Category Archives: Scum

A Principal Tenet of the Alt Left – Hostility to Conservatism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

173 Comments

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

The AltLeft “Tea Party,” by Rabbit

The AltLeft “Tea Party”

Very nice new article about the Alt Left from Rabbit. I actually still like Rabbit. He is apparently not happy at with Trump. He described most of Trump’s Cabinet picks as “cringey” which is at the very least how I feel about them. Actually to me they are more like “”homicidal rage-inducing” but at this point, that’s a bit of a quibble. Rabbit is on the same page with all the rest of the Left on Trumpism except on the broad race, immigration and possibly trade policy stuff. But he already seems to be selling out the trade stuff horrendously. He’s selling out the immigration stuff too. Too bad the Mexicans aren’t going to pay for the wall. You and me are! Out of our pockets into the mitts of one of one of Trump’s billionaire pals via a rigged no-bid contract. Reverse Robin Hood again, but Reverse Robin Hood is all Trumpism is about anyway. Think about it. Real hard now.

and I don’t see how he could be given Rabbit’s base political beliefs. A lot of the rest of the left wing of the Alt Right has gone over to Trumpism, and to me, that’s all I need to sever ties with them once and for all.

The thing about Rabbit is the same thing that everyone gets wrong about the Alt Left. Rabbit is a Leftist, dammit. He really is a leftwinger. He’s a man of the Left. So many people just cannot wrap their heads around that. If you look at his views across the board, Rabbit is leftwing on just about everything but race and the Cultural Left, and even on the Cultural Left, he is with them on a lot more things than I am. Rabbit holds traditional leftwing notions on sexual orientation, gender identity, feminism, etc. He’s not a social conservative at all. In fact, he is to the left of me on a lot of that stuff. On the other hand, he seems personally red-pilled and he spent a lot of time in the Manosphere and the MGTOW movement before he drifted into the Alt Left.

If he’s leftwing on about everything but race and PC Culture, how the hell is he a rightwinger? I don’t see how missing one check box on the leftwing list of beliefs throws you out of the Left. Suppose we say Rabbit cannot be on the Left due to his views on race (a common notion). In fact, we say, his racial views make him a rightwinger no matter what else gets thrown into the mix. Ok, fine, cast him out.

He’s back over on the Right now. Rabbit gets handed the rightwing checklist. Whereas with the Left he failed to check one box, with the Right he fails to check 95% of the boxes. And somehow he’s rightwing? Forget it. Getting beyond left and right is said to be a well known trope of fascism, but so what? Maybe we do need to get beyond left and right and maybe we don’t have to be fascists to do that. In fact, the Alt Left is precisely all about getting beyond Left and Right to some extent, although we are still mostly on the Left. There’s nothing inherently wrong with heterogeneous politics, and this represents your average person’s views anyway. Homogeneous politics is synonymous with ideologues, and who needs them. Give me a sui generis heterogeneous political mix versus any sort of ideologue any day of the week.

Whatever you think of his stand on race, I believe that Rabbit is a very important thinker in our movement, and besides, let’s get real, race is only part of the package Rabbit is selling. You can still buy a custom package minus the race part. Furthermore, he is a superior chronicler and opinion-maker in our movement as a whole, and Rabbit doesn’t care if you don’t agree

It’s not often discussed, but I also like his media criticism, most of which centers around movie reviews. He has a quirky sense there too, focusing on films from the 1970’s. His architectural musings are also quite good, though I don’t know much about the subject. And there’s something about a guy who unironically lionizes Charles Manson

I also very much like his prose and also a lot of his quirky worldview. I am trained as an editor and Rabbit’s prose is what we call “clean copy.” You needn’t mark it up at all, and he’s saying it better than you the editor could anyway. The rules of English punctuation are quite arcane, and 95% of Americans screw them up. Rabbit’s pretty much got them down. You would think he was a J-major.

But as far as a writer goes, he is one of the finest writers in our movement. He’s a great writer! He should be published, and in fact, I believe he is just now as he deserves to be. As a writer, most of what I read is not really great writing. Only maybe 10% of the time do you read prose on the Net that truly sings right off the page. I don’t know if he’s better than I am, but it’s awful close. It’s at least a tossup, and that’s a compliment, as I dislike most other writers.

As long as he keeps away from racial slurs, his prose is worth it for the political theory and just for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it.

