Category Archives: Women

Mongolian Music

Strange music. Somehow it sounds like Hawaiian steel guitar music or even surf music! It also sounds a bit like jazz. I thought it would be horrible, but I actually rather liked it, though it is weird as Hell I must admit.

Actually, the best thing about this video is the Mongolian chicks in the band. Come to papa!


Filed under Asia, Babes, Music, Regional, Women

More Election Predictions

Ed writes:

What you are really saying is that Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump at the polls because she is more popular than Trump is. More people want her to become President. That is all you are saying.

But you did not make the argument until challenged in the comments. You hid it behind all this pseudo-sophisticated Electoral College nonsense.

It’s not pseudo-sophisticated, and it’s not nonsense. The Electoral College is all that matters. Everything else is crap. Trump is the most toxic Presidential candidate in recent memory. Over half of Republicans say either they are uncertain he would be a good President or they say he will be a lousy President. Fully 40% of Republicans say Trump will be a lousy President. 40%!

Hillary will win all of the battleground states, well, at least if the election were held today. She will win Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and even North Carolina. Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina have gotten much more liberal in 20 years. Ohio and Pennsylvania are flat, but they lean ~3-4 points Dem. Florida is flat, but she will win there. A Republican barely won the governor’s race recently despite spending a mountain of money.

Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, have all gotten quite a bit more liberal in the last 20 years.

Not one single battleground state is getting more conservative over the last 20 years. Not one!

Hillary will not turn any red states though. At best, she could win Indiana and Arizona.

This is the longterm trend, and it will not be reversed.

Black turnout will be the same as 2012. Women despise Trump. Trump will win no more than 15-20% of Hispanics and maybe less than that. He has to win 66% of the White vote, and he might not even win 60%. His gains with working class Whites will be wiped out because Whites with some college hate him. Hardly any working class Democrats support him. Yes, working class Whites support him, but those people have been backing Republicans for a long time.

At least as of right now, he can’t win. She has 347 electoral votes. Total blowout. The election is over and it hasn’t even started yet.

Nate Silver puts Trump’s chance at winning at 2%. I would say that is optimistic.

Look at who the bookies are betting for. These people are willing to lay down their money to bet who wins. If Hillary wins, you will get a 33% return on your money. If Trump wins, you will get 150% return. The betters are favoring Hillary by a large margin.


Filed under Blacks, Colorado, Democrats, Florida, Government, Hispanics, Liberalism, Michigan, Midwest, Nevada, North Carolina, Northeast, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, West, Whites, Wisconsin, Women

Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks

That same experiment again that all the morons insist is not true, expect we keep doing the experiment over and over and it keeps coming out the same way every time. Yet the morons keep saying it’s not true.

Oh and one more thing if you hadn’t figured it out already. There’s no such as a creep. Not really anyway. A creep means “a man who is interested  in me who I am not attracted to.” That’s really all it means. Women will insist that that’s not true, but women lie. About everything. All the time. You heard me. Women lie about everything all the time. And until you get redpilled enough to know that that’s the damn truth, you will never understand women, and you may well suffer a lot as a result of it. The less you understand women, the harder of a time you have with them. The more you understand women, the better of a time you can have with them. Ignorance is weakness. Knowledge is power.

The blue pill is the road to failure. The sooner you quit being bluepilled, the better.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

The Purpose of Macho Behavior: Macho as Masculine Code

Raja Hindustani writes:

Respect from other machos, connections among machos to get things done and most importantly lower class pussy. That is the point in being macho.

Macho guys have always pretty much accepted me. They often think I am weird, and they can’t figure me out and say I don’t make sense, but generally they do accept me because there is a part of myself that is exactly like them, and I can bring it out very easily. The other machos see that I have this deep macho part of me (but it’s only a part), and they generally respect it because I know how to act like that and especially I control my feelings pretty well. And while I have feminine stuff going on too, I also have a lot of strongly masculine behaviors, mannerisms and especially ways of thinking going on at the same time.

