Category Archives: Sociology

Is the Internet Fostering a Culture of Hatred, Abuse, Insults, Attacks and Sociopathy?

There are all sorts of maniacs running around the Web who seem to be there only to cause havoc and destruction. And a lot of ordinary people are much more insulting and vicious on the Net than they would be in Meatspace. Many seem to think it is normal to savagely abuse someone, and if you take offense, there is something wrong with you. It’s as if vicious insults are the New Normal.

It seems like the destroyers do not have jobs. They just post on troll sites all day and dedicate themselves to trolling and destroying people and sites. Apparently they have nothing better to do. I find all the hate and haters on the Internet to be very unnerving. There is something about the Web that fosters oceans of hate and legions of haters. I believe it is the anonymity and the fact that you can be as mean and destructive as you wish with no consequences.

Apparently when you get rid of consequences for behavior, a large percentage of the population turns mean, vicious, destructive, and some degree of sociopathic.

My opinion of the human race is taking another huge plunge.

80 Comments

Filed under Psychology, Social Problems, Sociology

“Child Porn” (Whatever the Hell That Means), Teen Sexting and Pic/Video Trading and Other Moral Panics, Mass Hysterias, Emotional Derangements and General Idiocies

Contrary to what my enemies say about me, I will take a pretty hard line below. The real deal (adults and kids 12-below child porn) needs to be kept the Hell off the Net. People making that crap, putting it up on the Net, or collecting it on their drives can go down hard for all I care. Throw the book at ’em. On the other hand, the issue is somewhat more nuanced than that, and it brings up some extremely difficult questions in legal theory and moral philosophy and general common sense.

The laws against child pornography are correct in that it ought to be illegal put that stuff up on the Net.

I have a hard time seeing how it is illegal to look at the stuff. I mean, you are cruising around the Net and BAM there’s some child porn on your screen. Or you are pic trading porn in a chatroom, and all of a sudden the guy you are trading with sends you child porn BAM! Even if you had no idea the guy was going to send you that crap, and you deleted it within seconds of it hitting your screen, you still committed a felony. Isn’t that crap?

Suppose you are cruising along the Chans and BAM there’s some child porn up on the Chan. OK what exactly are you supposed to do? Leave the page? Stay on the page? It doesn’t matter! Because BAM as soon as that crap hit your screen, you committed a felony! Any way to go back and uncommit the felony? Nope! You’re going down forever more unless you can clean your drive real well. See what crap that is?

I also have a problem with eyeball crimes. This is the only crime on Earth where you can to go prison for many years for “illegal looking.” What do you mean illegal looking? What the Hell kind of crime is that? You can look at anything else on Earth, videos of men being slowly tortured to death by serial killers, Islamists sawing people’s heads off and torturing them to death in every way imaginable, the worst crime scenes  imaginable… everything on God’s Green Earth is legal for your eyeballs.

Except for this CP crap. The argument goes that this kid was injured or harmed in the making of that porn. Indeed that’s probably the case. But then the argument goes that by the fact that your eyeballs grazed that photo of that kid being harmed, you horribly harmed that poor child again by looking at them with your eyeballs! Really?! Your eyes hurt that kid? Every time someone looks at that pic, that kid gets horribly injured? How? Where’s the injury? Is it invisible? Can we measure it?

For this to be true, you would have to prove that that kid was aware every time someone looked at the CP photo of them. So if the photo gets looked at 100 times that day, somehow through some psychic process that kid gets a devastatingly injurious brain zap every time? The whole argument behind this theory is sheer idiocy, and it defies all logic and sense. It’s not a rational argument in any possible universe.

You see where they say Mr. X was arrested for “downloading” child porn. For a long time, I thought these guys deserved it. I mean “downloading” means saving it to your drive in a folder, right? Once you do that, you’re possessing it, right? I have no problem with the possession of CP being illegal. You shouldn’t be collecting that crap on your drive. And yes, all you perverts collecting that crap is of course what drives the market for it in the first place. It’s illegal to possess all sorts of things. There are many such laws saying we may not possess this or that. That’s grounded in sanity, logic and legal precedent.

But recently I realized that downloading CP doesn’t mean downloading at all necessarily. It’s often a reference to the horrific crime of “illegal looking with illegal eyeballs.” I guess your eyeballs have to go to prison for the illegal looking charges? Just by the fact that you happened upon that child porn, perhaps out of complete ignorance and innocence, you are guilty of “downloading child porn.” Isn’t that stupid? It’s “downloading” because your browser downloads a copy of everything you see on the Net to the browser cache. Now I suppose if you clean your drive thoroughly, you can get rid of everything in your browser cache, but still, what the Hell kind of retarded crime is that? Illegal looking? WTF!

Child pornography is photos and videos of adults having sex with children age 12-under. I don’t think pornographic photos and videos of teenagers having sex with anyone is child porn. It’s just not. I don’t know what the Hell it is, but it sure as Hell ain’t “kiddie porn.”

Teenagers of both sexes, boys and girls, are constantly taking nudes and pornographic photos and maybe even videos of themselves and trading them around with other teens. I can tell you for certain that there is a vast amount of this going on, at least on Twitter. How do I know? Because I know about this stuff. They form private pic and video trading groups, (usually all underage teenage girls mostly 15-17) and they trade pics of each other, sext each other, etc.

