Category Archives: Sweden

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

Countering Some Anti-Communist Lies

Actually Pretty Funny: I mean, damn it, you only want everyone to be dirt poor. You only care for the dirt poor, and treat everyone the same like you treat the dirt poor. Affluent Soviet citizens need ten years to afford a car, with all the paperwork. And crappy cars indeed. Your homeless man doesn’t even have the patience to wait in a line without drinking, why do you force Soviet people who can afford cars to wait 10 years?

And since the Soviets gave undesirable people too much money and power and installed them in position of power and management, the people who could efficiently ran the country secretly quit.

Your Communism only works in very homogeneous and secluded societies or else it would fail hilariously. Belarus is landlocked and the people are mostly Belorussians, so it couldn’t break free away from Russia and indeed now depends partly on military/ intelligence/ security know-how and support from Russia. And the dictator there routinely puts  people into jail because he needs to keep people homogeneous in their thinking. But Ukraine isn’t homogeneous, so they fled. They have their own seaports to export their goods.

One good attribute of the Socialist Man is that he doesn’t complain or protest much. So you don’t hear much about the problems of countries like that.

In this day and age, no one really starves to death anymore. Obesity is now an epidemic. All thanks to tech from the capitalistic West. The Chinese literally sold Chinese made Iphones at 100 USD, so I am not surprised that Belarussians could afford Belorussian cars. Those are cheaper than, say, German imported cars, but they work anyway so why not. But the technology for those cars were imported directly from Italy or Germany, and those cars were older models.

Rich Belarussians of course drive Germans and Italians imported from abroad. A Rolls-Royce model 2000 is a Rolls Royce too, just feels a bit weird. People in America begin to run Tesla electric cars already. Back to Belarus, they of course produce some machinery of all sort, good and bad. Just like China. But the most advanced technology always comes from the West. Belarus has lower cost.

Before China opened up to the world(the West), a Chinese household needed 800 USD to 1000 USD and political connection to set up a home telephone line, the same for North Korea for example. I bet the price in North Korea is much lower now. Mobile service providers now beg me to buy the newest(older) tech from America, I love that.

Ever wonder why Putin has been trying so hard to get sanctions lifted off? He needed tech from the West. Communism = sclerosis. And by the way, Sweden is the role model the Chinese want for themselves. Funny to see you bash it that much. You can’t have it all. Choose 2: Prosperity, Diversity, Free Speech.

Surveys across Eastern Europe repeatedly show that high percentages, often majorities, of people say that life was better under Communism that it is today under capitalism. I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot of people like Communism and even prefer it over capitalism.

Almost no one can afford to buy a car in the US. They’re too expensive, and the number of people having $20,000 sitting around to buy a new car is very low. So they borrow the money at high interest to buy the car. You miss a few payments, and they come take car away. I suppose if you want to make cars so that everyone can buy one, maybe people do have to wait in line. I mean could the US produce 230 million cars to sell them to every US adult at a price they could easily afford such as say $300-400? That’s what the USSR was doing. No wonder you had to stand in line.

I don’t agree the Communists always produce junk products.

Cubans have made many dramatic innovations in the nickel and sugar industries on their very own. Cuban cigars produced in state firms are still of excellent quality and are sought after all over the world. Cuba has a world-class biotechnology industry that must compete with capitalist firms in the international market. Hence their stuff has to be good, or it won’t be able to compete at all. Their biotech products are purchased all over the world, and they compete well with capitalist companies.

If you force state enterprises to compete in world markets, it’s sink or swim. If they produce crap, they go out. They will have to compete with capitalist firms, and that means making good stuff for competitive prices. Hence I like the idea of state firms being forced to compete on the world markets. That way they cannot produce junk.

It’s not true that Communist countries produced nothing but crap. A friend of mine has a radio made in Czechoslovakia in the 1970’s. It is of fine quality, and it still works to this very day 50 years later. It’s never broken. Chinese fans made 30 years ago still work to this very day.

The Communist attitude was that they did not want to produce crap that broke right away because that way they would spend all their time re-manufacturing the same products over and over. So with a lot of products, the attitude was “built to last.” The quality may not have been superb, but it was generally adequate. So they produced average quality products that were built to last decades.

I don’t bash Sweden. I’m not sure if Sweden is really the Chinese model.

After all, the Chinese are doing State Capitalism. 45% of the economy is made up of state firms. How is the Chinese economy booming if half the economy is state firms? Shouldn’t it be sclerotic? Shouldn’t every Chinese person be dirt poor? Shouldn’t all Chinese products be junk? The commenter says that Communism makes everyone poor, is sclerotic, and creates nothing but junk products. How come that’s not true in China?