Macho guys are really smart. They are very intelligent when it comes to this macho stuff, and they are experts in picking it up in other men. As long as you have a core set of observable behaviors and a mindset that conforms to that macho style, most macho men and really most men in general will pretty much give you a break, give you a modicum of a basic amount of respect and they most importantly they will leave you alone. There is a whole complicated set of rules that goes into acting this way, and most of us men were socialized into it as boys.

It’s women who don’t seem to understand masculinity. Women are actually a lot more demanding about masculinity in men than macho guys. With macho guys, you just have to conform to that basic set of behaviors and more importantly the mindset (yes, these guys are so smart that they can even see a macho mindset in your head),and you get some sort of basic level of respect. It’s not necessarily a high level of respect, but it is a
“basic” level that says you are “good enough.” Women on the other hand have an extremely poor understanding of masculinity and they are actually much worse and more demanding about it than even macho guys in that sense.


Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Women

Mexican and South American Women and Machismo (Hypermasculinity)

Jorge writes:

It’s curious because it is said that many Paraguayan women seek  Argentine men because Paraguayan men are too masculine and male chauvinist (I don’t know if there is an English word for “machista“).

At least this happens with Paraguayan women that live in Argentina, especially in big cities. They have the image of middle-class/upper-class Argentine men as more “sensitive”. Working-class and underclass Argentine men are not so different from Paraguayan men, but they are still less masculine except maybe in northeast of the country where I live where Argentine lower class men are very similar to Paraguayan men. Paraguayan women know this, and that’s why they prefer men from other regions, especially from Buenos Aires.

I am wondering if machista is an Argentine slang word? In Mexico anyway, the word is macho, machismo or machisimo, and it is used more as an adjective. Macho means “macho,” machismo means the same thing, and machisimo means a highly exaggerated machismo typical of Mexican men. I don’t think it is used as a noun much, but you can do that. Once I greeted my Spanish teacher (from Mexico) with, Que tal, macho? and he really liked that. I suppose a good translation would be “What’s up, stud?” It’s acceptable to call a Mexican man macho. It means something like “dude” but with more masculine implications. It’s not used much by Spanish second language speakers because it is very slangy.

The first time I heard the word machista was when I had an Argentine gf. She told me that she was disappointed that I was not machista. It’s true, I am not machista. It was clear that she wanted a machista man. I am wondering if all Argentine women like that? Do they all demand a machista man? The relationship still worked ok.

I am convinced that Hispanic women or at least the less assimilated ones pretty much demand a machista for a man. I live in a town full of Mexicans, and that seems to be the only type of man that they will go for. I can’t get anywhere at all with these women. I think maybe they think I am gay. I cannot imagine what it is like for a Mexican or “East LA” culture Chicano who is not machisimo or a machista. I don’t see how they ever get a date, much less get laid at all, and I surely can’t see how they get married. If they women all demand machistas, a guy who is not a machista is SOL, right?

As they assimilate, Hispanic women seem to become less demanding for a machisimo man, and they start getting more like White women, who are not so demanding of a hypermasculine man. But it seems like the more they stay attached to Mexican culture (here even third generation Chicanos are still deeply into Mexican culture because there are few pressures to assimilate), the more they demand a machista man.

And around here, if they do assimilate, they often assimilate to “East LA” type Chicano culture, which in my opinion is a completely crap culture. This is the culture of gangs, tattoos, drugs, rap music and even crime, often petty crime. This same culture used to be “lowrider” culture in the 1970’s, which I could actually tolerate, but lowrider culture seems to have been replaced by gang culture, and that’s definitely a downgrade.

Not all Chicano culture is this crap gang-type culture, but far too much of it is. Chicano women deep into this gang culture still want a macho guy. Not as much as the Mexican women do, but still more than a White woman.

I had a date recently with a Chicana. She was a lousy person, but she also made it clear that I was not acceptable for her because I was not a “tough guy,” and she only liked tough guys. She was part of this lousy gang type culture, and she was also sort of a petty criminal.


Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Argentines, California, Culture, Gender Studies, Hispanics, Latin America, Man World, Mexicans, Mexico, Paraguayans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, South America, USA, Women

Are Straight Men Afraid of Gay Men?

The answer, by and large, is of course yes, but it’s not for the stupid lies that the Cultural Left talks about. I answered this question on Quora, and here is my answer:

By far the worst homophobes of all are straight women. Their homophobia is off the charts bonkers insane nuts kooky a little bit scary ranting and raving and maniacal.

However, they do not hate gay men in general. Most women who feel this way have some gay male besties who I call their gay pets. Anyway, they seem to love these gay men a lot and nowadays, if you are a homophobic straight man, a lot of straight women will threaten to dump you! They don’t want you talking crap about their gay friends or relatives who they indeed dearly love.

But these same women can become almost psychotically homophobic for one reason: If they suspect that the straight men that they are dating are even .00000001% gay or even not 1,000% masculine. Straight women very much demand very masculine straight men, and non-masculine (but not effeminate) men lead rather difficult lives filled with a lot of abuse from girlfriends about them not being masculine enough or being suspected gays. You really cannot be too masculine for a straight woman.

I know this very well because I am a straight androgyne. I have an extremely strong, almost hypermasculine masculine side of me, and then there is a pretty strong feminine side too, I admit. The result is nobody can figure me out, and they can’t make any sense of me at all. I get a lot of “You don’t make sense,” and “Are you straight or gay or bi or what?” Al I know is I’m David Bowie.

I am 100% straight, but I have had girlfriends accuse me of being gay. It was not a pretty picture. Picture the most ranting, raving, out of control, nearly psychotic, menacing and almost homicidal woman you have ever met. I have rarely seen such crazed hate in my life. And of course all of the ugly epithets to go along with that. “Faggot! Queer! Homo! Cocksucker!” And I’m not even gay.

Straight men are also quite homophobic, much more than they let on. Also they are fools who have no idea what man is gay and what man is not, when actually it is quite trivial to discover if you know the man well. The homophobia of straight people is directed not so much at gays (who are a protected class nowadays and also many straights have gay “pets”) but is directed at ostensibly straight people who they think are closeted or secretly gay.

I have always said that straights direct most of their homophobic abuse at other straight people, especially straight men. They don’t seem to care much about gay men. But they want to keep those two societies separate. Gay society over there, straight society over here. Straights spend most of their time in straight circles (I don’t blame them), and they are annoyed to enraged by the idea that there are secret or closeted homosexuals running around straight society pretending to be straight.

Many straight men act nervous or uncomfortable around me or do not want to get close to me. This was true of even some of my best friends. I don’t think straight men hate gay men, but they are very nervous about getting close to them or being friends with them, and they are insanely suspicious of homosexuality in their ostensibly straight friends. Suspicion of homosexuality in ostensibly straight men is at off the charts insane levels in straight society. Straight people are really nuts about this subject.

Conclusion: Straight society is still horribly, almost insanely homophobic, but not so much towards gay men (a protected class) but towards suspected closeted or secret gays in their midst (most of whom are just straight men) and homosexual tendencies (most of which don’t exist) among ostensibly straight men.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Sex, Women

India Is Where Human Souls Go to Die; Nigeria Is Where They Go To Burn

Another William Playfair Web writes:

I’m skeptical that really any country other than the ones in East Asia have non-European cultures (Europe was all over)


those Nigerians, wow. Corruption out the wazoo.

They always say that African Blacks act a lot better now than they did when the first explorers showed up, but wow…no where to go but up, but still…I guess they were so low before that they were halfway to China and now they are out of the molten core and only 1/4 way to China, so yeah, that’s technically an improvement, and yet…

Living in Nigeria is like living in a country where lying, cheating and stealing is a way of life. Wait. It’s not like living in a country where lying, cheating and stealing is a way of life, it is living in a country where lying, cheating and stealing are a way of life.

But that’s India too. Or is it the Third World in general? Who knows?