Usually the groups are girls under 18 only, no boys allowed. Often bisexual girls are especially encouraged to join. So underage teenage girls are taking a vast amount of pornographic photos and maybe videos of themselves and maybe others and trading them all around to fellow underage teens. It’s literally an epidemic. And according to the law, it’s all child porn. Every one of those girls taking those photos and videos is “producing/manufacturing child pornography.” If she trades the stuff with her girlfriend? Now she’s “distributing child pornography.” Huge numbers of teenagers of both sexes are being arrested for manufacture, distribution and possession of child pornography. This insanity is absolutely outrageous. It shows just how insane the Pig State really is. It’s not even a Police State – it’s actually a Pig State.

So what is to be done? I have no idea. We should leave these kids alone with their pics, though. If they put them up on the Net, that’s not OK, but from what I can tell, girls are hardly putting any porn pics of themselves up on the Net. It’s all going back and forth with messaging and emails. Almost nothing is going up on any webpage. I think we should make it illegal for these teenagers to put this teen porn up on the Net. We have to ban that. And we need to keep the under 18 for porn law in. You know why?

This is why:

Now suppose we said that in Kentucky the age of consent is 16, so you can have sex with any legal person you want to at that age, 13-93? There are laws like this all over the land. It’s perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16 year old girl in half the states in the US, which is fine. But if it’s legal for her to have sex, why isn’t it legal for her to take a nude pic of herself? So now you have a tidal wave of cases of the Pig State allowing a 20 year old and a 16 year old to have sex with each other, but as soon as one takes a nude of themselves or the other and gives it to the other one, they’ve manufactured and distributed child porn, and they have to go to prison for 10 years! Idiocy!

So this 20 year old man can have sex with this 16 year old girl 10 times a day for years if he wants to, but as soon as these star crossed lovers who are screwing each other’s brains out every day take a nude of one or the other, they’re child pornographers and they are going to prison for 10 years! What kind of stupid crap is that!?

I do not know what to do about this. I suppose if they are over the age of consent, they can take pics of each other all they want and pass them around at least to one another in privacy and to other minors. I’m leery about this stuff being passed around willy nilly to adults though. They can’t put them up on the Net because it’s illegal material, and we don’t want that junk on the Net.

But why not? Indeed, let us look at a fascinating argument:

A very good argument is that if a girl can consent to sex at 16, why can’t she consent to taking porn photos and videos of herself and put them up on the Web? Or allow other people to film her? Actually it sounds logical. If you’re old enough to screw, of course you’re old enough to do porn. At the very least, you ought to be able to take pictures of your own self and put them up on the Net. I have no problem with this in theory.

But here is the problem. Pornographers are some of the most low down, sleaziest, slimiest men (and almost all are men) on the planet. They’re just about criminals, except what they are doing is legal. Most are what I would call legal criminals. The rates of Axis 2 Cluster B disorders is very high among pornographers. Narcissistic Personality Disorder and especially sociopathy and psychopathy are everywhere in that industry. It’s Ground Zero for male controlled psychopaths. Most pornographers are simply awful people.

Now here’s the problem. Say in these states where the AOC is 16 or 17, we allow girls that age to consent to doing porn. I agree it’s rational and reasonable. But here’s what is going to happen. Very soon after you legalize legally sexually mature girls age 16 and 17 to do porn, the porn studios are going to be flooded with teenage girls wanting to do porn. It’s just going to happen. I assure you it will. If they can’t find them here in the US, they will readily find them in Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and places like that.

Because the porn industry is constantly pushing the envelope and promoting weirder, kinkier and sicker stuff in a race to the bottom, the 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn will soon be flooded all across the net. There’s already a massive market for the “Barely 18” market, in which 18-20 year old girls do porn for the “young girls” market. You can call men who would look at those 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn sick fucks all you want, but I assure you that in the US alone, you will have millions of men looking at that 16 and 17 year old girl porn.

Do we want this? No, we do not want this! We cannot allow girls under 18 to make porn because of the scenario above. I don’t want to open up my browser and see 10 ads for 16  year old girls doing hardcore porn. Just forget it.

As far as CP – the real deal – adults and kids 12 and under – goes:

  • Of course it needs to be illegal to put that crap up on the Net.
  • It has to be illegal to make it.
  • It has to be illegal to trade it back and forth by messaging or emails.
  • People who collect that crap in folders on their drives can go down hard for all I care.

But illegal looking? Illegal eyeballs? That’s just weird. How do you justify putting some poor schmuck in prison for 10 years because of some image that he innocently stumbled on and flashed before his eyes? The whole idea of “illegal looking” at anything on Earth being a crime, much less a serious felony, sounds completely bizarre. Like I said, name one other thing on God’s Green Earth that it is illegal to look at?

Let the teenagers take their porn pics and whatnot of themselves and each other and trade them around in strict private out of the view of everyone else. If it’s perfectly legal for two humans to engage in any sex act they wish with each other, for God’s sake, of course they can take photos of each other doing it or just posing with nothing on. But I don’t want to see that crap being passed all around town. If you are a grown adult, you should not be looking at nudes and porns of underage girls. The exception would be if you are in a legal sexual relationship with her. But passing them all around town? We need to discourage that somehow.

