mores of women along with a bunch of Beta cuck men helping them. It is not going well. The men are leaving in droves to go to Thailand to grab Thai brides because they have had it up to here with Swedish women.

Maria Teresia, many queens, and Thatcher all governed according to the rules, laws and mores of men. That’s not even Female Rule. That’s called Male Rule with Female Rulers – Women governing according to the laws, rules and mores of Male Rule.

Female Rule is when women impose their worldview on society. As long as the male rules of society are kept intact, women are free to take any government position they wish.

There are societies in Africa that are essentially under Female Rule. The men have just said, “The Hell with it, we’re done, here, you ladies take over. Have fun.” Women hold most of the power in these places. There is little violence or crime and actually there are not even a lot of serious disputes. These are sort of peace love dope hippie- type societies.

On the other hand, not much gets done in this places. They tend to stagnate and cruise in stasis. In particular, there is not much education because I suppose most women are just not interested in that. A lot of stuff that needs to get done never gets done, and everything gets put off. So you have societies without a lot of serious conflict, but on the other hand, there is little advancement.

I think women want to find a happy place and just be relaxed and go with the flow there rather than deal with the sturm and drang of continuous progress.

Personally I do not believe women can run societies, or if they do, they have to do so in partnership with good men or according to the rules of good men.

I feel that men are essential for any societal advancement. Women are free to help us men in societal advancement, but if you put them in charge, it’s just not going to work. Women just can’t run societies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women can’t do everything, you know. So there’s some stuff they can’t do well? So what? There are plenty of things that women are great at. They should focus on those.

85 Comments

Filed under Africa, Austria, Britain, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, History, Left, Man World, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Sweden, Women