My experience was that the criminality and otherwise base and sleazy nature of Southern Nigerians was off the chart. Keep in mind that we befriended many non-scammer Nigerians, ordinary Nigerians, regular people who joined our Yahoo group to “help fight the scammers.” And we had to throw most of them out of the group for trying to steal from us.

A lot of the “non-thieves” we kept in for some reason, but we had to throw almost all of them out too later on for marriage-scamming the White women.

We had group chats all the time, and the group was full of dating age White women, a lot of whom looked halfway decent. We would have these group chats every night with me and a bunch of women and maybe one other guy. Mostly just me and a bunch of chicks. It was horrible!😉

The Nigerians were always coming into the room and asking the White women for private chats, and when the women accepted the chat, the Nigerian would be there jerking his dick in the woman’s face. A lot of the women in our group were traumatized by this behavior, and we had to protect our women by throwing almost all of the rest of the Nigerians out of the group because they wouldn’t stop jacking off at the girls.

We also had some other Africans in the group, all West Africans from places like Ghana and Sierra Leone. They all tried to steal from us too, and we ended up also having to throw them out.

We had some US Blacks in our group, and their behavior was so much better than the Nigerians that it was almost like they were people from two different planets. And we think US Blacks act bad. You ain’t seen nothing yet. After putting up with these Nigerian Homo Erectuses for a while, I would almost prostrate myself on the floor in wild praises to God for giving us these Blacks that we have instead of those damned Nigerians. “Thank God for our great US Blacks!”

I figure US Blacks probably acted like these Nigerian subhumans when they came here 400 years ago. And now look at ’em. The reason they act so much better now is due to several hundred years of intense White Christian civilizing. That shows you the power of Culture, and it is why I always lose patience with hereditaritards.

White man’s burden FTW!

* Marriage scamming is what almost all Nigerian men do. They are all trying to marry a White woman in the West so they can get into the West on a marriage visa. They are all horrible husbands who, control, abuse, beat and live off their wives. They all refuse to work and instead stay home all day on the computer cooking up various scams or in other words trying to steal from Americans. That’s when they are not trolling dating sites trying to screw White women. They all cheat habitually and incessantly. Needless to say, the marriages don’t last long, but the guy has his marriage visa, so it’s all good.

Plus America just gained a useless, sociopathic African with a 70 IQ! Which I personally think is really cool for reparations for slavery and mostly just because diversity is our strength.


Filed under Africa, Asia, Blacks, Corruption, Crime, Culture, India, Nigeria, Nigerians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Scams, South Asia, USA, West Africa, Whites, Women

An Analysis of the Iraqi Resistance Part 6 – Tendencies

I have decided to publish my most recent work, An Analysis of the Iraqi Resistance, on my blog. Previously, this piece was used for the research for “An Insiders Look at the Iraqi Resistance” a major piece that appeared on the Islamist website (JUS got the copyright but I did the research). That long-running top-billed piece is now down, but it is still archived on Alexa here . Note that this material is copyrighted and all reproduction for profit is forbidden under copyright laws.

For information about reprinting or purchasing one-time rights to this workemail me. This article is an in-depth analysis of the Iraqi resistance and is continuously being revised. It is presently 58 pages long in total. It lists all known Iraqi resistance groups who have ever fought in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad until about 2005, or for the first two years of the war, and includes a brief description and analysis of each group. There are separate sections covering Size, Tendencies, Motivations, Structure, Foreign Assistance, Foreign Fighters, Regional Characteristics, Regions, Cities or Towns Controlled by the Resistance, Major Attacks and List of Groups by Tendency.

The article was intended to be a political science-type analysis of the Iraqi Resistance, and I tried not to take sides one way or the other. I used a tremendous amount of source material, mostly publicly available news reports from the Internet. Obviously, in an area like this you are dealing with a ton of disinformation along with the real deal, so I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the disinfo from the relative truth.