There is zero sense, logic, sanity or rational thinking operating on any argument about this stuff. 100% of the people talking about this stuff are emotionally deranged. They are trying to think about this, but they are emotionally crazed so they can’t think about it logically. If you are in an emotionally deranged state of mind, you can’t make any rational decision about anything. Reasonable thinking only occurs when people calm down and stop thinking emotionally.

Emotional thinking never does any good. All it ever does is give you the wrong answer.

7 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Computers, Crime, Girls, Government, Jailbait, Law, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Narcissistic, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Ridiculousness, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sociopathy

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

24 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Alt Left: If the Rate of Homosexuality in Populations Can Increase or Decrease, What’s to Stop It from Going Full-blown to 100% or Even 0? Do Humans Just Reap the Most Benefits by Having Homosexuals at 10%?

Answered on Quora.

The 10% figure is one of the biggest lies out there, but everyone believes it. It is repeated by gay activists and the Gay Lobby like a mantra, but it is almost certainly not true. It is based on the Kinsey Study, but even the Kinsey Study did not find that 10% of the population were truly gay in the way a gay person is now.

Like anyone else, gay people would like to increase their numbers. I don’t blame them.

If I were gay, I would want as many hot men available to date as possible. The fact that 97% of males are not gay must be very depressing to gay men. I think it would make me not only depressed but confused. How could I tell which men were gay and which were not?
Gaydar is another lie of the Gay Lobby. The truth is it doesn’t even work. Gay men hit on straight men all the time thinking that we straight men are gay. Obviously their Gaydar is broken. So if Gaydar doesn’t work and is just a conceit, and you really can’t figure out if a man is gay or not, what is a gay man to do? I am thinking it must be Hellish. What infernal confusion!

The truth is that many population studies in the US consistently find that at the most 3% of the US population identifies themselves as gay. There may be some closet cases lying in the surveys, but I doubt if there are many. In some studies, half of those 3% are married to women! How is that compatible with these studies being flawed by mass hidden closet cases? They keep doing the surveys, and they keep coming up with at the most 3% of men are gay. So we have to use the 3% figure in talking about the gay percentage of the population.

Gay activists and their Lobby hate these low figures because they think there is strength in numbers. They think that if people think there are only a tiny number of gay men, people will be freer to bully and persecute them. Whereas if they are a large figure like 10%, people will accept them more. I am not sure if it is true. Maybe it is. But they’re still lying, even if they are lying for a good reason. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I would like to differentiate between gay men in general and gay activists and the Gay Lobby. Quite a few gay men dislike the Lobby and the activists. I have a gay friend who despises both of them. He says gay men just need to get married, move to the suburbs in a nice house and live quietly and unobtrusively like the rest of their neighbors. I concur!

So please do not think that by attacking the activists and the Lobby I am attacking all gay men. Certainly not. In fact, I encourage gay men to reject both activism and the Lobby. They’re counterproductive, and ~80% of the things they say are flat out lies. Gay activism, like all the other Identity Politics, is just propaganda. As feminism is nothing but propaganda for women, gay activism is nothing but propaganda for gays.

Nevertheless, I encourage all gay men to fight for their basic rights. I just don’t think lying is the right way to get what’s due to them. Not only will I support them, but I will help them, as I participate in some worthy gay political campaigns!

Surveys done with medical students found that ~3–4% of men identify as gay, gay being 0–100 to 20–80 on a scale orientation where 0–100 = completely gay. Another 2% identify as gay-leaning bisexuals, these being 30–70 to 40–60 on the same scale. Only 1% of men identify as fully bisexual, showing the stereotype about few people being purely bisexual is based on fact.

Adding up the numbers, 6% of men in these surveys identify as leaning gay, either bisexual or fully gay. Keep in mind that 2% of those men have a pretty strong lean towards women too, so they are not that gay. Another 1% are the “pure bis” who cannot logically be seen as gay either, neither can they be seen as straight. These are the people most perfectly identified as bisexual.

So population surveys get 3%, and medical student surveys get 6%. I don’t know what to do. Let’s go by majority rules and take the population surveys and say that 3% of men are gay.

This figure tends to be pretty steady for whatever reason. My research leads me to believe that true biological homosexuality (which surely exists and is the case with most gay men) is caused by hormonal aberrations and abnormalities in the womb. I doubt if it is genetic. There is some pretty good evidence leading to this conclusion. For whatever reason, these hormonal aberrations seem to occur in only ~3% of male births, and at least in the last few decades, nothing changes that.

Adding weight to my theory, there is research out there that shows that after 1990 in the Czech Republic, great efforts were put into monitoring pregnant women, adjusting their hormonal levels to the proper level, and keeping them from going off. Incredibly, research showed that this effort caused the rates of homosexuality and transsexualism to plummet. Not collapse but plummet.

