Category Archives: Science

Is Psychiatry a Pseudoscience?

Vancouver! Vancouver! This is it!: I think Mr Lindsay would do well to read Crazy Like Us if he hasn’t already.

Is psychiatry a pseudoscience?

Yes and no. That is, the phenomena of mental illness are genuine, but their investigation is sorely lacking in rigor. This added to the fact that psychiatry is a business in the US and the Anglosphere more generally results in huge over-diagnosis, pathologizing difference, etc., and children are the easiest marks for this con.

As someone who works with people who have actual diagnosed DSM disorders on a regular basis, I definitely think that a lot of these things are real, and they are indeed disorders. We actually try very hard not to pathologize anything that could remotely be seen as normal conduct, and we cast a wide net for that phrase.

The people I deal with have Axis 1 disorders, and they are suffering from the most incredible pain and misery. Many of them are almost literally living in Hell. I lost one client to suicide. Further, the disorder often makes it very hard for them to function well in society. It’s not uncommon that I have clients who have been hospitalized, sometimes on multiple occasions.

Axis 2 is real too. Those are real disorders. I have known some people on Axis 2 (personality disorders), and trust me, they are not normal in any way, shape or form. Mostly they are making other people miserable, but the disorder is usually screwing up their own life in a big way too.

As far as psychiatry being a pseudoscience, well, I get people who are misdiagnosed all the time. I’m not allowed to give legal DSM diagnoses, but I tell them my opinion on what they have and how they are misdiagnosed. Often I get people diagnosed psychotic who are not psychotic at all.

Some of them are pretty crazy, but just because you feel really nuts does not mean you are psychotic. Psychosis is a loss of touch with reality. If you are not out of touch with reality, you are not psychotic. Psychosis is grossly misdiagnosed in the US. If you feel really crazy, you get diagnosed “psychotic.” It is just the field’s way of saying “this person is seriously crazy.” But seriously crazy is not the same thing as psychotic. You would not believe how nuts people can feel without being psychotic. Your world can get seriously weirded out when you are not even psychotic at all.

I also get people who are mis-prescribed all the time. Psychiatrists hand this stuff out like candy and they severely play down the side effects.

In short, yes it’s a real science, but we don’t have formal tests like lab tests or X-rays to actually make a perfect diagnosis. So we have to go on symptoms, and it can be quite hard to diagnose a mentally ill person correctly. I have dealt with people who had been diagnosed with 10-15 different disorders. There was no way that they currently had all of those conditions when I spoke to them. This person was extremely ill though, I would agree with that. Unbelievably ill.

19 Comments

Filed under Health, Medicine, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Psychotic Disorders, Science

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

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

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

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

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

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

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

My answer to this question on Quora:

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

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

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

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

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

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

6 Comments

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

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

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

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

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

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

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

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

My answer to this question on Quora:

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

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

The Strange Case of Magic Johnson’s HIV Infection

Gondwanan: But what explains Magic Johnson?

People have been wondering about that forever.

Not one of the many (1,100) women Magic had sex with has ever been known to have HIV. The woman who supposedly gave him the HIV has never been identified. It is quite a mysterious case. There were rumors that Magic was bisexual for some time before he came down with HIV. Yes, Magic was having sex with all sorts of call girls and sports groupies, but so were many of the big stars in LA in sports and entertainment. People discussing his case often note this. “Even though so many other men were doing exactly the same thing that Magic was doing with women, only Magic got HIV,” they note, leaving the implication up in the air. “Now why is that?” they ask. Rumors continue that he got it from a man.

On the other hand, Magic’s case is said to be so mild that even after all these years, he has not yet started on HIV drugs, and this is said to be compatible with his having gotten it from a woman because it is thought that female-male HIV transmission is so difficult that even when it does occur, the mode is so inefficient that the man only gets a weak dose of HIV.

People do not understand viruses. It’s all about viral load. You can be exposed to HIV and not get it, and in fact this happens all the time. If the titers are low, it simply will not transmit. This is the case in saliva. Yes there is HIV in saliva, but the titers are 99% lower than in semen or blood, so it is effectively impossible to transmit it.