The problem is that one cannot simply discount sources of information such as Israeli and US intelligence, US military reports, reporting from the resistance itself, Islamist websites, etc. Of course these sources are loaded with disinfo and false analysis, but they also tend to have a lot of truth mixed in as well. In writing a piece like this, you pull together all the sources and get sort of a “Gestalt” view of the situation. When you examine all the sources at once in toto, you can kind of sort out the disinfo from the more factual material. Admittedly it’s a hit or miss game, but that’s about as good as we can do source-wise in the inherently hazy subject area of an underground guerrilla war.

Interviews with resistance cadre by the mainstream Western media were given particular prominence in this piece.



Islamists: One study conducted in Summer 2003 found most fighters (~70%) were Sunni and Shia (probably mostly Sunni) Iraqi Arabs with an Islamist background. Many of these are merely pious, mostly Sunni, often tribal, Arabs, who claim to be “fighting for Islam”, but are not necessarily fundamentalists at all. Much has been made in the US media about the influence of Iraqi “Wahhabis”. The situation is highly confused. Iraqi Shiites, and perhaps other Iraqis, routinely refer to conservative Sunnis as Wahhabis, though most of them are not Wahhabis at all.

The ultra-puritanical, intolerant, Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Wahhabi type of Islam favored by many radical fundamentalist Muslims has never been popular in Iraq, a nation that has long-favored a much more cosmopolitan, secular, tolerant brand of Islam. It is this more moderate Iraqi Islam that many of the Islamists seem to be espousing. The Islamists admit to some links with the Saddam loyalists, especially to buy weapons from the loyalists, but other than that, there is not a lot of cooperation. Many Iraqi Islamists have taken a hard line against attacks on Iraqi civilians, saying that they feel attacks should be on military targets only.

They also sometimes take a softer line on the local Iraqi police, saying they are needed to keep the order. The Islamists have harshly condemned most of the attacks on Iraqi infrastructure that the Saddam loyalists have specialized in. However, the Islamist position on attacking the oil-for-export infrastructure is not known. The Islamists do not feel that attacks that increase the misery of the Iraqi people are helpful or moral.

Although the Summer 2003 study above concluded that ~85% of the resistance were Islamists, as of 2-04, a better guess at the percentage of Islamists in the resistance would be ~70%.

There is also a harder-line group of Salafist Sunni Islamists in Iraq, but their numbers do not seem to be large. This group espouses radical Sunni Islam, often similar to the AQ line.

Criminals: Some Iraqi resistance fighters are criminals, but not many, and the percentage seems to be dropping fast. Throughout much of 2003, the US military claimed that this group made up a large percentage of fighters, but there was never much evidence for their charge. It would seem that a criminal would not make a very good or reliable soldier. The percentage of criminals is less than 5% of fighters. By 2004, criminals were becoming increasingly negligible in the resistance.

Communists/Leftists/Marxists: One of the largest groupings, the NFLI, seems to have this sort of orientation. The Communist Party has very deep roots in Iraq, and around 1960, it was the most popular party in Iraq. For instance, most of the followers of radical Shia preacher Sadr in the Sadr City slum district of Baghdad were formerly Communists.

A number of Leftist groupings have reportedly taken up arms (see below) but almost nothing is known about their role in the war. The percentage of Leftists in the resistance is not large, no more than 5%. Many of the Islamist groups say they are willing to fight alongside Communist fighters. In various Iraqi resistance groups, Leftists and Communists fight alongside Baathists, nationalists, and Islamists with no problems at all.

Mercenaries: Throughout 2003, the US military continuously alleged that most of the Iraqi resistance was made up of mere mercenaries who were in it for the money and cared nothing about the cause. There was never much evidence for this allegation, which always smacked of US military propaganda. By 2004, the US military had abruptly abandoned the notion that most fighters were either criminals or mercenaries or both. The rapidity with which this charge was dropped suggests that there was never much to it anyway.