Therefore, there may indeed by a “cure” for male homosexuality or at least a way to prevent it. I assure you that the Gay Lobby does wish to do anything to prevent homosexuality and transsexualism even if the mother desires this. But this shows how we might be able to artificially lower or even raise the rate of male homosexuality.
Now since the rate seems to be at a steady rate of 3%, and all evidence seems to be that the 3% rate (or lower) is the norm all over the world for biological male homosexuality, I would say we have nothing to worry about gay men taking over the world, though some of the real radicals would love to do that, trust me. Go read some of their documents. But the vast majority of gay men reject this gay chauvinism or gay imperialism.

The rate is 3% now, and it will be 3% in the future, unless we start lowering it as above.

This is why the question does not make sense. If biological male homosexuality occurs at a steady low rate everywhere on Earth without change, the rate of such cannot go much higher than 3%, certainly not to 100%, and it will not go down zero either, at least naturally on its own.

On the other hand, straight men have a tremendous potential for bisexuality. There are societies currently and in the past where very high percentages of men (up to 95%) engaged in regular sex with men (while also having lots of sex with women) throughout their lives. So you can definitely end up with societies like Afghanistan where many straight (by sexual orientation) men engage in homosexual behavior.
We must distinguish between orientation and behavior. They tend to follow each other pretty well but not always. Ancient Greece and Rome are good examples of where they can diverge a lot.

Now if you want to ask what would happen if 100% of men were behaviorally bisexual and were engaging in sex with men on a regular basis as in Ancient Greece and Rome, that’s another question, and I don’t think you questioner is asking that here. Personally I think it would be utterly catastrophic, although gay men would think they were in Paradise. Then again, the sky has not fallen in Afghanistan, where something like this is already going on.

Male homosexuality is bad for society. It brings along a whole host of problems and yes, diseases, along with it which impose considerable cost on society. I would like to add that these problems impose these costs on gay men themselves in terms of mental and physical illness, a whole lot of very sketchy behavior, and a culture that does not seem to be healthy at all in many ways. Despite the societal effects, the overwhelming costs of these problems are borne by gay men themselves.

Nevertheless, I feel that these are gay men’s problems. It is unspeakably rude and selfish to say that gay men’s problems which hurt them so much are terrible for the rest of us for whatever reason. It’s like someone walks into your house with a broken leg wanting help and you scream at him for ruining your day. How rude! How selfish!
Gay men’s problems are for them to solve. We need to stay out of it. If they want to deal with this stuff, let them go to it. We will help them, but the ball’s in their court.

I would like to point out that lots of things are not good for society, but we allow or tolerate them anyway, as it’s just not the place of society or the state to regulate people’s behavior, lifestyles, and choices.

In terms of the costs to society, yes there are some, especially in disease burden and medical expenses, but keep in mind that gay men are only 3% of the male population and a tiny 1.5% of the total population. Basically, whatever problems male homosexuality causes, we in the US can handle them very easily because gay men’s numbers are so small. If the percentages of gay men were to climb radically beyond 3%, the costs to society would be much more severe, and it would be something we could not deal with well. But that’s a whole other hypothetical problem.

As far as benefits go, I am going to be a radical here and say that society as a whole probably reaps exactly zero benefits from homosexuality either male or female. The effects on society are either negative or (mostly) neutral, but even when they are negative, their tiny numbers allow us to handle these effects well.

For the life of me, as a straight man, I cannot fathom any benefits from having gay men in my society. Somebody needs to clue me here. What’s in it for me, or for straight society as a whole? Color me confused!

Most straight men would probably be perfectly happy to never deal with another gay man for the rest of our lives. It’s not that they are horrible for us, but there’s no benefit at all, and there is a certain downside (they constantly try to seduce us). Most of us don’t really hate them at all (we are more indifferent towards them than anything else) but we don’t feel any special love for them, and I wager they would not be missed.

Nevertheless, despite this fact of there being no benefit to us, we straight men need to support full rights for biologically gay men. We need to wish for them the same happy and healthy lives as we do for ourselves, not even 1% less.

Please realize that these men did not choose to be this way. We straight men are straight only due to sheer luck and a roll of the genetic dice. Any of us could have ended up gay too. If you are straight, try to imagine if you had been wired up gay instead. Imagine yourself just as you are, except you are a gay man instead of a straight man. That’s called empathy. What would you like to the world to be like? This is the world that straight men need to create for gay men, not for any particular reason, but only because it’s simply the right thing to do.

No matter what we straight men think about male homosexuality (and a lot of us are profoundly repulsed by it), nevertheless at the end of the day, we have to be kind.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Biology, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Man World, Politics, Regional, Science, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, US Politics, USA

Hinduism: The Ugly Truth about a Major World Religion

Excellent post by our great commenter Judith Mirville breaking down what Hinduism is really all about. I really think that this is simply an ancient backwards religion typical of many such religions.

I was a sort of wayward Hindu myself for a decade (to be more accurate, a devotee of Kali : being one, though it makes you belong to Hindu India in some way, makes you belong to it like a New Orleans voodoo practitioner belongs to Christian America, that is say looked upon as a representative of the spiritual archenemy), I was already 100% agreeing with all what you say about India right from the start and now I agree 700%.