There is also some new thinking that female-male HIV transmission is so weak that the man may require multiple dosings over a period of time in order to come down with HIV. In other words, he could get a bit of HIV each time he has sex with her possibly via vaginal fluids, but the titers are too low to infect at each time. However, with repeated dosings of low HIV-titer body fluid, perhaps a high enough level is built up that a threshold occurs beyond which infection can occur. But in this case, the mode was so inefficient and even the contracting dose or doses so weak that the theory is that the man may only get a weak HIV case.

And yes, your HIV case does depend on your viral load. With a low enough load, one may have only mild symptoms and may survive for decades, but with a high enough load via a very effective mode of transmission, HIV can kill you very rapidly, even within a year. Such cases continue to occur. Many such cases occurred in the gay porn industry and continue to occur to this day, especially among the “bareback” stars. HIV is so prevalent in the gay porn industry that I am not even sure that they test for it, and they let a lot of HIV-positive actors work anyway. Apparently if you fired all the HIV-positive gay porn stars or required only HIV-negative gay men to work in gay porn, you would not have much of a gay porn industry anymore.

25 Comments

Filed under Biology, Celebrities, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Pornography, Public Health, Science, Sex, Sports

Risks of Insertive Anal Sex

erikthered: Is anal with a woman safer than with a man?

You mean penetrating? I guess you mean being the penetrator and not the one being penetrated. Insertive anal sex is as risky with a man as with a woman, but no one quite knows even how risky insertive anal sex is anyway. Figures coming out of the gay community show that it does carry some risk, but it is far less risky than receptive anal sex. A friend of mine knows a gay man who says he did some research and now he has lots of gay sex with lots of men and he hasn’t gotten HIV yet. He said he only tops, and he never bottoms. He’s topped hundreds of gay men this way in recent years. Surely some of them were HIV positive.

There is at least one case in the porn world of a straight actor who got HIV from insertive sex on a porn set with some transsexual person or pre-op tranny or whatever the Hell it was. The actor got HIV from insertive anal with him/her/whatever.

There is another guy in porn who says he got it from a woman, but he doesn’t say how he got it.

Men are at risk of female-male HIV transmission in cases of penile and vaginal bleeding. The Padian Study in 1989 followed a number of HIV-serodiscordant heterosexual couples in which either the male or the female was HIV positive. Over a five year period through ~700 sex acts, 20% of the men had gotten HIV from their wives. This means that a man would have to have sex with an HIV positive woman 2,800 times in order to get HIV. Even after a man has sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times, he still only has a 1% chance of getting HIV. You have a 99% chance of not getting HIV even after having sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times for God’s sake!

In the Padian Study, female-male HIV transmission was highly correlated with episodes of vaginal and penile bleeding. Therefore it appears that the presence of blood during the sex act appears important in female-male HIV transmission. This makes sense as HIV is a blood-borne illness. Most people tend to forget that. Semen is only so transmissible because it is full of blood (little known fact).

I have studied titer levels needed to transmit HIV, and looking at HIV titers of HIV positive women in the US, I am a bit baffled at how it even transmits because the levels seem to low to transmit.

Vaginal titers are quite a  bit higher in HIV positive prostitutes in Thailand and this makes sense as female-male transmission is happening a lot more over there. But even in Thailand, most female-male HIV transmission was found to be occurring due to vaginal bleeding in prostitutes servicing too many man a day. Even with that going on, the recent introduction of condoms reduced nearly eliminated that transmission. So condoms appear to be effective even in the presence of vaginal bleeding.  This also makes sense if female-male HIV transmission is going via blood instead of vaginal fluid.

In addition, the urethra appears to be an inefficient vehicle to receive HIV. Anal and vaginal walls which may experience tiny tears are much better for transmission, especially the former. Anal walls are much more susceptible to tiny tears and microscopic bleeding than vaginal walls are, hence insertive anal sex would seem to put the insertive partner at greater risk due to increased chances of exposure to blood via the anus of the partner. This is probably the reason for the somewhat elevated risk from anal sex.

17 Comments

Filed under Asia, Biology, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Pornography, Public Health, Regional, Science, SE Asia, Sex, Thailand

Why Am I Gay? Is It True That People Are “Born Gay”?