A lot of people want to throw Rabbit out of the movement. Funny because he just about co-founded it. Thing is, Rabbit ain’t going anywhere, nor should he. He’s staying right where he is whether we like it or not. Rabbit is stuck with the Alt Left, and we are stuck with him. We are stuck onto each other like damned remoras. And perhaps after all that is just as it should be.
teapartyalice

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I don’t mean “Tea Party” in the sense of the happy meal conservative movement that emerged in the early part of the Obama administration. Nor am I referring to anything relating to the Boston Tea Party or the American revolution.

I’m talking about the AltLeft and how for me it has come to resemble the tea party in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972 version of course!) This film was always on HBO in the mid 1980s, even though it came out in the early 70s. I believe the reason they began to re-air it in the 80s was because the star, Fiona Fullerton, had grown up and re-emerged as a Bond girl in “A View to a Kill,” which came out in 1985.

Anyway, when I first got involved with the AltLeft about a year and a half ago, in my mind it was always meant to augment the AltRight, not outright oppose it. It was a way to view and examine the affects of multiculturalism and political correctness from a cultural and economically left lens as well as from a secular and futurist perspective rather than the radical traditionalist, socially conservative one that dominates rightwing circles. In other words, recognizing the implicit Whiteness that underpins the identities of progressive cities like Seattle or Portland, and asserting that it must become explicit to some degree in order for those places to maintain their culture, aesthetic and quality of life.

It was to put forth the idea that someone can be pro-White without the albatross of traditionally conservative culture, pre-modern aesthetics, capitalist economics, or widely accepted Republican historical dogma (“the 60s were bad,” “Vietnam draft dodgers were traitors,” “McCarthy was right,” “I hate modern architecture,” etc.)

If you hang around rightwing groups for any period of time, you’ll find they have an assumed historical narrative that informs many of their beliefs. I say “assumed,” because they just take it for granted that everyone who agrees with them one issue such as race also accepts their historical framing of a wide range of other issues such as economic systems, religious beliefs, or aesthetic preferences (just as someone on the “Left” might assume that anyone who supports trans rights and raising the minimum wage automatically accepts the idea that racial diversity is always a good thing.) Not everyone buys the package deal.

manson

Unfortunately, the AltLeft has instead attracted a wide range of bizarre characters, each with their own zany ideas about what the AltLeft should represent. Many of them never read any of the original manifestos that I or Robert Lindsay or anyone else wrote or bothered to do any research. They just started using the term like they’d started a new band without checking to see if some other band was already using the name. That would be understandable if this were the pre-Internet days, but it seriously only takes like two seconds to Google. Others actually did thoroughly read this site and somehow managed to come to the conclusion their peculiar ideology was compatible with mine, despite it being a complete mystery to me what exactly was the point of agreement.

The AltLeft has come to attract all kinds of eccentric personalities, each one adhering to their own pet belief system. Worse than that, many have joined the AltLeft for the purpose of militantly opposing the AltRight, which is something I never intended to do (hence the reason I still use the tagline “the left wing of the AltRight.”) Though I disagree with him on a few ideological points…I happen to support Richard Spencer, and I have defended him numerous times when certain squeamish (and often prudish) factions as well as a few prominent figures of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to throw him under the bus.

So when I interact with other people in the incoherent “movement” known as the AltLeft, it feels a lot like the sitting down at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. It’s a group of outlandish castouts, contrarians, and vagabonds that have little in creatural commonality other than their politically idiosyncratic tendencies and behavioral eccentricities. Part of me finds this demoralizing, wondering why I ever bothered going down this rabbit hole and whether I can just climb out and forget the whole adventure. Yet the other part of me just embraces the gathering of this zany cast of characters for the sheer chaos that they have unleashed as we bounce off-the-wall ideas past each other and revel at the sight confounded normies that stumble into our world.

6 Comments

Filed under Cinema, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sane Pro-White, US Politics, Vanity, Writing

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

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

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

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

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

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

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

My answer to this question on Quora:

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

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

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

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

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

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

6 Comments

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

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

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

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

Chris:

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

They are heavily socialized to this view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

110 Comments

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

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

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

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

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

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

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

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

My answer to this question on Quora:

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

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

Realist Left Replies to Robert Lindsay

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

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

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

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

I agree and yet also respectfully disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Realist Left, comment here.

Lord Keynes responds below:

Yes, this more or less nails it.