Hindu Brahmins are just a plainly evil bunch, what they call their religion is pure witchcraft. Actually, what you imagine about Haitian Black magicians thanks to Hollywood does apply to Hindu Brahmins : they wend their way in any organized society -through malevolent magic alone. Hinduism doesn’t exist as such – it is more a religious culture than a religion, but more than 80% of people classified as Hindus are practitioners of the Vaishnava (more vulgarly known under the name of the cult of Rama and Krishna) religion, considering all beings as mere appearances of just one supreme one, Vishnu (about 10% are of the Shivaite current, which is the more interesting part of Hindu culture most Westerners love to enthuse about but is considered malefic by other Hindus, the other 10% being the devotees of more “backward” animistic cults).

To me, Vishnu, as defined by Sanskrit scholars, is the Indian name for Lucifer. Vishnu is supposed to be the supreme maintainer of the worlds, and the way he maintains the world is through deception. Vishnu is best conceived of as the supreme banker of the Universe, the lender of karmic good points you have to earn back through hard life until you win the right to nonexistence.

Vishnu has a female consort, Lakshmi, which is nothing but money. Money is venerated indeed as the supreme female deity herself, no matter the dirty way it is earned (actually the dirtier the better), and banknotes have to be kissed before being deposited on Lakshmi’s altar by all worthy pious shopkeepers.

The Universe is ruled by three principles – deception, rage, and obscurantism in decreasing order of hierarchy, and the more exclusively you devote yourself to deception by renouncing pleasure (all pleasure leads downward into obscurity according to that view: it is the most puritanical culture in the whole world to the point where only the Protestant Englishmen could understand it somewhat and manage it among the European colonists who tried to access that subcontinent) and to revolt against the order of things, the higher you climb in the hierarchy of beings.

There is no place for divine grace within that system, only for good and bad karmic points you earn and spend. There is no divine free gift – you have to earn your way upwards by your own effort alone, and you must never help anyone suffering, as all suffering is rightly deserved. What is given to you by Vishnu is lent, not freely given, and you must pay back with interest. It hence comes to no surprise that such a country is the paradise of all Western Banksters devising the best future for humanity in the long run.

What always made me marvel right from the start is the way the hippie movement led so many romantic Westerners in quest of spirituality to such a haven of pure callousness – it one proof more it was right from the start a remotely-controlled movement to bring about the first generation of Westerners since long that renounced to bequeath a world a little better to their sons and daughters.

Caste is part and parcel of Vaishnava Hinduism, actually it is the main thing about it. Without caste there can be no Hinduism in the same way without charity there can be no Christianity worthy of that name (except in the American Republican acceptance).

The principle of caste is that you must never love your work for work to be work. If you love your work for itself or for the good it brings to the world you make the cardinal offense against Vishnu and against your own salvation, as you fail to pay back your karmic points. Those who are guilty of wanting to change the world for the better are the lowest of the low, the pariahs – they are outside the faith by definition and to be treated as foes to mistreat lest you share their guilt. The greatest sin of all is to cry out what you feel is true, as it is Vishnu’s privilege alone to tell the truth to those of are worthy of it. Being a whistleblower of any sort makes you the target of rightful assassination.

Those who are still attached to earthly pleasures but at least renounce to participate in the advent of another better world and to creativity in general form the lower class among the Hindu proper, the shudras: they are not entitled to education but to effort only for a pittance.

Those who dislike pleasure and rather like pleasure deferral as a way to gain power over those still attached to it but are still attached to their individual will are the merchant or bourgeois caste, the vaishyas.

Those who also dislike individual achievement and take more pleasure in countering others’ will though they are still attached to honor are the warriors and rulers, the Kshatriyas.

Those who are not attached to honor but rather to destroying others through moral blame are the Brahmans. It is very hard to have a real glimpse of Hinduism by fraying with Hindus because it is forbidden to them to teach you any truth, as you are outside their fold and must be pariahs for the very pleasure of being interested too much in what is not your business.

The duty of any guru is to swindle you by any means if you are not among the three upper castes, and the best you can achieve as a non-Hindu is to be a capitalist to be esteemed thanks to money alone.

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Culture, Hinduism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, USA

Suicide: The Ultimate Enigma

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

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

Suicide is a mystery.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Go figure.

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

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

5 Comments

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

One Problem with Pedophile Mass Hysteria: It’s Based on Magical Thinking, an Irrational Thought Process

Chase Howard: There’s nothing wrong with pedophilia? What?

There’s nothing wrong with the fact that someone got wired up as a pedophile against their will. I would go so far as to say that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia at all for any reasons. Pedophilia is just an attraction to children. Most pedophiles simply got wired up that way through no fault of their own.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. There honestly is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation whatsoever. Anyone can get turned on by anything they want to. It’s a free country, and we haven’t made thought crimes illegal yet, though I am sure harridans like the commenter are working on it.

Pedophilia is simply a thought process, a sexual orientation. Most people truly oriented that way got wired up that way out of no fault of their own. It’s simply a way of thinking. It doesn’t necessarily harm one single soul, and it’s not their fault anyway.

Child molestation on the other hand is an act. This seems to be what you are referring to. There is not really anything wrong with pedophilia (a sexual orientation), as its just a way of thinking that doesn’t necessarily hurt a soul.