I have a friend in Slovakia. His father told him that when Slovakia went from Communism to capitalism in the 1990’s, many of the father’s friends committed suicide in the first 10 years of capitalism. Now why was that? Did they do it too fast? How can the commenter support something that caused so many suicides? Is he happy when people die? The commenter is willing to more or less kill lots of people just so you can get he can get his cool stuff?

My friend also showed me Google Earth photo of his small town in Slovakia. It was very nice. The architecture, design and general layout was very nice, with this sort of quaint European style. I told my friend that, and he said, “Yes, and all of that layout, design and architecture was built under Communism. The capitalists are not building anything good here.”

In Slovakia, housing tracts were built consisting of family homes with small yards. They somewhat resembled a stripped down suburban tract in the US. I have seen photos of these homes. The homes and yards aren’t fantastic, but they are perfectly adequate. You probably had to wait in line, but the houses were priced at a low rate. In addition, there was really no way whatsoever that a family could lose its house. It wasn’t possible. Wouldn’t that be great to have a house where the monthly payments were quite affordable and not only that but you were guaranteed never to lose the house no matter what?

29 Comments

Filed under Asia, Belarus, Capitalism, Caribbean, Cuba, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Regional, Russia, Socialism, Sweden, USA, USSR

Equality and Inequality under Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

Hizzle writes:

Rob,

Two honest questions:

Are there different manifestations of capitalism just as there are of communism? For instance, the kind of “Capitalism for the rich, socialism for the poor” that has afflicted us for a long time along with crony capitalism (people in Gottfried’s managerial state helping each other out with no-bid contracts and quid pro quo) is pretty sick and poisonous.

But what about my local hardware store owner whose perception of capitalism is that he works hard for his middle-class lifestyle so he should live better than someone who doesn’t work hard? Why in any moral, sane system, would all people be rewarded equally when they don’t work equally hard? I understand plenty of wealth is inherited, and the reality of capitalism doesn’t fit the model, but there’s always a gulf between model and instantiation, isn’t there, even in communism?

Other question: I think humans are generally selfish or at least somewhat obviously motivated by their own interests, so what do you think would happen tomorrow if someone poured blandishments on you, and you woke up as a billionaire on your own island with your own mansion and jet, titty-fucking the supermodel of your choice, while two concubines fed you grapes? Would you rail against capitalism? The question isn’t rhetorical because I believe some leftists (like Lukacs) came from bourgeois to upper class backgrounds.

Thanks in advance.

Sure, there are all sorts of different capitalist models.

One I like very much is called Fordism, named after Henry Ford who is often called far rightwing and racist, but he really wasn’t. He wasn’t even much of an antisemite really. The Jews acted pretty bad here back then and he was appalled by their behavior. He said they were out for themselves and not for everyone. At the end of the supposedly antisemitic The International Jew, in which he forcefully condemns pogroms, Ford writes, “Come, Jews! I call on you to come join us to build a better America!” He wanted Jews to be Americans first and Jews second but Jews don’t tend to think like that.

Anyway Ford was hardly a reactionary. At the time, cars were quite expensive and out of the reach of most people. I would argue that they still are. He looked out at his auto plant and he thought, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the average worker could afford to buy one of my nice cars here?” So Ford said, “You know what? I am going to pay my workers high enough wages so they can afford to buy my cars.”

So that is Fordism. Pay workers good wages so they can afford to buy the stuff you make or sell. There was a strong Fordist element to our society for many years, but that went out maybe in the 1970’s and now there is a vicious capitalism that thinks only of profits and never asks itself if people can still afford to buy their stuff. It’s all about paying your worker as little as possible to maximize profits. Hell a lot of companies outsource all their manufacturing so they don’t pay US workers one nickel to buy any of their nice products that they import back here from their plant. I guess paying the workers to buy your overseas built stuff is someone else’s job.

There are many other varieties that I need not go into here. Anyway almost all if not all countries are a mixture of capitalism and socialism in some form or another. The “capitalist” countries of the world are usually not that capitalist, but one can argue that maybe they have less socialism than other places. The socialist or Communist countries are just places that have a lot more socialism mixed in with their capitalism.

So it’s a bit retarded to talk about pure capitalism and pure socialism or Communism but everyone does it really because people are not well educated and also there is a tendency to think of things in their most stripped down, easiest to understand form, which helps neural efficiency but also leads to many concepts being poorly or falsely understood. Humans don’t like to think much. They want to think as little as possible and most do a great job of it. I think maybe your brain wants shortcuts too. Why not? Most other things do.