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

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

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

Leave a comment

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

One Thing People Keep Forgetting: Alt Leftists ARE Leftists

From Facebook:

Dan Paton: Little do they know that if we starve enough people, we’ll have a Communist utopia.  Yes, of course. First starvation, then the Utopian Star Trek society. Because trade is no longer necessary. It all makes sense now.

Alt Leftists are not supposed to be rightwing anti-Communist fanatics. Even those of us who do not like Communism criticize it from the Left, not the Right, and even they have a certain amount of respect for it even if they think it doesn’t work. The whole “Communism starves the people” nonsense has been proven endlessly to be not true, and it’s just rightwing anti-Communist cant.

We have to keep reminding people forever that Alt Leftists are Leftists. The word “left” is not put in there as some sort of a joke. It’s real. And it says, “left,” not “right.” If you really more on the right, head on over to the Alt Right or the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party or Hell, even the DNC Democratic Party nowadays. But leave us alone please.

People just don’t get this about us, and I have to keep repeating this over and over.

I remember a White nationalist posted an interview of me saying, “Alt Left, these guys are interesting.”

This other WN said, “Meh, it’s just the same old namecalling Left. Racist, sexist, prejudiced, bigoted, homophobic, etc.”

And they other guy said, “Well, what do you expect? I mean, they ARE Leftists. But it’s a step in the right direction.”

I cannot emphasize this too many times. We are Leftists. Now we might be really, really weird Leftists, but we are still Leftists and always will be. People keep forgetting that, and we get called Nazis, fascists, reactionaries, conservatives, Republicans, bla bla constantly, and none of it is true.

As a matter of fact, one of the pillars of the Alt Left from the very earliest days is “Anti-Conservatism.” We dislike conservatism at its very core essence from
Burke to Kirk to Trump and before and beyond, especially the US conservative movement and the Republican Party.*

It’s just that we think that the Cultural Left has gone so far to the Left in their anti-conservatism that they are off in La La Land. We are on the Left, but we are not insane! And this is our main and only beef with the Cultural Left.

We hate conservatism and SJW’s! We think they both suck! We disagree that everyone needs to pick one of these terrible/insane choices. We happen to think there is a middle ground between the leftwing loons and the rightwing malignancies. But that said, we definitely hate conservatives much more than SJW’s. The conservatives are the our deadliest enemies, and there can be no peace with them, ever. The fight goes on until we take them out or they take us out. Zero sum game. I’m serious. Dead serious.

The SJW’s, on the other hand, are mostly just annoying, insect-like creatures similar to mosquitoes or gnats. Now granted, sometimes they are as bad as Alaskan mosquito swarms, but at the end of the day, it’s still just a damned mosquito, and bug spray still works pretty well. I highly recommend bug spray for both mosquitoes, SJW’s and other buzzing, swarming insects.

SJW’s are annoying pests. Conservatives are Enemy #1.

*We might be open to some other types of conservatism such as the Marine Le Pen Right in France. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Marine Le Pen is not even rightwing at all. Instead, she’s straight up Alt Left.

10 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Europe, France, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Daryl Basarab Talks Alt Left

Here.

The real group that needs to be purged is the group of people that don’t have a true sense of Marxist dialectics but think putting in a LGBT, female or minority President on its own is an accomplishment. Why is it an accomplishment to maintain the enforcing state of capitalism but with a new trendy ethnic/sexual face on it?

This applies even if you are not a Marxist. If all you are going to do is Obama/Clintonian neoliberalism + neoconservatism, albeit more progressively than the Republicans, why bother to have a gay president? Or a Black president? Or an Hispanic President? Or a Jewish President? Or a lesbian President? Or, Hell, a woman President? Or a transsexual pansexual disabled Eskimo President?

What’s the point if all they are going to do is enforce crappy policies? Why should I, a measly low income citizen who gets crapped on by every Administration, care whether it’s a woman or a queer or a Black or whatever who is screwing me over? They’re still screwing me over. Why should I prefer being screwed over by an Hispanic, a Jew or lesbian? Why would I rather get screwed over by them than by your standard White guy? What difference would it make to me in the end?

This is what the Alt Left is really all about, right here. The bankruptcy of SJWism for its own sake or as a end in and of itself.

4 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Left, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics, Useless Western Left

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

Why do Indian Women Have Huge Egos?

by Magneto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 Comments

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

Taking the Sex Stuff out of the Alt Left Manifesto

The edited manifesto is here.