On the other hand, child molestation, sometimes but not usually associated with pedophilia, is, I would say, a problem. In many cases, it seems to harm the girl, and in a lot of cases it’s not really consensual. Even if she goes along with it (and trust me, they do sometimes), I still think it’s wrong because we as a society simply don’t want adults having even consensual sex with kids. It’s one of our values, and we have a right to enforce our values with laws.

To summarize:

There’s nothing wrong with pedophilia. It’s just a way to think.

There’s absolutely something wrong child molestation. It’s not a way to think; it’s a type of action, and it most cases it seems to be harmful, and even where it’s not, we don’t want that bullshit in our society.

You see, people like the commenter (apparently the vast majority of Americans) think like little children. You are engaging in magical thinking. That’s what little children do.  A child thinks that a thought and action is the same thing. They often cannot differentiate one from the other. Apparently you cannot think like a adult because you never matured that far.

Newsflash! Your magical thinking is that thoughts and actions are the same thing and that a bad thought is just as bad as a bad action. But you’re wrong! Thoughts and actions are completely different things, and it’s insane to mix them up. We have crimes against behavior. We don’t yet have crimes against thoughts, but if folks like the commenter get their way, I’m sure they’re coming right up.

I do not think adults should be having sex with children under the age of 12. In most cases, it causes a lot of harm to the kids and even where it doesn’t, we have decided that we do not want this crap in our society, which is our right.

If you want to talk about adults having sex with teenage girls, it’s a lot messier, but it’s not child molesting anyway. It’s statutory rape or illegal intercourse.

That’s another subject altogether and my position on it is well known:

I advise all men to avoid having sex with teenage girls where it is illegal. Not because there’s anything wrong with it, and usually there’s not. It’s that it’s illegal as Hell nowadays and you can ruin your life and end up in jail or prison and the Sex Offender list for life, all for some hot little piece of ass. C’mon guys, it’s just not worth it. Think before you act.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, Girls, Jailbait, Law, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pedophilia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

The White Low Income, Working Class and Poor Are Not As Bad As You Think

Jason Y: Actually, though small towns are not as safe as you can get, unlike what Robert is saying. If you’re in the right area, you could very well get around poor Whites who are very little different than gangbangers. Their whole scheme is identity theft, plain old theft, and extortion (sometimes using their children to gain the sympathy of people).

They also exploit the liberal economic system (giving it a bad name among conservatives), basically getting all they can for free (via using children). Yet these same whites often hate NAM’s worse than the Klan.

Actually, I lived around many poor Whites up in the mountains for many years. Those rural White areas are full of poor and low income Whites. That’s mostly who lives there.

There was almost no crime among those poor and low income rural Whites up there. I was not aware of any identity theft. There was very little theft. We even had a bunch of homeless young Whites living out in the park, and none of them ever stole either. The one guy who stole was very stupid, the worst one out of all of them, and he happened to be half-Indian. I hate to say it, but that’s when I really started thinking about biology, race, and crime. There were all these poor as dirt people living around me, almost all of them young Whites, and the only one who stole anything was a damned Indian.

There were a lot of drugs in those towns too. Meth was everywhere. I actually knew a number of meth users and most of them were extremely nice people, believe it or not. There was not a lot of crime associated with meth up there for some weird reason.

I did see some serious crime relating to interpersonal fights. One guy I knew very well was very badly beaten in the head with a metal bar to the point of unconsciousness. He was screwing some woman, he was at her house, and someone came in and nearly beat him to death. It was thought that the guy who beat him was maybe the girl’s boyfriend. I figure there is going to be serious violence or even homicide related to interpersonal conflict everywhere you go.

One thing I noticed was that there were some extremely scummy people up there. We had some as neighbors for a while. But they were mostly just destructive towards themselves. Young men went to jail pretty regularly, but it was usually for drunk driving and sometimes for fistfights with other young men. One time we called the cops on the neighbors. They had a wild fight at 3 AM and smashed out the front window. Mostly they were just gross. They would do meth and play loud music all night and were always going to be balcony and spitting down below. A lot of the spit landed on the cars below. They were disgusting and we were starting to get pretty mad about their sheer grossness.

You could talk to those guys though, and I had some pleasant conversations with them. Some were missing teeth due to meth use. They were friendly enough if you were friendly to them. Actually some were remarkably friendly. It was sort of amazing how friendly they were. And these were the meth-heads.

A young woman later moved in got pregnant soon after. She hung out with some lousy people. She was known for borrowing small amounts of money, like $5-10, and then never paying it back. In that low income White culture up there, that is considered to be extremely scummy behavior. It’s considered to be “niggerish” behavior associated with low income Blacks and Hispanics. Low income Whites are expected to be better than that, and if you act like that, you are “acting like a nigger,” and a lot of those poor Whites will ostracize you.

There were others up there who sometimes borrowed say $25. They would pay it back later as a matter of principle, always with interest. That’s how deeply moral they were.

I think people fail to understand the deep moral roots a lot of the White lower and working classes have. You have to live around them a while to see it.