Rich Communists are rare indeed. Carlos the famous terrorist had a millionaire father who was a Communist, but that is an exception. The rich are almost always conservative, and rich liberals are often not all that rich. The rich generally want to keep as much of their money as possible no matter how they obtained, which is normal. The thing is, let’s face facts, wealthy socialists are working against their own economic interests. We rail against the class-cucked poor and working class who do the same thing, but it’s a bit more noble for a rich man do it as it’s more rational for a rich man to want to share with poorer people than it is for poor or working people to advocate giving lots of their money to the rich. The former seems like a saint; the latter seems like a moron.

I’ve long been in favor of small businesses. They cause very little damage to society. Cuba is full of small businesses now. However, your hardware store owner is deluded because he will claim that he works harder than some field worker or ditchdigger, but he really doesn’t. In fact, those outdoor workers probably work quite a bit harder than he does.

There’s a lot of silly self-justification going on with people who have managed to make a fair amount of money. Somehow they deserve every nickel of it because they did such and such noble thing (work, study, whatever) and others didn’t. And capitalist fanboys often say that the rich work harder than poor workers. Bull. I guess they figured out how stupid that was so the latest one is that the rich “worked harder and worked smarter” than others. There’s no answer to that because no one even knows what working smarter even means.

I have never believed that everyone should be equal. Why should a ditchdigger be paid the same as a surgeon? It’s crazy. Why would anyone be a surgeon. Also the surgeon is obviously contributing more to society and he studied for much longer to be a surgeon. Should he not be monetarily awarded for that.

The problem in capitalism is not inequality, which is fine by me, but instead it is the degree of it. The inequality under capitalism is so vast that it is preposterous. Doesn’t Bill Gates have as much money as 40% of the planet? If aliens landed tomorrow and you told them that one guy owns as much wealth as almost half the 8 billion population, they would shake their heads, say they’re insane morons here, and there’s obviously no sign of intelligent life, so we’re taking off.

Only in this crazy planet could there be hundreds of millions of humans who actually nod their heads like that’s normal and even stand up and cheer for it. It’s absurd the way humans think here on Earth. I doubt if it is even normal either. Earthly humans are quite idiotic. Maybe it is all down to selfishness. Humans are incredibly selfish. It’s adaptive in a sense. If you don’t put your own interests first most of the time, you will soon be dead – but it is also one of the worst traits of this supposedly highly intelligent species.

How about a pay scale? Even in Communism, pay the surgeon say eight times more than the ditchdigger. Fair? Communist societies all had pay scales. In Cuba right now the average monthly wage is ~$25. But no problem as most everything is cheap or free. For instance your rent on that salary would be $1.50/month (!) and a bowl of ice cream costs 2 cents (!). However, IT workers are being paid $2,000/month in Cuba for some reason. No idea why. Maybe to encourage people to work in the field. So you see there is fair amount of inequality in Cuba. It’s just that there people are so much more equal and less unequal there than in most places.

Communist societies need not be so poor. Belarus has an economy that is 80% Soviet style, maybe upgraded for the times. Belarus and Ukraine always had by far the highest incomes in the USSR, and it seems those are two places where Communism sort of worked. Somehow those two places figured out how to make it work. On the other hand, much of the manufacturing in the USSR was located in those two countries. The average income in what is basically Communist Belarus is $16,000/year. Almost every family has a computer and a car. Does that sound like privation to you? Communism need not lead to privation.

And Swedish society is not as equal as you think. The Swedish rich have an unbelievable amount of money. Some are among the richest people in the world. The thing about Sweden is that just about everyone is afforded a decent living. There are few very rich in Sweden, but there are also few very poor. So most everyone is somewhat more towards the middle. And Belarus and Finland have wiped out homelessness. There are zero homeless people in either country.

12 Comments

Filed under Belarus, Capitalism, Caribbean, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Europe, Finland, History, Labor, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Modern, Political Science, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, Ukraine, US, USSR

Nazis and Communists Fighting in the Streets of Sweden

Fascinating. The real violent people here are the Left, honestly. They are attacking the fascists and Nazis, and the fash are mostly just fighting back from what I can tell. However, some of the Revolutionary Front fighters say that they have gotten death threats from the fascists, so it looks like both sides are ramping up the violence.

It’s fascists/Nazis and Communists/socialists, the Right and the Left, fighting in the streets of Europe. In other words, it’s 1920’s and 1930’s Europe (Germany especially) all over again. History is once again repeating itself.