  • Promotion of mass sexual perversion to the masses: group sex, threeways, bisexuality, opportunistic or experimental homosexual sex, orgies, sex in public. *see Note 5*
  • Note 5. All of these are perfectly acceptable private lifestyles and sexual choices, but they should be private, not openly promoted, sexual styles. Straight men should not be hectored to engage in experimental homosexual sex, bisexuality should not be promoted as a fad, and the masses should not be openly encouraged to have orgies, engage in group sex, threesomes or public sex. Would you want people encouraging your mother, sister, brother, daughter or son to do such things?

OK, so what’s the problem then? Well, everybody is freaking out about it, calling me homophobe, Puritan, sex-hater, etc. If you know me and know how I have lived my life, you would laugh pretty hard at that idea. It’s also suggested that I dislike kinky or perverted sex. Once again, if you know me, you might laugh at that  idea too. But nevertheless a lot of people do not like this stuff.

My Mom doesn’t. I don’t think my Dad did. Are my mother and father hung up old no-fun Victorian fogies because they don’t want to do threeways, go to orgies, experiment with gay sex, or do it in the middle the street? Is my Mom a hang-up old prude because she isn’t down with getting gangbanged (and I’m quite sure she’s not down with that)? This is where this is all heading. The Cultural Left has so taken over the mainstream culture that you now see articles in the mainstream press cheering on and celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality, orgies and threeways.

I now read in the mainstream  press about how I need to have my girlfriend peg me in the ass with a dildo (look it up if you are not familiar). If I don’t let her peg me, I’m hung up. I have hangups. I guess I need to go to a sex therapist to straighten all this out so I can take it like a man from my strapped-on girlfriend.

I also read articles about how I need to go out and see what a penis tastes like, otherwise I guess I’m just no hip or something. The articles have heads like, Men: Have You Gotten in Touch with Your Bisexual Side? If you read the article, that’s if you can even stand to, it’s all about a bunch of men who are not biological homosexuals at all going out and experimenting with screwing guys just because it’s hip and groovy nowadays to do that. If they were biological homosexuals, surely we could forgive, tolerate, accept or even cheer them on. Because if they can’t help it, they need to have as happy and healthy of lives as we do.

I read articles about how I need to get cucked. That means I go and get great big studly Black guys (bulls) to have sex with my girlfriend while I sit back and watch and enjoy the humiliation of this spectacle. My girlfriend and the bull also join in and insult me, mock, and laugh at me for being so pathetic. I enjoy being made fun of and ridiculed like this, I guess because I am a great big pussy idiot.

Some men even have their women lock their penises in little penis cages so they cannot have sex with the woman. Often they are not allowed to masturbate or at least not much. These guys apparently get off having sexual pleasure sadistically denied to them, I guess  because they are masochistic idiots. It’s not unusual for the woman and bull to want the man to service the bull bisexually at some point. Or to clean up the woman after it’s all done, which is also pretty bisexual.

Oh yes, and the man and woman are always White, and the bull is always Black. So it’s a Black guy cucking the wimpy White guy’s woman while the White man enjoys the insulting nature of this spectacle. The sexual/racial political implications of this are quite clear. If you know how the Cultural Left hates White man and how much they venerate and worship Blacks, you can see why the Cultural Left might want to promote this stuff. Is it “White genocide?” I doubt it, and I don’t even know what that is, but I imagine the Alt Right White Genocide crowd is not very happy at this latest sexual kink, to put it mildly.

I’m supposed to do this! This is presented as the latest coolest, hippest groovy thing to do, and I guess I’m just not with it if I balk at doing this.

I see an article about how a man throws a birthday orgy for his wife’s birthday. I guess he’s perfectly happy with a bunch of other men having sex with his wife. Whatever. The thing is, if I’m not down with this, I’m uncool. I’m not a hipster. I’m not a cool guy. I’m uptight. I have sexual hangups, from too much religion no doubt.

New York Magazine ran an article a while back about a week in the life of a gay man in New York. Well, it seemed to be a nonstop whirlwind of casual encounters and hookups along with an orgy or two thrown in for spice. By the end of the week, he may have had sex with 5-10 different men, I have no idea. This was written up in a, “Wow isn’t this cool and groovy!” style.