Objective Iraqi political scientists state that mercenaries do make up some of the Iraqi resistance, but not many. The Islamists, in particular, are typically not paid money to fight. The percentage of mercenaries is less than 5% of fighters. By 2004, mercenaries were becoming increasingly negligible in the resistance. The US military charge that resistance fighters are mere mercenaries is really quite silly and hypocritical in light of the situation with the Coalition and pro-Coalition forces. All Coalition soldiers and all armed Coalition “security contractors” are being paid to fight in Iraq, and in the case of the contractors, the pay is very high.

All Iraqi police and Iraqi ICDC Army are getting paid very good salaries by Iraqi standards to wage war on the resistance. The Coalition is offering fat rewards in return for intelligence about the resistance. In light of the fact that so much of the Coalition and pro-Coalition armed forces are being paid, often quite well, and pro-US spies are also being compensated very well, the charge that Iraqi resistance fighters “are only in it for the money” seems quite hypocritical, to say the least.

Saddam Loyalists/Former Regime Loyalists/Baathists/Baath Party/Pro-Saddam elements: About 30%, or 22-30,000 fighters, as of 1-04. In the month or so after Saddam’s capture, this was quite split between anti-Saddam and pro-Saddam Baathists. However, at the moment, most, if not all, members of this group appear to have abandoned both Saddam and the former regime, are no longer fighting to restore the former regime to power, and many are not even fighting to restore the Baath Party to power. In areas like Samarra, anti-Saddam Baathists are quite prominent and vastly outnumber the pro-Saddam Baathists. These elements are likely to be involved in the top-level (hidden) leadership of some of the groups, and seems to have a significant role in funding.

A number of former Saddam loyalists are present in anti-Saddam groups, but some of those groups have required the loyalists to take a vow to renounce loyalty to Saddam’s regime to do that. A number of the former Saddam Fedayeen were reportedly converted quite quickly to an Islamic orientation by Islamist groups and became members of those groups.

The theory, parroted by the US and its allies – that the resistance is made up almost exclusively of Saddam loyalists – would appear to have little support. However, they may indeed make up much of the guerrilla leadership, funding, etc. Saddam loyalists have taken a very hard line on what are appropriate targets to attack, saying that anyone who cooperates with the Occupation in any way should be attacked.

Many of the more shocking attacks on largely civilian targets, such as on the UN, the ICRC offices, and other humanitarian offices, have been done by Saddam loyalists. They are also behind many of the (non-oil) infrastructure attacks such as attacks on water treatment plants, power lines, water mains, electricity workers, etc. The probable aim here is to make life as miserable as possible for the Iraqis, in hopes they will blame the US and join the rebellion. Saddam is said to have ordered attacks on anything or anyone “making the Occupation comfortable”. Some pro-Saddam fighters are also Islamists, and nationalist sentiments are almost universal amongst this faction. The revenge element is also frequently present.

Christians: A few Iraqi Christians are known to have taken up arms, but most have not. Some have been wounded or killed fighting for the resistance. Almost nothing is known of the Christian role in the resistance. Most of the Iraqi Islamist groups say they are willing to incorporate Christian fighters into their formations.

Turkmen: A few Turkmen are known to have taken up arms, but most have not. Some have been wounded or killed fighting for the resistance. Almost nothing is known of the Turkmen role in the resistance. AAI has some Turkmen members.

Kurds: Only a very few Kurds have taken up arms against the Coalition, and most of those are very hardline Islamists such as AAI. In 12-03, ~25 Kurdish Islamists were arrested in Kirkuk and charged with being insurgents – they were charged with having links to AAI. In 2-04, a hardline Islamist movement was said to be growing in the mountains of Kurdistan, which refused any cooperation with the US. Their views are similar to AAI – for instance, TV’s have been banned. However, it was not known if they were armed. Iraqi resistance spokesmen say that the hardline Islamic stand of these Kurds will need to be moderated if they are to expand their resistance movement much.