Question from Quora:

My answer:

And no one knows if gay men are “born that way” either, however, the latest research indicates that male homosexuality appears to be a developmental issue or developmental disorder if you will.

Something goes wrong in the womb with the mother’s hormonal levels, and this appears to cause male homosexuality along with a lot of other things such as left-handedness. In fact, left-handed men have an elevated rate of homosexuality. If it really is a developmental disorder like left-handedness, then people are indeed “born that way.” Not only born gay, but also born straight and perhaps bisexual, etc.

Females seem to be able to move around a lot more, and some lesbians can be changed in the lab. Whether they go from lez to straight or to bisexual is not known, but they are able to react to men after therapy in the lab. So at least some females can change their orientation.

If males are stuck at whatever their orientation is, they have no choice other than to accept it. If you are gay, you’re gay. If you’re straight, you’re straight. If you are bisexual, you’re bisexual. Quit trying to change yourself, and just be happy with who you are.

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Science, Sex

How, If At All, Is the Accent, Pitch and Voice of Gay Men Different Than That of Straight Men and How Accurate is Voice in Determining Sexual Orientation?

Question from Quora.

My response:

Most of these answers are simply going to be wrong in that particular PC, Gay Identity Politics way which is sadly so common among gay men these days. It is sad that gay men have taken up Gay Identity Politics because like all IP, it is based on lies. Gays take up IP like any other group does to protect themselves.

With most IP groups, there are negative things about that group that are flat out factual. The purpose of IP for gays or anyone is to exalt their identity, blow up all the great things about themselves and play down or usually to flat out lie about all of the bad things about the group.

The purpose of this is simple: the IP group feels that the truth is dangerous and if the truth about the negative things about the group get out, that could lead to prejudice. This is not a completely irrational fear. Because the IP group fears more prejudice, they lie and deny all the negative things about the group. Sadly, in most IP groups, this leads to near incessant lying, sophistry, logical fallacies and all sorts of lawyerese, diplomat-speech, half truth types of bullshit.

The Gay IP claim is that gay men are no more likely to be effeminate than anyone else. Yes, some gay men are effeminate, but some straight men are effeminate too. This is factually correct but like most sophistry it is a form of lying and deliberately obscures the truth.

I have been around gay men for much of my life. I hung out in Hollywood for years and Hollywood is gay as Hell, maybe even gayer than San Francisco. After about 10 years there, I had a crash course in homosexuality. Also I have known a fair number of homosexuals. In addition, for some reason, I am gaybait for gay men, countless numbers of whom have hit on me over the years. I have no idea why they love me so much. You tell me. Anyway, after all that, I feel I could write an encyclopedia entry on male homosexuality.

The truth is this: 75% of all gay men experience something called Sissy Boy Syndrome when growing up, and 75% of sissy boys end up becoming gay. As gay men are only 3% of all men and 75% of sissy boys grow up gay, you can see that sissy boy backgrounds are incredibly more likely among gay men than among straight men. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

75% of gay men were sissy boys. These are feminine to effeminate boys who renounce the usual rough and tumble dog eat dog trial by fire Masculinity Boot Camp called Normative Boyhood. Most heterosexual men go through this vicious process by which rather sensitive boys are beaten figuratively and literally into masculine men. Most come out of it ok, but some are damaged.

Gay men as boys seem to sit out this whole process. The effeminate boys did not play with us and we taunted, teased and ridiculed us. Effeminate boys were not welcome in our boy circle and I fear for any effeminate boy who tried to join. My understanding is that while most boys are going through Camp Pendleton for Boys, pre-gay boys or gay boys in the kitchen with Mom baking muffins. Now I could be wrong. But this is my perception.

I do not blame gay boys for bailing out of Boy Boot Camp as it is one Hell of a vicious and brutal place. But by never having their masculinity questioned much, perhaps the feminine behaviors get stuck. I have no idea.

Now why so many gay men were sissy boys is not known. It is probably biological and the effeminate behavior probably goes along with the homosexuality.