A Marxist analysis would say that this situation of Hard Right and Hard Left always arises in any capitalist system during a time when the capitalist system is in crisis. They would say that capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy, the rich inevitably get richer and the poor inevitably get poorer until sooner or later extreme inequality leads to a crisis. In other words, it is inevitable that capitalism will experience periodic crises.

It’s not even a bug of the system. It is actually supposed to work that way! Every time we have an economic crisis in this country, listen to Ron or Rand Paul talk about what is happening. They will simply say that this is part of the natural (boom and bust) business cycle that will correct itself sooner or later, since capitalism is a self-regulating mechanism. Do you understand what they mean when they say that? When they talk like that, they are saying that periodic crises are an unavoidable fact of the capitalist system and that these crises are not bugs at all, but instead they are features!

And in the late 20’s, Herbert Hoover spoke exactly the same way. My father said Hoover advocated doing nothing about the Depression because he did not want to upset the natural rhythm of the business cycle. In other words, the Depression wasn’t awful, it meant the system was working as intended!

In other words, when capitalism is in crisis, that is “how the system is supposed to work” – well, part of the time anyway.

So capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy and a crisis, and Marxists would add that capitalism inevitably leads to fascism at some point or another, as a fascist response is one of the unavoidable consequences of a capitalist economic crisis.

So capitalism inevitably leads to fascism sooner or later. However, I would also add, optimistically, that capitalism inevitably leads to some form of socialism too. The rich get richer and richer, and the poor get poorer and poorer, and in addition to  the fascist response, there is also an inevitable Left, socialist or Communist response, the consequences of which are often welded into society via legislation.

Note that the Depression led to both socialist/Communist and fascist responses in the US. The fascist response was rather muted, but Father Coughlin and Mr. Lindberg sure were popular there for a bit. My mother remembers Father Coughlin on the radio. She says that every time you turned on the radio, there he was.

The Left response was melded into society as the New Deal, aspects of which continue to be part of our somewhat socialist society to this very day.

So the situation in Sweden at the moment is replaying Germany of the 20’s and 30’s all over again. If you want to understand the current fighting, go back and study the street fighting during that era.

I do not have much more to add here except that my political development is finally to the point where I not only understand this fighting, but I realize that it is actually normal, natural and inevitable given the economic situation. I shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, of course.”

It sure feels nice to have that sort of understanding of political reality. There is a real sense of mastery that comes with that. Further, you end up a lot calmer because you realize that all of these things are happening for logical reasons.

Whereas before, the world seemed chaotic, unpredictable and irrational. So many things seemed to happen for no reason. This feeling causes fear, insecurity and anxiety.

But with a sense of mastery over political developments, comes instead a feeling of peace that things are not happening for no reason anymore.

21 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Left, Marxism, Nazism, Political Science, Regional, Socialism, Sweden, US

25 Ways Feminists Systematically Oppress Men

Tulio writes:

Not that I’m saying you’re wrong per se, but can you list concrete examples of how men are systematically oppressed? While I don’t like feminism, I also don’t feel oppressed in any way as a man. I find feminists to be more of an annoyance than a threat.

Here is a list of 20. See if you can come up with more.