Women: guerrilas are overwhelmingly men, though Muhammed’ s Army claims an all-female brigade in Diyala Province (which is further evidence against MA being a hardline Islamist grouping). There have been a few female combatants, but not many. There were some notable cases, such as the following:

a. In 6-03, a young Iraqi Shia woman from a Shia village outside Baqubah tried to throw a grenade at US troops in Baqubah and was killed by the troops.
b. In 7-03, an 11-year-old Iraqi girl attacked US troops with an AK-47 in Ramadi and then ran home – troops were so stunned that they did not even fire back at her. The gun was later found hidden in one of her dresses. See Minors below.
c. In 9-03, a 48-year-old Iraqi woman with a suicide bomb belt strapped to her body was captured trying to enter the Finance Ministry in Baghdad.
d. In 11-03, an Iraqi mother and her 3 sons were arrested in Fallujah and charged with planning attacks.
e. In 12-03, a Syrian woman was arrested with a sophisticated timing device in Basra and accused of plotting to bomb the harbor.
f. In 2-04, an Iraqi female suicide bomber, the first in Iraq, approached the home of an Iraqi collaborationist tribal leader and detonated herself outside the home when guards denied her entry. 3 guards were wounded.

Minors: guerrilas are mostly adult males, ranging in age from 18 to ~50. A few minors have waged guerrilla-style anti-US attacks, but not many (see the case of the 11-yr-old girl in Ramadi above). There would seem to be ample supply of able-bodied males ready and able to fight.

Minors, including young children, are sometimes used as lookouts, notably in the major battle in Samarra on 11-30-03. Boys, especially teenage boys, have in some cases engaged in rock-throwing attacks on US troops, but this does not appear to have been common. Rock throwing was most frequently reported in Fallujah and Baghdad. In 12-03, a number of junior high and high-school age boys in the Adhamiya District of Baghdad were taken to jail for throwing rocks at troops in a demonstration.

Former Iraqi military: As most Iraqi males had at least some military service and training, the group of (mostly Sunni) former Iraqi military makes up a very large number of the guerrilas. Although some are fighting for Saddam, many others are not. Those who are not pro-Saddam say they are fighting for nationalism, Islam, tribal honor or getting revenge for various indignities. Many of them either say they have given up on Saddam or describe him as a loser who sold out the country to the invaders.

The fact that most Iraqi males have had military training, plus the fact that most military-age Iraqi males were drafted into the military, at least during the US invasion of 2003, has provided US military propaganda with a veritable propaganda gold mine – now the US can claim that most of the Iraqi resistance is made up of (drum roll): “former members of the Iraqi military”! Well, of course it does, but the Iraqi military, as an institution, dates back decades to the early part of the 20th Century and has its own ideology, primarily nationalist or Arab nationalist, often independent of whatever regime was in power.

It is this nationalist/Arab nationalist ideology, not loyalty to Saddam’s regime, which best describes the ideology of former Iraqi military, from officers down to cadre. Shia made up the majority of the Iraqi military, so by the logic of US military propaganda, apparently this means most Iraqi Shia supported Saddam! The hard fact is that the obvious observation that most Iraqi guerrilas are former Iraqi military members is both a circular argument and utterly irrelevant in terms of their ideology; and it certainly does not imply that all or even most of said former military members are pro-Saddam or pro-Baath.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arab Nationalism, Christianity, Crime, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Kurdistan, Kurds, Law enforcement, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Near Easterners, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Shiism, Sunnism, USA, War, Women

Game: Putting Women on a Pedestal

What do you think it means to put a woman on a pedestal? I doubt if I do this, but I want to make sure I don’t anyway. I have seen a lot of definitions on the Net, but I am still confused.

If you know what the definition is, can you give me some examples of a man putting a woman on a pedestal?


Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

The War of the Sexes

My mother is sadly a bit of a feminist, and so is another sibling. My Mom’s feminism goes way back. One of her best friends was one of the founding members of the California NOW back in the late 1960’s. She went to some of the foundational meetings of that group in Laguna Beach, California. M. was the only heterosexual among the founding members of California NOW. All the rest were lesbians. M. eventually stopped going to NOW meetings because the lesbians would not stop trying to seduce her.