Perhaps gay men have brains that are like women’s brains. After all, the female brain wants to have sex with a man. And the gay male brain wants to have sex with a man also. In order to attract a man for sex, women act feminine and fluttery. When a woman wants sex, she often turns up the feminine behaviors to where she is almost a Southern belle. By the way, this is one way to tell if a woman wants to have sex with you. Women do this because feminine behaviors turn on men and make men want to have sex with the feminine female object. It’s all sexual signaling.

So when gay men want to have sex with a man, they act feminine just as straight women do in order to turn on the man. Perhaps gay men, still being men, are turned on by feminine behavior as all men are. Hence gay men are turned on by effeminate behavior in other gay men. Also when gay men hit on you, they dramatically increase their effeminate behavior for some reason. I know this because it has happened to me many times. I am not sure what they are doing? Sexual signaling?

Anyway, many and probably most gay men are at least somewhat effeminate in behavior. Often the most noticeable behavior is voice. Gay men themselves note this many times as in the common saying, “I didn’t know he was gay until he opened his mouth and a purse fell out.”

Also there is pressure in the gay community to act effeminate as straight acting men can be treated badly. I recall one straight acting gay men was a bartender in a gay bar and dealt with constant comments of, “Fire the straight guy,” “What’s this straight guy doing here,” “Since when do you hire straight guys,” “Why does this bar have a straight bartender,” etc.

In fact, effeminate behavior especially voice in a man is a pretty good way to out a homosexual man. The problem here is that many conflate feminine men with effeminate men. Many heterosexual men could be called feminine. They have soft voices, are sensitive, pretty, soft, wimpy, passive and kind and often are just not very masculine or or certainly not hypermasculine or macho. However, most of these soft straight men do have a certain “soft” masculinity about them.

A gay men pointed this out to me for the first time and a light went off. I do think that gay men understand the nature of masculine – feminine – effeminate men much more than any other humans. And they have an excellent understanding of masculinity itself.

If you can ever learn to tell the feminine men (who are mostly straight) from the effeminate men (who are mostly gay) then you are halfway there already.

It is often said that there are effeminate straight men. Technically this is true but once again this is sophistry. Yes, I have met a few effeminate straight men in my life and more commonly you see straight men who are effeminate sometimes and not at other times. In other words, they turn it on and turn it off.

Some straight men who are feminine, passive, and wimpy can become defeated by life and essentially run up the white flag and surrender. At these times of low self esteem, the passivity, wimpiness, helplessness, etc. gets an effeminate component added to it. Straight effeminate men can easily be mistaken for being gay because, well, to act effeminate is to act like a gay man.

There are some married men often with 3–5 kids who are absolutely flamingly effeminate to the point where you notice them. They always baffle people who shake their heads and somehow accept them anyway. Such a man will be very accepted in straight society even though people will say, “He acts like a faggot!” Others will quickly point out the wife and 4 kids and then the others will quiet down. In straight society, the wife and kids are enough to get accepted albeit reluctantly as a heterosexual.

It’s not how you act but what you do. However a gay man I know said he has followed this married flamers over a period of time ranging from 5–20 years and he said that all of these married flamers had come out as gay and left their wives and kids sooner or later during that time frame. So if you meet one of these flaming men who are married with children, a bit of skepticism may be in order.

While effeminate straight men are maybe 1% of the straight population if that, effeminacy is much more common among gay men. I would guess that maybe ~65–75%??? of gay men are effeminate to one degree or another.

Those that are not are commonly not so much masculine by can be wimpy (commonly extremely wimpy, much more wimpy than a straight man) or soft like the feminine straight men described above.

Some gay men do indeed act out and out straight. They look and act no different from any “regular guy.” However, I think that they are not common. The % of truly straight acting gay men may only be ~15%??? Anderson Cooper is a very famous and excellent example of a gay man who acts completely straight. In fact, I watched him for years and thought he was just another straight man until he stunned me by coming out.

There are even some gay men who are not just straight acting but are actually hypermasculine to macho in the exaggerated manner of many straight men. Jack Donovan is an extremely masculine gay men. He is one of the most masculine men out there and he is totally gay. I saw another hypermasculine gay man in a movie about bugchasing. This was one of the most masculine men of any orientation that I have ever met (reminded me of a longshoreman, sailor or merchant marine). I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that he was gay.