These poor, low income and working class Whites also have a pretty complex moral code about politeness and appropriate behavior. It’s pretty easy to violate their rules, which is considered to be rather serious, though it is often chalked up to ignorance. A lot of the rules are unspoken, and they are communicated to you by nonverbal means that are often very hard to understand. If you break a rule, people will act upset, but they will communicate it to you in strange nonverbal ways that don’t seem to make sense. You have to figure out that they are communicating a message to you in code, and you are supposed to figure out the code.

They’re  interesting people. One great thing to say to people like that is, “You sure got a real nice family.” That always goes over very well. You are not supposed to diss someone’s family.  That is considered to be very serious social violation. They place family pretty high up in moral order.

I was not aware of a lot of welfare fraud and abuse up there. Some of the young women were on welfare. My mother said that although there were many young single Moms up there, few of them were on welfare. She said that though the young White men would not live with or marry the mother and often they broke up with them, they often supported their children despite their low incomes.

Those poor, low income ,and working class Whites have a hardcore work ethic. You are supposed to work. Refusing to work and choosing instead to live off others is considered lowlife behavior. Many work long hours, sometimes at more than one job. Quite a few of even the meth heads that I knew worked regular jobs, sometimes up to 50 hours a week.  They worked at jobs like house painter, things like that.

I also noticed something else. We had very little crime up there until a lot of Hispanics started moving into the mountains. Quite a few of them were illegals. They did not bring a lot of crime with them, but soon after they moved up there, I heard that a lot of car stereos were being stolen. If you live around Mexicans in California, you will find that most are not dangerous or criminal at all, and it is pretty safe to live around them, with the exception that Mexicans steal car stereos and car hubcaps. A few years after I moved here, all four of my hubcaps were stolen. They were stolen slowly, like one every 9 months or so. They cost ~ $25 each. I consider that a small price to pay for living around these Mexicans. It’s not like you need hubcaps or they are unaffordable.

After I moved down to this Hispanic town, I noticed that poor Whites seemed to attack themselves or direct their aggression inwards towards self-destructive behaviors, which can get pretty gross. But they did not act aggressive towards others much. But I saw that poor Hispanics and Blacks were much more likely to direct their aggression outwards towards other people and victimize them. They often seemed to show little no guilt about victimizing other people. It was like there was nothing wrong with it. Often they got outraged and angry at the victims for getting upset about being victimized!

Poor Blacks and Hispanics also “set the bar much lower” as far as acceptable behavior was concerned.

The poor Whites set a bar as far as acceptable behavior goes. Below that, you are a scum.

The Hispanics seemed to set the bar of acceptable behavior lower, and they considered worse behaviors than the Whites to be nonetheless acceptable. They allowed one to engage in more bad behaviors before they would consider you a scum.

And I hate to say it, but the Blacks around here set the bar even lower than that – they set the bar the lowest of all. They always asked for loans, and they never paid them back, ever. They saw nothing wrong with this. They walked into your house and started pointing at things you own and demanding that you give that object to them. Or they came into your house, and when your back is turned, they steal your stuff. Mexicans did this too, but it’s mostly Black or half-Blacks who did it.

I have never had a White person come into my house and start demanding that I give them my possessions even one time. That is such a profound violation in White society, even poor White society, that I cannot  put it into words. You will be thrown out of the house and never allowed back in again. Furthermore, you will be called a “nigger,” as that behavior is associated with low class Blacks, and Whites are supposed to be above that.

In all my life, I only had people come to my house and steal my stuff once, and that was an 18 year old delinquent drug user, but I blew it with him because I went to get my stash of pills when he was in the room with his friends, so he saw where I kept it. He later stole a bunch of pills from my stash.

But in general, the idea that you invite someone into your home and they rip you off when your back is turned is so outrageous in White society that it is nearly unmentionable. Once again, it is considered “niggerish,” and you will in a sense be evicted from the White race for engaging in that behavior. Among a lot of Whites, saying “you act like a nigger” is an extreme insult (you might get hit), and even poor Whites will go to great extremes to avoid engaging in behavior that would earn them that insult.

11 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Mexicans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Alt Left: Psychological Origins of White Gun Nut Culture

First of all, no matter what these rightwing liars tell you, gun culture is White culture. It’s rightwing White culture. It used to be mostly older rightwing Whites, but a number of younger Whites may be into it now too.

Gun nut culture is based in the South, Texas, the rural Midwest, West and East.

Blacks are not into gun nut culture, although I have heard that rural Southern Blacks love their guns. Urban Blacks are not part of gun nut culture other than the criminal class. I have some Blacks who live around me here, and none of them have guns.

Hispanics are not into gun nut culture. Yes, gangs and the criminal class have guns, but most others do not. I live in an Hispanic city right now. Almost all of my neighbors are Hispanic. I’ve never met one of them who had a gun. The only gun I ever saw was under the shirt of a 19 year old gangbanger.

Asian culture is not gun nut culture. They’re just not into guns.

American Indian culture is not gun nut culture. I worked for Indians for years in the mountains, and I got to know many of them. Never met an Indian who owned a gun.

South Indians are not a part of gun nut culture. This town is swarming with South Indians, and I’ve never met one who had a gun.

In general, urban Whites are not part of gun nut culture. Whites who live in big cities where crime is much higher than in rural areas usually do not have guns, although logically, they would have much greater reason for one. It’s not common to meet an urban White person who has guns in this state. Here in California, urban Whites in places like the Bay Area and LA generally do not have guns. In all the time I spent in LA and the Bay Area, I never met one urban White person who kept a gun.