One of her best friends set up a women’s shelter for battered women at California State University Long Beach where I went to school. I met this woman, and she was a real feminazi. But my Mom defended her and said men had screwed her over badly in life. She also defends other man-hating feminists on the grounds that the men in their life treated them badly. But I am sure she does not think much of misogynists, no matter how badly they have been treated  by women.

I don’t think the genders ought to be making excuses for the haters on our own team. If it’s perfectly fine for women to be man-haters due to mistreatment by men, then why isn’t it fine for men to be misogynists due to mistreatment by women? If you are going to defend the man-haters, then you have to defend misogynists as well on the same grounds.

Of  course feminism cannot do that because feminism is all about defending or even lionizing man-haters while reviling misogynists as the spawn of Satan. And this is the fatal flaw of feminism. Surely if misogynists are awful, then so are manhaters. If manhaters are just fine, then so are misogynists.

Of course the stupid MRA’s are caught in this same moronic trap. Misogyny is elevated to near religious status, while manhaters are the Devil incarnate. Of course if misogyny is great then so is manhating. And if manhating is a cardinal sin, then so is misogyny.

That sibling and my Mom are almost feminazis, I hate to say it. Looking at my Mom’s feminism, it looks like vengeance. I think she wants to get even. That’s what I get from her. Face it, feminism is paybacks, and as they say on the street, paybacks are a bitch.

She seems to think that men are in charge, men rule, and that men’s rules are lousy for women. She gets this hard look about her when she talks about feminist stuff, and it’s really all about revenge for some wrongs that we have done to them. I think it is also about evening the score. My Mom seems to think that society is set up for men’s rules, and she would like to change that in some way and make society run more according to the rules of women. This unfortunately even includes the legal system.

However, my Mom is not a true feminazi. She is too sensible for that.

And I do not think she is a manhater. She has three sons who she loves very much, though I often wonder if we really deserve it. But she shovels the love anyway whether we deserve it or not and I believe whether we return the love or not. Her love for her sons is quite unconditional. She loves her sons even if they don’t love her or even like her. She loves her sons whether they are deserving of it or not, and honestly I think at times some of us really do not deserve her love.

That’s quite a selfless endeavor, is it not? To give unconditional love irrespective or whether it is deserved or returned. It’s almost…Jesus like. But then maybe my mother is not unusual.

Mothers and daughters are often locked into very problematic relations that often are not only loveless but frequently even look like hate, often combined with some strange and bitter rivalry.

Perhaps many mothers love their sons in this sort of saintly way. Why? Perhaps a mother’s love for her sons is an undying thing, rooted in nature and biology like the sun or the moon and not dependent on conditions or circumstances. It’s just there. It’s actually a rather amazing thing is you think about it.

My mother does have some resentment towards men, but I am starting to think that a vast number of women have this. It may build with age as damage accumulates. One can see this resentment when the females of my family get together, as they form a “female pack” like a wolf pack, move away from and don’t talk to the males and unfortunately even laugh at and ridicule them. It turns into Women Against Men, which strikes me as a Game, and a needless and ugly one at that.

There’s some residual anger at men there, or possibly they simply think females are superior. Female chauvinism definitely exists, and it’s about as common as the male variety. It’s more that most folks don’t notice it.

Anyway, by my age almost all men have more than a bit of residual anger at women, so I don’t particularly care if the sexes are mad at each other on some hopefully minor level. It is rather the normal state of affairs. I don’t agree with forming gender packs and waging slow guerrilla war against the entire other gender. That’s ugly. It feels like war, a very unpleasant feeling. I would not like it if men did that to women, and I don’t think women should do that to men.

Bottom line is I do not think men and women should pit themselves against each other like boxers in a ring. It seems insipid unless you are can prove that one gender is very good and the other gender is quite evil, but the more you think about it, there’s nothing there. Men are about as good as women, and they’re about as horrible too. Or they might even be worse.

I suppose it is because I am a spiritual androgyne that I just don’t get the gender hate thing.


Filed under California, Feminism, Gender Studies, Masculinism, Psychology, Regional, USA, West, Women