Hypermasculine or macho gay men are extremely uncommon. I would say less than 1% of gay men are like this.

So, like everything else, the continuum of hypermasculine – masculine – feminine – effeminate behaviors among gay men exists as it does among straight men. However, the graphs will look dramatically different when we plot them out and effeminate men will be dramatically more common among gay men and hypermasculine men will be profoundly more common among straight men. So gay men do tend to be more effeminate than straight men, but it is just a tendency, not a hard law. And straight men do tend to be more macho than gay men, but once again this is a tendency and not a law.

If true male homosexuality is biological as it seems, then the effeminate type behavior seems to be part of the package that results from this biological mechanism. In other words, the homosexual orientation and the effeminate behavior are bound hand in hand. And if the effeminate behavior is caused by the same biological mechanism as the homosexuality, then it might be hard to change. Anyway after years of effeminate behavior, many gay men will develop a behavior pattern that becomes ingrained and second nature and is extremely difficult to change.

If the effeminacy is as biological as the homosexuality, maybe we ought to give effeminate gay men some slack on the grounds that they can’t help it. If we are to accept their orientation, perhaps we should accept the effeminate behavior that rides along with it.

A typical stupid response from an obvious homosexual and my response to that. Note that his or its response is completely in line with the lies that Gay Politics peddles on an everyday basis. The main reason I oppose Gay Politics is because it seems to be nothing but lies.

If a boy grows up around women he might as well adopt the ‘female/feminine’ traits and even how they sound and naturally act. Your description of boyhood is interesting but that’s no indication of a man’s sexuality (trust me, I’ve been there, someone isn’t ‘gay’ because they’re playing house dolls and dress-me-up with girls as not every tomboy who plays rough turns out to be a lesbian).

The girls and boys who act extra masculine and feminine, respectively, may be seen as defying the social ‘norm’, but that’s no indication of their sexual orientation (for example, how would you explain bisexuality, gay/lesbian trans, etc. if it’s all black and white masculine/feminine?). Some boys may even be gay but they’ve been told not to ‘threaten’ their masculinity because they feel attraction towards the same sex and try to mask it with ‘masculinity’ growing up, how would explain that?

My response to his Gay Politics claptrap:

Kanchand, as the post says, there is a strong tendency for gay men to be more effeminate. ~75% of gay men are at least a bit effeminate. ~1% of straight men are effeminate. That’s a profound difference right there. The studies on sissy boys indicate that 25% of sissy boys actually grow up to be heterosexual men! I assume many of them become more masculine as they grow up in order to fit into the heterosexual world.

75% of gay men were sissy boys growing up. The % of straight men who were sissy boys must be quite small. We are looking at percentages here, not hard and fast laws. Everything is tendencies, not absolutes.

Also lesbians are much more likely to have been tomboys as girls and many are quite masculine as adults. Yes some straight women were also tomboys, but I have met some of these women, and they seem as feminine as any woman.

A man who acts extra feminine as you put it is highly likely to be gay. A woman who acts extra masculine is highly likely to be lesbian.

Bisexual men vary. I have met many of them. The more effeminate the bi man is, the more he prefers men to women. In fact, a number of these often closeted bisexual men are simply closeted gay men who are in denial. Many “bisexual” men like this can be seen in their 20’s. They are married or have girlfriends but spend most of their time in gay bars or hanging around gay men. By age 30, most are done pretending and have come out as fully gay. Closets are for clothes!

The more masculine a bisexual man is the more he prefers sex with women. In fact the vast majority of “gay” men who are extremely masculine have quite a bit of sex with women. You see this in a lot of “gay” male criminals.

Transwomen when they are out are obviously much more effeminate than most gay men. Transmen when they are out are often much more effeminate than even most lesbians. Transsexualism is often just an extreme form of homosexuality in my opinion. The gayest of the gay men tend to be drag queens of nowadays some type of transwoman. The butchest of lesbians often become either bull dykes or some type of transman.

This sort of thing is a lot simpler than most people with a Gay IP agenda of water muddying would have you believe. Masculinity is correlated with heterosexuality. The more masculine a man is, the more he prefers and has women for sex partners. Masculinity is a marker for heterosexuality in men.