A few White women have guns for personal protection. I doubt if it does much for the crime rate. I had a girlfriend who lived alone, and one night at 2 AM, she pulled a .38 out of a drawer and showed it to me.

“It’s loaded,” she told me.

There we were, standing there at 2 AM in this chick’s house, passing a loaded gun back and forth like it was nothing. She’s the only woman I ever met who had a person gun for protection.

That stupid gun you keep in your house is 30X more likely to be used to you or  someone in your house in a homicide or suicide than it is to defend you from a potentially lethal attack. It’s not worth it to keep a gun in your house. There’s no benefit, and there are huge risks of death associated with doing  that.

There is basically zero significant and potentially lethal violent crime in White rural America. It’s as safe as you can get.

I lived in a White town in the Sierra Nevada of rural California for 18 years. I got some news for you. There was zero crime there. None. No significant crime, certainly nothing you would need a gun to defend yourself against. And when I left there in 2005, I was still often not locking my door when I left. Why should I? Why lock the door?

What is most bizarre is that in this White rural town in lived in with no crime, guns were everywhere, and most everyone you met was a gun nut or gun kook. And they had no reason to have their guns.

The dirty little secret in California about the White mountains is that this is where Whites moved to get away from the “niggers and the Mexicans.” It was pretty common for them to come right out and admit that that was why they moved up there. It was also fairly common for them to say that the reason they were armed to the teeth was because Blacks and Mexicans were going to come up to the mountains in small armies and prey on moneyed Whites.

A fair number of them were White Supremacists who ranted and raved about rightwing conspiracy theories all the time. Most of these people were armed to the teeth, and many had stocked up years of food. They insisted that society was about to collapse any time now, and with the collapse, whole armies of “niggers and beaners” would drift up out of the crime-ridden cities into the White mountains to prey on the Whites.

One of their notions was that after the collapse, society would run out of food, and the White psychos who had been stockpiling food for years would be the only people in society with any food left, so starving hoards of armed “niggers and beaners” would drift up from the ruin and emaciated cities to steal the food of the Whites in order to survive.

I heard a number of these psychos outline for me how this was going to happen and how they were going to make a last stand for it in their barricaded mountain retreat piled with guns. They would hole up in the mountain base with a living room full of guns as the starving “niggers and beaners” flooded into the mountains to kill the Whites and steal their food. In their mountain abode, they would hole up with sniper rifles as the living dead Black and Brown zombies teemed below, hungry for White bodies and food. They would be up on the hill, firing down at the Orcs below. Most of them expected to die defending their mountain home from darkies.

Millions of White people actually believe this crap. Isn’t that incredible?

So there you have it. America’s gun culture is senseless, based on paranoia, racism and wild cataclysmic conspiracy theory. It doesn’t even have a rational basis.

14 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Blacks, California, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Political Science, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sociology, South Asians, West, White Racism, Whites

Alt Left: The Second Amendment and the Vegas Shooting

Another superb Judith Mirville post below:

Judith Mirville: The Second Amendment was written in view of defending the young Republic in sparsely populated counties where you could be attacked by foreign marauders (it then included slaving marauders from Muslim North Africa as the country was still too poor to afford a real combating coastguard) without other recourse than your own fighting capacity. It was never meant to defend your individual property against the general citizenry, otherwise it would have been seen by all as tantamount to a return to feudalism, by definition.

The second amendment specified that anywhere there was sufficient official protection from foreign enemies and outlaws the individual bearing of weapons was not to be tolerated as a way of life and should be subject to about the same restrictions as in any civilized country of the Old World.

Switzerland decided about individual bearing of arms for the same reason : most of the land was mountainous wilderness where official authority was not available and was to be provided by inhabitants taking turns to patrol. Switzerland being in Europe, it could not escape defining even stricter norms of arms control for its citizens than the neighboring countries : you are entitled only to keep and bear weapons in as much as you do it as a soldier of your country, albeit on a part-time basis, and as soon as you tote one, you tote it in conformity with precise military orders.

I do favor an enlarged body of weapons-toters, so as for any wacko shooter to be sure that in case he starts his rampage his fire is most likely to be answered in kind, but anybody bearing arms according to the second amendment should do it as a voluntary US soldier, subject to military penalties as soon as he doesn’t obey the local military command as to the proper use of his military material. Any citizen should be granted the right to ask any weapon tote his voluntary soldier’s particular identity and particular reason to bear it (like acting as a voluntary vigilante in a drug lord ridden ghetto) in the same way he is entitled to ask any policeman’s uniform bearer his identity as a policeman.

I for one am thinking that America is now dividing into two : those for whom the first amendment about free speech and free expression is the only real sacred one, which includes the right to express oneself without any chance to be hit by stray bullets from frustrated control freaks ans therefore gun control, and those for whom the second amendment only is sacred, which includes your sacred rights to use your gun to suppress voices you claim as Unamerican or dissident.

3 Comments

Filed under Crime, Europe, Government, History, Law, Military Doctrine, Nevada, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Switzerland, US, USA, West