  1. Conflation of statutory rape and pedophilia created by feminists is causing a lot of harm to teenage boys and especially young men.
  2. Insane anti-rape laws in Sweden and the UK written by feminists that including rape definition creep expanding towards more and more traditional non-rapes.
  3. Anti-rape inquisitions created by feminists on campuses where a woman can file rape charges against you months to years after the fact, the man is considered guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution and judges are completely rigged against the man. For instance, a man was recently thrown out of a university back East on “rape” charges. What happened? The man was blacked out drunk, lying on his back on a bed, and a female student gave him a blowjob. She sucked his cock while he was blacked out. If anyone got raped, it might have been him. She feared for her reputation after the incident and the feminist dorm adviser suggested she file rape charges to preserve her reputation. Another man was thrown out of school for raping his own girlfriend. Charges were filed many months after they broke up and the court was a Kangaroo Court stacked with feminists.
  4. Rape rules on campus created by feminists requiring assent for each escalation of sex acts undertaken.
  5. Crazy campus rape rules created by feminists whereby a man can be accused of rape even if the woman never said no if she “thought no in her head.” In this case, the man can be accused of rape because he’s not a mindreader.
  6. Crazy rape law in Washington State written by feminists whereby a teacher was convicted of rape of a female student who was 18 years old, an adult, when it happened. The sex was 100% consensual. He now must go on the Sex Offender Registry for life.
  7. Crazy rape laws written by feminists where sex with a drunken woman is “rape.”
  8. Fake campus rape crisis created by feminists whereby feminists make up lies like 20% of college girls are raped during college that make all college men seem like rapists. Real figure is .6%.
  9. Fake “rape culture” crisis US created by feminists in the US, probably the most anti-rape culture on Earth, where all men are seen as potential rapists.
  10. Insane rape laws in the UK written by feminists whereby apparently there is no statute of limitations for rape, sexual assault and “pedophilia” whereby men are going down for grabbing a grown woman’s tits 45 years ago, feeling up a 14 year old girl’s ass 35 years ago and other lunacy.
  11. Feminists making up lies like “fake rape charges are very rare.” The figure of 8% is tossed about. The true rate is near 50%. The ugly truth is that women cry rape and press fake rape charges against men all the time. I have been falsely accused of rape myself. A 14 year old girl accused me of raping her once. The sex was 100% consensual. She didn’t file charges, but the allegation went around to our friend circle. Incredibly, the rape charge made me much more popular with her girlfriends a number of whom started openly flirting with me after they heard I was a rapist!
  12. Insane sexual harassment rules in most employment locations whereby feminists are apparently trying to outlaw all heterosexual conduct in the workplace. I worked at a workplace where I was told that dating between coworkers was banned by the company’s sexual harassment policies.
  13. Sexual harassment madness on university campuses created by feminists whereby female students constantly file Title 9 complaints against male professions for every fake infraction in the book. One of the crimes is criticizing feminism or Women’s Studies Departments. Male teachers have had Title 9 complaints filed against them for doing just that.
  14. New laws in France and Germany created by feminists whereby men are forbidden from paternity testing their own babies.
  15. Pedophile Mass Hysteria promoted by feminists whereby any man who looks at a teenage girl is a “pedophile” and a “predator,” and men can’t even talk to any children of either sex anymore. Single men are particularly victimized by this. I have had single men tell me that all single White men past a certain age are automatically considered “pedophiles.” They also tell me how terrified they are of girls and how they take off every time they see one.
  16. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists causing men to be arrested for merely talking to teenage girls. A man was recently arrested and charged with “grooming” for talking to two 15 year old girls, apparently runaways, in a pet store in California. In California, this “anti-grooming” law is called “annoying or molesting a child.” Under this extremely vague offense, you can be charged with “grooming” for merely talking to a teenage girl.
  17. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists resulting in men getting convicted of “child molesting” for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age and said they were 18-19, created Facebook pages with fake ages on them, and openly seduced older men. When people found out about it, the girls’ parents filed child molesting charges. The men had no idea the girls were underage. They were convicted and go on the Sex Offender Registry for life because a girl lied to them and they naively believed her lie.
  18. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists expanding to adults -> a man recently told me online that if he saw a 50 year old man talking to a 20 year old woman, he would punch the man in the face. Recall how many women called Clinton a “pedophile” for having sex with 23 year old Monica.
  19. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists whereby evil girls mostly aged 9-13 are mass charging male teachers with child molesting under blatantly fake charges. A friend of mine had an entire classroom of evil 9 years old girls charge him with molesting them in a single day (!). The charge went into his record, parents threatened to beat him up, and he was not allowed to teach at that district ever again. My own father was charged with molesting a 13 year old Black girl for breaking up a fight between her and some other girl.
  20. Feminists making up lies like “children never lie about being molested” which result in mass fake molesting charges against men.
  21. Creep shaming created by feminists and women whereby many men are terrified to even approach females anywhere for fear of being called a creep.
  22. Crazy fake “street harassment” crisis created by feminists whereby selling hello to a woman on the street or trying to talk to a woman on a train is apparently “harassment.”
  23. Insane domestic violence laws written by feminists in the 1990’s whereby the woman gets to hit the man as much as she wants, but if the man hits back one time, he’s going to jail -> men are not allowed to fight back against women.
  24. Crazy domestic violence law written by feminists whereby if you hit a woman (even if you hit her back) in your own home which you own and she stays in as a perma-guest, even after you get out of jail, the woman can file a restraining order against you, continue to live in your home (!), and you will be homeless and banned from living in your own home while some leech lives there for free. You will have to find temporary lodging or go homeless.
  25. Crazy alimony laws written by feminists whereby the woman gets half your paycheck for years, maybe forever, no matter how high your check is and how much she really needs, even if she initiates the divorce.

7 Comments

Filed under Britain, Crime, Education, Europe, Feminism, France, Gender Studies, Germany, Higher Education, Labor, Law, Law enforcement, Lunatics, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, Washington, West

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Here.