The more effeminate a man is, the more he prefers and has men for sex partners. The dykier a bisexual woman is, the more she prefers or has women for sex partners. Most bisexual women who are feminine or act like normal straight women tend to prefer men over when. Femininity is a marker for heterosexuality in women. The more feminine the woman, the more she prefers and has men for sex partners.

This stuff isn’t rocket science, folks. There is no need to unnecessarily confuse something that is pretty straightforward unless you are doing it for a political reason.

This is my careful observation after 58 years on this planet and you are welcome to disagree.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Politics, Psychology, Science, Sex

Official Renunciation of Two Alt Left Groups and Two Alt Left Factions

According to Ryan England’s seminal work on the Alt Subtypes these are the main subtypes:

“The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still.  Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

“Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics, though they are usually not that far Left.  Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory.  Remember kids that SJW and social liberalism are not the same things.  Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

“Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

“True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJW’s lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the alt-left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

“Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support.  Used as a pejorative by the “Lorettas” of the present day left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

“The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left you’d find /leftypol/ on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol.  A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the alt left.  I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

A few types that I have not seen many of and would have expected more are:

Christian Leftists (Catholic Social Teaching, the social gospel and even liberation theology seem especially well suited to alt-leftism),

and

Dissident Feminists  Surely, some feminists must be frustrated with what’s happened to their movement.  It’s been a long, long time since anything this dogmatic, intolerant, and puritanical has arisen in the western world.  Those well meaning devotees to feminism and social justice time and again are the ones who come under the sternest censure for the most minor of transgressions.  How many women out there, after getting called out one time too many for some sleight micro-aggression or another think “screw this” and drift away from the movement, while still holding to its essential ideals?  Many, I would think.  I would hope.  They can’t be that hive-minded, could they?  In any event, if there are, the alt-left must be the port-of-call for women of liberal sentiment overall who reject this 21st century rehash of 16th century puritan culture.

We have already discussed most of these types here, and we can do so again if you wish. But I would like to highlight one group in particular and say that I am renouncing them and want no part of them in our movement. I am tossing them out, in other words. Well out of my Alt Left faction anyway. And as the person who created the Alt Left, I think I might want to have some say on who’s in and who’s out.

The faction I am renouncing is here:

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

I just came from an Alt Left Facebook group that threw me, the founder of the movement, out of the group. And this is apparently the shitposting site for the Sam Harris group on Facebook. So these are the Sam Harris people and this is what Sam Harris people are like. Well, guess what? You’re out. As far as I can tell, you want no part our movement and we want no part of yours. Most of you are not Alt Left anyway – and many of you are actively hostile to us. Well guess what? If you are hostile to us, ou are out. Bye bye. They’re not a part of the Alt Left at all. They can go off and form their own movement and call it Sam Harris’ Jerkoff Boys Movement or whatever.

I am also renouncing two Alt Left Facebook groups who have nothing to do with our movement.

Alt-Left: Those would be the “less crazy but still crazy SJW’s and sexual deviants centered around the Alt-Left site. Renounced. You’re not us. Bye.

Alt-Leftists: The other would be the Alt-Leftists group on Facebook, which is run by Sam Harris execrable crowd. It’s not that we on on the Alt Left do not have concerns with Islam and radical Islam. It’s not that we have no concerns with Muslim integration into the US or even Europe. We just feel that it is not a core issue and it brings in far too many people who are opposed to the core principles of the movement. You’re out. Bye. It was not pleasant having you over.

Also a new faction has emerged in the True Liberals Faction. Suffice to say that these are the crazy SJW’s who are fighting the crazier SJW’s. The movement is mostly made up of sexual deviants to boot, which makes even less palatable to us. Of course true biological gay men and lesbians are welcome in any faction of our movement, but it is beyond me why would need an Alt Left gay faction? I mean I am open to the idea, but what would it look like?

Anyway, here is the new faction:

True Liberals: Anti-racist, pro-feminist (pro equity feminism, in any event) but put off by SJW extremism.  I’ve noticed a subcategory of these who are, say, cisgendered gay males or transgender people who’ve quarreled with trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERF’s.)  I’ll call these kinds Equal Rights Advocates.  Perhaps you recognize yourself among them, dear reader?