Well is it? I mean everyone knows that most gay men are anywhere from quite to sureally promiscuous, but is this something that should be celebrated in the mainstream media? If the gay media wants to celebrate it, it’s one thing. The Advocate or Frontiers or whatever the latest gay press outlet is can sing the praises of wild homosexuality all the want. But keep it behind the doors of the gay press, please, like I say keep the other stuff behind the doors of the adult press. Why should the rest of us have to read about this sort of thing?

Sure, insane promiscuity has caused all sorts of  problems for gay men, HIV just being one of them. There have also been epidemics of Hepatitis A and B, various parasites, syphilis, gonorrhea, and genital herpes and warts. And I assume there are others. All of these combined have resulted in something resembling a public health crisis among gay men, but once again, I think that’s there problem to deal with on their own. If they want to be crazy  promiscuous and catch all these diseases, that’s their business.

I don’t think their diseases make it out into the straight population that much with the exception of Black women, but that is the Black community’s problem to deal with, not mine. But once again, why should we, mainstream media readers, be subjected to celebratory articles about the wildly promiscuous lifestyles of gay men in our big cities?

I also notice that the Cultural Left sings the praises of gay men marrying straight women. I guess lesbians can marry straight men too. That’s pretty weird, but the Cultural Left says this is wonderful.

First of all, almost all of these often-young men are lying through their teeth about their homosexuality. For another thing, many if not all of these men are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum. How many are truly bisexual and how many are just gay men having sex with women, I have no idea, and this sort of thing is very hard to figure out in part because almost all such men are pathological liars.

Now this has actually turned out to be a significant social problem. There are many closeted gay and bisexual men married to women in the US. How many? No idea, but I would not be surprised if it was within the hundreds of thousands. In the vast majority of cases, this situation is a catastrophe. The men are hiding and lying about their gay sex lives from their wives, and the marriage ends up being more or less a disaster, certainly for the woman. Many or most women in this sort of marriage seem to be damaged by it. Further, the women often consider the time they were married to such men as a huge waste of the limited valuable time they are allotted in life. The women consider the years of these marriages to be wasted years.

85% of such marriages end in divorce, which is not surprising. Now you would think considering what a bad idea this is, the Cultural Left would not promote it. Nope. It’s just one more groovy bit of sexual weirdness, and if it’s sexual and weird, the Cultural Left must sing the praises of it, no matter how bizarre it is.

Why in God’s name would a lesbian marry a straight man? That’s so bizarre. Even a lot of lesbians think this is horrible, and they are dead-set against it. But the Cultural Left has promoted this idiocy in articles. I assume they even promote gay men marrying lesbians. Now why any two such humans would want to do that in the first place, I have no idea. The very idea is so weird, it is hard to even contemplate. I haven’t seen an article on this yet, but I have heard of a few cases.

Now look, back in the day, we had all sorts of kinky people advocating this sort of thing too, but I did not mind it one bit. That’s because this stuff was relegated to the adult magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. Because that is where it belongs. It belongs in the adult media. If you want to go read the adult media and hear about all the latest kinks and even be harangued to try them, it’s perfectly fine with me. And on the web, there is the whole porn side of the web where all of these kinks are well on display. And there is adult media too. There are sex zines and media outlets that report on the adult industry.

I don’t care, as long as they make it clear that it’s a sex or adult magazine so you know what you are getting into. I just don’t want this stuff in the mainstream media. I don’t want my Mom to pick up the LA Times and read about how she needs to get gangbanged or go do a three-way tonight.  I don’t think she wants to read that either.

I would call this the Pornographication of General Culture. Once again I don’t mind, but it ought to be kept behind the walls of the adult media so people can read about this if they want to or not. I just don’t want to see it on Alternet or Slate.

Do you follow?

Now being against this sex stuff or not wanting to have it officially promoted, sanctioned, and strewn through the mainstream media  is apparently very controversial. People are up in arms about it. I’m a Victorian prude. I’m against sex. I’m uptight. I’m no fun. I’m a fuddy duddy.

I’m none of those things. Actually I am more like the opposite of those things, and this actually a bit of a problem in itself, but that’s another matter.

  • Support for anything goes pansexuality. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?

This is still in there, but people are already yelling that this is too puritanical. I am leaving it in for now.

What do you all think about this subject? Do agree with me on this or do you agree with my critics? Chime in please.

156 Comments

Filed under American, Blacks, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Idiots, Illness, Journalism, Left, Political Science, Pornography, Public Health, Race/Ethnicity, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Weirdness, Whites