Even after they transition, they are still seriously nuts. Apparently the argument is that they are even more nuts before they transition, so transitioning is good for them in a sense.

How about preventing it in the first place? There is no evidence whatsoever that the rate of transsexualism is constant around the world.

Surely if it is biological, there must have been vast numbers of transsexuals in the past. Since transsexualism causes horrific mental illness, depression and suicidality, surely we would have heard about in our records of the past. Europe at least kept excellent records in at least the last 500 years. Prior to that, there is always folklore and the wisdom of the ancients.

Yet we move around the world doing ethnographic studies and nowhere do we find tribes discussing the disastrous predicament of the transsexual. Note that if transsexualism is real, it would have existed in high numbers. Recent studies say 1/300 persons is a transsexual and transsexual feelings, transient or otherwise, are present in 2-3% of university students in China, not exactly a hotbed of Cultural Left nuttiness.

Why do we never hear of transsexuals in the written history, folklore or ancient wisdom of cultures around the world? Probably because the notion that transsexualism itself is a biological disorder with high prevalence through time and space is itself highly suspect.

If indeed there were transsexuals in the past all around the world all down through time, they must have been able to accommodate their disorder well, if they even had it at all. Since transitioning was not possible nor was it possible to pretend you are the opposite sex, if transsexualism existed in the past, most transsexuals probably just shrugged off their transsexual feelings and married and raised children like everyone else.

So even if there were “transsexuals” in the past, most of them seemed to have simply shrugged off their feelings as some odd quirk and went on to live normative cis-heterosexual lives.

The transsexual epidemic in the West has a definite feeling about it of being a manufactured issue. A lot of it appears to be simple faddism.

6 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Europe, Medicine, Mental Illness, Operations, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Regional, Sex, Sociology, Sweden

21 Ways That Gender Feminists Are Destroying the West

While the movement for women’s equality called Women’s Liberation (equity feminism) was one of the great human emancipation movements and should be supported by all decent men, gender feminism is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Here are 21 ways that gender feminists are currently ruining the West:

  1. Made women run amok and become completely uncontrolled.
  2. Created mass mental illness among women. Fully 8% of women now have Borderline Personality Disorder, which is just about a psychological death sentence. I think feminism is causing all this mass mental illness among women.
  3. Vastly increased the violence and assaultiveness of women as women now assault men vastly more than they used to.
  4. Women act crazy, flip out, and are much more unstable and emotional than they were pre-feminism. Feminism has made women think it is cool to be a moody nutcase.
  5. Feminism created mass female hypergamy. The much maligned PUA and Game Movements who have created philosophies to try to survive, understand and make the most of this new crazy sexual world.
  6. Female strangers attack innocent men now for little or no reason, try to fight innocent men, pick on and belittle innocent men and harass innocent men on the streets, all for little to no reason.
  7. Men can no longer make friends with kids or even speak to kids. This is due to Pedophile Mass Hysteria, an idiotic Moral Panic that was created 100% by feminism. Single males are now regarded as “pedophiles” and treated with suspicion by neighbors. There has been an epidemic of false reports by children accusing men of molesting them. Kids lie like rugs when it comes to these accusations. Much of this lying has been encouraged by their mothers to get back at men in their lives. This whole scenario was created by feminism.
  8. Male sexuality is now pathologized. Men are “creeps” if they experience any sexual feelings at all around feelings because these feelings will cause men to look at women, flirt with them and possibly make passes at them. Feminism hates men looking at, flirting or asking out women as all of this is considered “sexual harassment.” Hence we have millions of males who are running scared of being called creeps and whatnot.
  9. Apparently it is now illegal for men to look at, flirt with, make passes at or ask out females in their workplace. Well not illegal, but it is grounds for firing under the insane “sexual harassment” rulings which create a crazy environment that makes no sense. Say you are at work and you do not wish to be accused of sexual harassment. How should you proceed to look at, flirt with and ask out women in the workplace assuming you might want to do this? There is no way to proceed. There is no way to know when you are sexually harassing a women or when you are not harassing them. The whole concept in civil law is ridiculously vague and in law, vague laws are illegal and vague concepts require no remedy.
  10. Society has now pathologized all of male sexuality. This was done by feminism because from Day One, feminism has hated male sexuality. That is the reason d’etre of feminism. There is nothing that feminism hates more than normative male sexuality. Bottom line is that if feminists had their way, they would simply make most expressions of normative male sexuality illegal.
  11. Sweden now has the most insane rape laws on Earth with definitions of rape vastly broader than in any other country. Hence, Sweden has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth, but most of these are fake rapes that are not even rapes and would not be considered rape in any other land.
  12. Society or at least some US university systems and the nation of the UK, have decided that males accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent. This dangerous lunacy was created by feminists who apparently wish to shred the Constitution.
  13. Gangs of high school girls now chase, harass, bait, insult and even assault and beat up boys. This is a preposterous trend and this was unheard of in my high school days in 1971-1975.
  14. Women are allowed to assault men as many times as they wish but we cannot strike one single blow in self defense. I suppose we can’t even defend ourselves if they are trying to kill us. Apparently we have to run away and hope the bitch doesn’t outrun us. The feminists created the idiotic, chaotic and insane notion of “hit a woman, go to jail,” and “males have no right to self-defense against women.” Obviously this is utterly insane but this the mad world that women want.
  15. Sex between teenage girls and adult men, a normal human phenomenon present since the beginning of mankind that has never harmed one teenage girl ever, has been conflated with “pedophilia” and “child molestation.” Teenage girls are infantalized and denied agency. Whatever it is, adult male-teenage girl sex is surely not pedophilia or child molesting. In terms of males 18-23 having sex with 14-17 year old girls, the police generally regarded it as none of their business and left everyone alone. However, over age 23 you could into trouble, which was often a warning to stay away from her or else. Back in the sane days of Male Rule it was called Statutory Rape, which is the best term for it. It was regarded as a joke, the girls were seen as schemers and not victims, and the men were chuckled about. Nevertheless, if the man was middle aged and there was more than one girl, he might see a few years in prison. This was probably a much saner way of dealing with this matter.
  16. If adult men have even mere thoughts, feelings and desires to have sex with teenage girls (which of course is normal for any man at any age) feminism has now decided that this is sick, evil, mentally disordered, perverted, “pedophilic,” and evidence that one is a “child molester.” This goes against modern psychological science which proves that this thinking is normal in any man of any age and is not evidence of pathology or immorality. Hence we see that feminists, like Republicans, are actually waging war on science itself.
  17. A wave of idiotic feminist therapists has broken across our blighted land. They believe many a silly thing, but the worst is that many of them have specialized in “treating child sexual abuse,” which in reality means “teenage girls who have sex with men.” Once a case like this is uncovered, the poor girls are rushed off to needless therapy to heal the “assault” which was probably consensual or even initiated by the girl. The girl is told she has been “molested” and is a victim of “child sexual assault” even though she isn’t even a child and in almost all cases, there was no assault. To give you an example of how crazy this is, feminists have decided that a teenage girl who seduces an adult man has consensual and often very willing sex with him has been assaulted by the man that she herself seduced. So by seducing the man she is apparently raping herself via the man somehow. None of this makes any sense. The girls are told that they have been damaged and harmed, that the effects of the “abuse” (there almost always was no “abuse”) may last a lifetime and that this was a terrible thing that was done to them, one of the most horrible things that could happen to a human being. The teenage girl is confused as she thought she was just seducing a sexy older man for some great sex and now she is told that she was actually raping herself and that the horrible scars may last a lifetime. Predictably, the girls are traumatized by all of this nonsense and begin to believe that they have been harmed somehow. Depression, anxiety and other psychological problems ensue that would never have happened in the first place. These psychiatric symptoms were actually caused by the feminist therapists and the other feminist women hovering around the poor girl like lobotomized vultures. Congratulations feminists!