These people are not us either. They were hostile to the founder of the movement and in the short time I was in their group, they were violating quite a few of our principles, including some of core principles. They’re not one of us, or they are not part of my group anyway. They need to leave. There is no room for these showboating SJW freaks and weirdos in our Alt Left. We are trying to get away from the 24-7 Gay Pride Parade in the Streets that the Cultural Left seems intent to shove down our throats.

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Catholicism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Homosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Science, Sex, Socialism, US Politics, Weirdos

Just Got Thrown Out of Two Alt Left Facebook Groups

I have now been thrown out of two different Alternative Left groups on Facebook.

 

That is actually rather funny. I believe one was called Alt-Left and the most recent one was called Alt-Leftists. The Alt Left group were just PC Cultural Left SJW’s who were mad at some even more insane Cultural Left types who they felt had gone too crazy for even the crazies to bear. So it was crazy people attacking crazier people.

I finally figured out that the group had two, two, I said two separate moderators, both of whom were transsexuals! And I had thought one was a woman all along! A  weird looking woman but a woman nonetheless. So the group was run by two transwomen, which is a statement right there because that sort of thing should not be as common as weeds like that. Transsexualism to me is a once in a blue moon type thing, but it’s turned into a blades of grass in a field thing – there are a huge number of them, and they are everywhere. Every time you turn around, there’s some transsexual something or other. It’s madness.

Further, the group was full of homosexuals, gay men. I was on one thread, a commenter asked who was gay, and most of the commenters started lighting up the screen saying they were gay, or bi, or poly or pan or whatever the Hell. I was just about the only cis straight man in the thread. As such, I was a weirdo. See what I mean? The Cultural Left is trying to make it so the freaks are the norm and the normal people are the freaks instead of the other way around the way it should be.

It’s getting to the point where if you are not down with whatever the Cultural Left weirdness du jour is, you are some sort of an uptight, puritanical prig who is against fun and hung up about sex because you won’t go out and suck a penis like all the other hip “bi-curious” guys are doing or let your wife peg you with a strap-on and cuck you with some Black bulls like all the other hipster husbands are doing. To be a cis straight guy now is almost like being a stern, censorious party-pooper.

I started going off on transsexuals in the way that I usually do and they all freaked out. But before they had started attacking me on race, homosexuality, feminism and lots of other Cultural Left hot buttons. The way they responded to me was straight out of the SJW handbook. They even attacked me for using the term Cultural Left which they claimed I was using as a cover for Cultural Marxism, which is a concept and conspiracy theory that I do not even happen to believe in. It was not long before I was booted.

With these latest clowns, all I did was say I founded the movement, these were the core founding principles, and what do you all think of them? They started unloading on me all over the place.

The “Alt-Leftists” group was full of economic conservatives, Libertarians, supporters of the Republican Party, neoliberals, free marketeers of all sorts, etc. One of the founding Alt Left principles was that we rejected all of that. If you believe in that, you are out.

The pillars and principles of my version of the Alt Left have been laid out carefully. Others have made manifestos and principles about their particular take on it. My attitude is, “Everyone form their own faction.” That sounds insane, but wait a minute. If you go down the line and see my principles of the Alt Left in my pieces, do you really agree with every single one of my views? Come on.

So your own “faction” would be your own particular Alt Left principles, values, and positions on a variety of political issues of the day. Your “faction” could be you just go down my list of principles and say you agree or disagree, and any caveats you have in addition to those two statements. Got it?

Look, few people have the same values, principles and positions as other people. In a way, it seems like when you have 30-40 different issues that you are working on as we are, most people are going to have a different take on that set of issues. They will agree with some, disagree with others, and agree or disagree with qualifications on others.

However, we do have some boundaries around the Big Tent. At some point, you are just not Alt Left anymore. In order to be Alt Left, you have to be down with at least the very core principles of the movement that we will not budge or compromise on. Agent Commie has listed some of these over on his site. I have listed them many times myself, and if you want, I will list them again in another post. You go beyond a certain point, and you’re just out. Bye bye.

Now obviously just because I founded the Alt Left (along with a few others not far behind like Rabbit, Ryan England and Prince of Queens) doesn’t mean that I get to take the movement in any direction I want to. Others can carry the banner and run off and splinter away all they like.

Imagine if someone had invented a movement called “Conservatism” in the early 1800’s after the French Revolution as Burke pretty much did. He and some later folks, especially Kirk, laid down more basic principles. Now suppose the movements that called themselves Conservatives started taking off in directions that the founders had not envisioned?

Well that’s perfectly fine of course, and this happens to movements all the time.

How far away is modern feminism from the feminism envisioned by the founders of the movement in the early 1960’s like Friedan, Streisand, Abzug, Greer, Wills and some others? Who knows? Movements take off on their own once birthed by whomever, and there’s no rule or law that says that movements have to exactly like what the founder wanted. And it’s not immoral or improper for a movement to do so. Movements can do whatever the Hell they want to. It’s perfectly fine for them to veer off in their own direction, even if it is quite far from what the founders wanted. That’s perfectly acceptable, and that’s the way or the world.

You give birth to kids, raise them to have certain values, and they turn out however. Maybe they completely reject the values you instilled in them. What I am saying is that just because you give birth to something – anything – there’s nothing stopping and nothing wrong with the thing you birthed taking off in whatever direction it wants to, not caring what the person who birthed it had in mind.

Turns out all these Alt-Leftist idiots care about is being radical skeptical scientistic atheists. It’s all about Islam. Islam is the issue of the day. Oh, and Christianity too. Oh, and by the way, we hate all religions, did you know that? Another aspect of them was a jihad against SJW’s. Now I hate SJW’s as much as anyone, and they hate me too. Actually they started it between them and me.

But they’re not what’s important. What’s important is stopping these fascist freak Libertarian Minarchist maniacs who took over the government from destroying our whole society once and for all. The war is against Trump, everyone who is with Trump, the entire Republican party and the very principles of conservatism in general. Trump and this new insane government is the five alarm fire in the American neighborhood. Fighting stupid SJW’s or ranting about religion or even Islam is like going after the boy playing with matches while the disco down the street burns down with 100 people inside of it. There are these things called priorities.

And really which is worse, SJW’s or radical social conservative reactionaries? Who’s worse, Trump and the Republicans or the Cultural Left? Come on, people!

As much as I hate those SJW’s, I will ally with them against the Republicans because the Republicans are the enemy right now, particularly the maniacs that have taken over the US government.

And commenter Tulio is correct. This indeed a fascist movement. We have been yelling and warning about this at least since the 2000 election was stolen. Maybe they had some fascist characteristics before then, I have no idea. But it’s been getting worse and worse, and I believe somewhat more fascist (George W. Bush was almost a crypto-fascist, pseudo-fascist or pre-fascist) with every election, to the point where we now have a full-blown US fascist movement of our very own that looks exactly like people like Upton Sinclair said it would look like back in the 1930’s.

Everyone who is with the Trumspter fascists is a fascist themselves, whether they realize it or not. And certainly everyone helping them at the state and local levels is a fascist. I would go so far as to say that the US Republican Party is now a fascist political party, particularly the Trumspter faction. Everyone wants to leave out the Never Trump Republicans, but trust me, I know them very well, and they are pretty fascist themselves, about on the George W. Bush level. The Trumpsters are the grownup fascists, and the rest of them are the teenage fascists who wear the latest outfits all the time so we can’t figure out what they are.

I will throw down a challenge right now. Show me any significant Republican Party figure, and I will see if they are fascist or fascist-like. I do not think there are many non-fascists left in the party. But let’s play the game.

Here is my post on Alt Left and Radical Center, a group that has not thrown me out yet.

Just got thrown out of another Alt Left group. This was  Alt-Leftists. They have gone so far away from my vision that I am renouncing them. It’s all “fight Islam and fight SJW’s!” Hell with that. To me, the task of the Alt Left right now is to fight the Right. One of our founding principles is Anti-Conservatism. We do not accept rightwingers of any way, shape or form with exceptions for social conservatives, race/gender realists, etc. And we are not militant atheists.

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Fascism, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Islam, Left, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Religion, Republicans, Science, Sex, US Politics, Weirdos