  18. All child sex has now been proscribed and apparently made illegal, including child sex play that is extremely common and almost always harmless. Hundreds of children under age 12 have been charged with “child molestation.” It is very difficult to conceive of how any child age 12 and under could possibly molest any child, but nevertheless, these little kids have now been labeled “predators.” Many will have to go on the Sex Offender Registry for life. Many high school students, almost always males because in child sex the male is always the criminal and the female is always the victim as per feminist “logic” have been arrested and charged with “child molestation” for having consensual sex with the females in their age group. Not one of these boys is a “child molester” and it isn’t even possible to “molest” a teenage girl anyway as you can only molest a child age 12-under. Therefore, while one can have sex with a teenage girl, it is not possible to “molest” one. A number of teenagers, including many girls, have been arrested on charges of “manufacturing child pornography” and “disturbing child pornography.” What they actually did was take nude photos of themselves with cellphones and then send them to their boyfriends or girlfriends. Apparently the feminists say that these selfies are “child porn” and these adolescents are “child pornographers.” All of the madness under the rubric of Pedophile Mass Hysteria outlined above was caused almost wholly by the feminists. It was the feminists who launched the Pedophile Mass Hysteria moral panic in the first place when they set it off in 1970’s. So all those kids in jail or on the Sex Offender list can thank a feminist for their ruined lives.
  19. Seduction is now rape. Traditionally, seduction proceeded often through a variety of tricks, scams and ruses all designed to break down a woman’s defenses and get her into bed. The idiotic self impressed PUA crowd think they have invented some new social science in Game, but the truth is that “Game” has been around forever. My friends and I were practicing “1970’s Game” on the beaches and ski slopes in the 1970’s. We traded secrets and told each other what to and what not to do. The whole business wasn’t very honest, but seducers are never honest men. All players have a “system.” Surely Casanova himself had one. And it goes back further than that. There is a classic work from Ancient Rome written in Latin called “On Love.” If you read it, you will see that is simply Game in Rome in the year 200. There is nothing new here. Nevertheless, seduction has an old history and its own accepted mores, rules and values. The proper seducer simply more or less attacks the women, gently or roughly and sees how far he can get with her. Before he assaults her, he tries to read her mind and read the vibes to see if she will be receptive or not. If he is a good mind-reader, 90%+ of the time, the woman will react very willingly to the initial advances. If she says no, the man stops. Now psychological coercion and also sorts of deviousness and con artistry comes into place where the seducer tries to brainwash or hypnotize the women into being more physically forthcoming. Alternatively, the man may simply give up and go sit on the couch. Let’s get real here: seduction is a scam. It always has been and perhaps it always will be. I learned very early that the earnest straightforward approach was the road to failure. One of the first things I learned was, “Never ask a woman if she wants to have sex or if she wants to do anything sexual. Don’t give her a chance to think about it. Once she starts thinking about it, she might decide that she doesn’t want to do it.” Keeping that in mind, feminists have come up with a brilliant new scheme to drive a stake through the heart of the seduction process. According to feminists, the male must ask permission for each sexual escalation. The women then says either yes or no. If she affirms, he may escalate, but if she says no, he must drop everything and go sit on the couch with a bowl of popcorn and a movie. One “no” and the sexual behavior is over. Of course keeping in mind the brilliant evidence I was given as a young man, this asking for permission idiocy seems designed to drive a stake through the very heart of the heart of the seduction process which is to not give the woman a chance to think about what she is doing but to simply get her revved up so she is listening to her body and not her head. This is now the system in place at all California universities. This Alice in Wonderland system is also in place at other US universities. Anyway, if she says no and you proceed, you are now a rapist. Thanks a lot feminists!
  20. It is now possible to rape a woman who did not even object to her seduction. Traditionally, same male laws stated that women had to voice their objections to sexual activity. If the man proceeded anyway despite her forceful objections and physically forced himself on her, this could be seen as rape. Feminists have now thrown all of this out. You can now be a rapist even if the woman didn’t utter one peep of objection. This is because a woman’s silence to sexual escalations could mean affirmation or objection or everything or nothing. Who knows? If a woman is silent during the seduction process, men must become mind-readers and decide if this woman who is not saying no is nonetheless not consenting to sex. If a woman is neither saying “yes” or “no” then she could be assenting and you are in the clear or she could be objecting in which case you are now raping her. Yes you can rape a woman even if she never offered one peep of objection if you did not practice proper telepathy to decide if her silence meant yes or no. So now silence no longer indicates assent, as it would in any sane society. Instead we have to be mind-readers and seduction is turned into Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. This idiocy is now the law in the UK and on California college campuses. Feminists are 100% responsible for this abomination. Thanks feminists!
  21. The time-honored tradition dating back to English Common Law that states that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty has now been trashed by feminists. Accused rapists are now the equivalent of unlawful combatants in Guantanamo. All accused rapists are guilty until proven innocent in the UK and on California campuses. It is up to the man to prove the Kafkaesque assertion that he did not rape her. How a man is supposed to prove he did not rape a woman he probably had a date with and ended up in bed with is unknown. So we see that feminists resemble Republicans not only in their contempt for science but also in their desire to shred the very Constitution itself.

29 Comments

Filed under Borderline, Britain, California, Education, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Higher Education, Law, Mass Hysterias, Mental Illness, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West

How Female Rule Destroys Society: Examples from the West

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 touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first. If 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.

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, 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 girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old girl, a “child.”
  • Being aroused by a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old 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 female minor is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to a female minor 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.

33 Comments

Filed under Britain, Crime, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Higher Education, Law, Law enforcement, Mass Hysterias, North America, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA