RE: Pedophilia

So I’ve waited long enough trying to get a response to what is currently my most popular and controversial post.  Decided to see if the Free Speech group on is up to snuff when discussing these controversial idea.  Well, I was met with the expected ad-hominem attacks without much discussion on the ideas/arguments presented in the blog.  But there were some that were a bit more fruitful.  Below is the post I made asking for a challenge (it also included a link to the original blog):

As for everyone else here in the Free Speech group, can I get any takers please?  I legitimately want challengers to tackle my argument and attempt to destroy it, logically (none of that ad-hominem BS).  The argument is: pedophilia shouldn’t be as illegal as it currently is under it’s broad scope.

Below are the discussions I’ve had, organized from a back-and-forth between me and one person, to the next exchange with another individual, and so on.

Children can’t consent. Children who have been sexualized by an adult are likely to suffer permanent and life altering changes to their body and mind.


“Likely” does not equal “guaranteed,” as there are factors involved in that, such as whether or not it was consensual, how mature the kid really is, if the adult was being reasonable and taking factors about the kid’s development into account, etc.

And your first statement is a lie. It’s not that “children can’t consent,” it’s that “many children can’t consent,” at least not in terms of being mature and wise enough to think for themselves and decide for themselves when pressured by an adult (though we should be debating what the definition of a child and adult actually is, if this continues).

As for “children can’t consent,” let me tell you why exactly that is bullshit. It is not that rare to learn that teenagers had sex with each other at some point. Don’t try to convince me otherwise, I’ve had friends who have discussed their experiences with that back in the day.


Your argument could be rephrased as “some people can hold their liquor, so driving under the influence shouldn’t be illegal.” Your premise is correct, but your conclusion doesn’t follow.


Well, I have to give you credit, that’s a good re-phrasal. The thing is, it’s not like drivers, drunk or not, usually give consent as to whether or not they want to get in an accident.


Ah. What I should have said is that it used to be ok for people to drive under the influence; as in there used to be no laws against it because people could be trusted to be responsible enough not to drive while drunk (at least THAT drunk). But eventually enough accidents happened to indicate that no, there are too many irresponsible drunkards out there, thus a law should be made against it. Despite the law, drunk drivers remain, and have arguably increased since (though that might be due to increased population; on the other hand, there’s the immigration factor to consider).

That’s about the laws being made due to irresponsibility of the driver. That analogy therefore would state that sex with minors is illegal because pedophiles can’t be trusted to be responsible. I can’t exactly argue with that in the general sense. However, if the conclusion doesn’t follow regarding drunk drivers in terms of, “because they can’t be trusted to be responsible individuals, drunk driving is illegal to reduce the likelihood of irresponsible individuals causing harm to others,” and equating that with pedophiles in place of drunk drivers, then I argue your conclusion isn’t exactly perfect either. Statistically speaking, if it can be shown that laws against drunk driving didn’t quell the number of drunk driving accidents on average, then it can be argued that laws against sex with minors wouldn’t fair much better.

I’m going to have to look for statistics on how laws against drunk driving affected the average number of drunk driving accidents (taking into account population growth, so more of a per 100,000 thing or something like that).


Ok, so I did some digging around regarding drunk driving fatalities. I wanted to go as far back as the 1950s, maybe even the 1960s, but the best studies I can find so far only go back to the early-80s. Anyway, the first source I found basically goes with the trend you would expect, which speaking from the analogy point of view, would appear to hurt my case.…There’s also other charts showing that the rate these accidents occur varies wildly between states (California, Florida, and Texas are considerably higher than the others when it comes to DUI fatalities). So in a general sense, that seems to make your case, especially since underage DUIs play a factor into those statistics. However, there’s also the racial factor to consider. This is important because of culture clash, illegal immigration rates (and what their nationalities/race tends to be), and the fact that blacks and hispanics have a lower IQ on average compared to whites. I quote:
“Blacks comprise about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and Hispanics about 8 percent (Bureau of Census 1987). Research suggests that problem drinking and associated mortality rates are higher in these two minority groups than in the general public.”’s other sources that also add indians (aka native americans) among those about as likely to have DUIs. But anyway, the point I’m making is that such laws regarding the legalities of drunk driving wouldn’t need to be implemented if there wasn’t an increase in the black and hispanic population compared to the white population (the latter of which has been on the decline since the 1960s, and may no longer be a majority by 2040). I would argue a similar case when it comes to age of consent laws.One more quote from the same source above, which can also be used as an analogy for why it is difficult to gather relevant data on the subject:
“Political and legal considerations may further limit the availability of relevant data. Drunk driving is a criminal and civil offense that can have severe personal consequences for the driver involved, Moreover, the stigmatization of individuals accused of drunk driving can also taint the groups to which they belong. Under these circumstances, government authorities may be reluctant to collect pertinent information on specific ethnic groups, or they may decline to release data that has been collected.”

I think you’re agreeing with me, but you don’t say so. Thank you for admitting I have a point, even if it’s tangential. I’ll note that a major factor for the decrease in fatalities is better motor vehicle safety. I don’t think that it has anything to do with pedophilia, but it’s interesting.


Guess I should make my point more clear. Society should progress in such a way so as to make those sorts of laws unnecessary. You know, because a healthy and intelligent society would promote independent and responsible individuals. And yet society isn’t progressing in that direction. It’s regressing, because whites are becoming less of a majority, and as a consequence other races with other cultures and personalities and levels of intelligence are becoming more dominant. And that is the reason laws like this have become necessary, because they are dragging society down, and causing it to regress. For instance, the DUI rates in South Africa are higher than in the U.S., while they tend to be at their lowest in places like India and China. The latter countries are not where we’re getting the majority of our immigrants. Even Ireland has a considerably lower DUI rate than the U.S., and they’re notorious for drinking.

So yes, I’ll admit the laws are currently necessary, but with the caveat that they didn’t use to be necessary. And their necessity addresses the symptom rather than the cause. Because of that, in the long-term, the laws will eventually break down. Addressing the cause will require a more radical method of enforcement.





Family Guy Pedophile |

Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future. They should be generally culled from society one way or another. It is likely, much like the homos, that their behavior could be rooted in some genes. So it would make sense to screen embryos for what amounts to evil genes and just eliminate them in the zygote stage or some similar early stage of development. Until we take such measures humanity will continue to have a large vein of evil within it. Who will decide such things? Why not. Let’s just do it.


“Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future.”

In what way? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I want to see where you go when it comes to getting to the root on how you justify that statement. Specifics.


Damage to the psyche of the child which ripples throughout the life of the person. This, causes other effects on society by that individual not being able to live up to his or her potential and ability to establish a proper psyche.

It is well known that child abuse lowers IQ, it stifles life prospects, it can cause many behavioral issues and mental illness. For starters, you can look up Stefan Molyneux and consult any honest psychologist. I’m not here to educate you but I will provide you with places you can start as I don’t really believe you’re completely genuine or sane. If you can’t find anything for yourself from there then you really are a loon. Or maybe you’re genuine in which case that is hilarious.……

As a person you start with a range of potential and your environment determines wherein that range you rest and solidify as you grow as a being. A sexual intervention on part of a pedophile in the life of a child is very destructive and harms development. He has not the right to do that. Not to mention that children cannot give consent due to the fact that they don’t have full autonomy due to their underdeveloped brains. They are lesser creatures who need guidance and protection so they can grow into functioning adult humans. It is one main argument against allowing 14yr olds to vote or toddlers to drive, their biology.

If you want to loosen restrictions on laws against pedophilia you’re probably just a degenerate retard who (at best) wants to hold a naive mercy for a condition that is indeed pure evil. -You’re probably a leftist to but I don’t want to assume too much.- If the behavior has major roots in genetics then we will erase it from the face of the Earth if there is any good in humanity. You can screen a very early embryo for nearly anything without destroying it. Here is something like the apparatus that will be used to erase many of the evils of mankind after we get a visionary dictator:


Ok, started reading through these links. The first one, linking to ScienceDaily, basically states that there’s a clear connection between those who have been subjected to “child abuse,” and those who haven’t, when it comes to long-term brain development (the first 20 years are of significant importance). The connection being those who have been subject to child abuse are more likely to commit suicide, mainly because it affects their brain’s ability to regulate emotions and attachment.

Fine and all, but “child abuse” isn’t exactly limited to sexual mistreatment of a child. It can also involve physical trauma, emotional trauma unrelated to sex, or just neglect. Hell, I myself am a victim of this, because I was dropped on my head when I was a baby (in a parking lot). Plus I got hit by a car a couple years after that. I’m well aware I’m different from others because of that, lacking the ability to become too attached to anyone or anything (it has its pros and cons), among other side-effects. I contemplated suicide in the 4th grade, and have the occasional hits of depression and suicidal thoughts every 3-4 months or so. None of that fucking happened because I was sexually abused as a kid. Being molested (consensually) doesn’t necessarily cause that lack of myelinated nerve fibres in the brain. It depends on how physically and emotionally traumatic such events are.

Please don’t respond until I go through the other 2 sites. One of them might change my opinion.


Second link, Psychology Today, it pretty much says the same thing, except it focuses on the development of children up to about the age of 12, and takes into account the affect childhood trauma (which the article basically defines as “physical abuse or lack of parental involvement; physically abused or orphaned”) affects children negatively. The abused tend to have smaller amygdala and hippocampi, which leads to behavioral problems such as aggression, school-fighting, or ditching school. Again, not specifically linked to sexual trauma per-se, but even if it did, it’s not exactly focusing on “consensual sex” studies (good luck finding studies on that). One more to go.


Fertile Minds website. Is this a joke? It talks about embryo screening. It doesn’t say anything about childhood development. It’s rubbish.

Feel free to respond.


:1 wat

Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion? Really, I don’t think this can go anywhere you’re obviously a bit committed to that weird position of yours and it’s probably rooted in justifying whatever happened to you as a child. Which is a bit of a drop in an already filled bucket that states children are very much harmed by abuse in its many forms.

Yes I provided a website that is for a firm that does IVF procedures for those who want to screen out genetic abnormalities and mutations in primitive human embryos some of which are known to cause myraid disorders in children. I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?

You can’t even understand my position and as I learn about yours it becomes obvious… Note, I gave you a springboard I’m not your search engine. Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. Many things you have certainly done and are doing to compensate for this. You have been damaged by that/those events. I am 100% sure of this and because I now know that you truly are disturbed and aren’t just a troll or a curious fellow I won’t be talking to you again. I wish you luck in tackling the monster you have within you and I implore that you seek help if you don’t think you can handle its wiles. Evil exists and yes it has a natural form, character, and destination altogether I call it Human Entropy. Bye.


“Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion?”

Rape of a child is definitively child abuse. The alternative, that’s basically what I’m arguing for. I’d go into more detail to clarify the specifics, but you’ve already stated that you’re previous response will be your last response, so I don’t see the point.

“I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?”

Whew, ok, I guess I did misjudge your intention with that link. That is something that goes beyond what I aimed to talk about, and has the potential for even greater side-effects than underaged sex, or lack thereof, could ever do. That’s a topic too big for this discussion.

“Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. […] I am 100% sure of this”

You’re a moron. You’re a moron for using the “making an argument from incredulity” fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and once again resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy. You’re also a moron for making a false assumption by making this more personal than it needs to be. So for your information, though you won’t believe it because you’re not open-minded enough, no, I was never molested as a kid. And quite frankly, I’ve never had sex with anyone. I’m a virgin. So you can take your certainties and shove it up your dim-witted ass. Don’t let the door hit you there on the way out.


And for the record, you could’ve brought up some study the clearly linked psychological damage to molestation. But you didn’t. That would’ve been too interesting and enlightening for this conversation apparently.


Dude, google is your friend.
Or is it frenemy? idk Just go dude we’re not going to get anywhere.


I prefer DuckDuckGo myself. In any case, the reason I ask is because you must surely know of a source yourself, otherwise why be so steadfast in your position? This is one of the reasons I question this stance in the first place, I don’t think any definitive studies supporting your position exist, anymore than definitive studies supporting my position exist. Where could one even hope to find such studies?

So the best I could do is find cases of a similar nature that imply my position is correct. For instance, a study showing that youths having sex during the ages of 13-15 have long term social/psychological benefits, such as being less likely to have delinquent behavior (which might explain why I am the way I am, along with the physical head trauma):…

Now let’s see if we’ll get somewhere (I doubt it, but that might just be because I’m pessimistic).







People 18 or younger don’t really know that much, but, think they know everything. That’s why the laws are the way they are; to protect people who don’t know better.


Heheh, the same could be said about those over the age of 18.


And you’d be hard pressed to find ANYONE in their 30+’s who doesn’t agree that it’s a good thing, that there is some inherent stupidity that is unknowable at that time…


Of course that’s not a good thing. Of course I should expect/hope that everyone at that age should know better (just to be clear, know better than to take advantage of someone in a way that isn’t clearly consensual). The thing is, such expectations tended to be had of children aged 10 and older prior to the 1920s. What changed? Our understanding of biology and science and ethics? How do we know for sure we didn’t end up regressing, like how we’ve been doing in regards to male/female sexes over the past decade? Discussing it would be a good start, finding studies on the subject matter would be better.


I think the idea is to be cautious with our children. I’m not going to research this topic because it’s really not that interesting to me. Maybe you should. You wrote the article, dig in and educate us. The thing is tho, that most adults my age will be hard pressed to change their thinking on the matter as we will err on the side of caution especially when our children are the subject.


One should always be cautious of their children. Any self-respecting parent would be. The tricky part is the balancing act of how much independence (ie room for independent growth) one should give their child, and when to give it to them. It’s especially tricky because it varies based not just on the child at that point, but also on the family itself. Even the community.



I’ll take you on, because I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion. Come at me.


Uh, I believe I was the one who asked you to do that first. Read my blog, pick out some point that you disagree with, and show me how/why it’s wrong. Be specific, not generalized.


Grown adults banging kids is wrong. Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all. Education for those who have entered puberty is important, but supplying your kid the device with which to fuck themself is creepy and wrong. Kids under 15 should not have unsupervised access to television or the internet. That’s my position.


“I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion.”

I just knew you were going to regret those words.

“Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all.”

So I guess kids being kids and exploring each other and it being handled by the family means brothers and sisters doing a little incest is ok.

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. When someone gives enough rope to hang themselves with, it’s tough to resist kicking the table out from under them.

But anyway, being serious now. “Grown adults banging kids is wrong.” That’s true in a general sense. I argue that there should be exceptions. Because not having those exceptions allows for those laws/rules/ethics to be exploited in dangerous ways. People may say children are too vulnerable towards adults to allow for any adult-child relationship (in a sexual way) to ever safely work (by safely, I mean in terms of child development on an emotional/mental level). I say there exist children (I’m not saying they’re anywhere near the majority of cases, just that they exist) who are capable of exploiting vulnerable adults. Whether the adults are vulnerable because they are mentally stunted, physically stunted, because a child put them in that position or because they put themselves in that position; there do exist children who are definitely capable of taking advantage of adults in that way, and making the laws work even further towards that exploitation, just as women statistically take advantage of the courts in cases against men. Or have you heard that children raping adults is a thing? Because I can site some examples if you doubt it.

Those are some of the reasons why I hold the position I currently do.


I didn’t say it was ok. Only that it’s human nature. Table is secure. Exceptions are an excuse to create a slippery slope. Zero tolerance policies exist for a reason.


And that slippery slope didn’t seem like that big of a deal prior to the 1920s. Because up until then, the age of consent (officially established in the 1880s, in America) as 10-12 years of age, depending on which State you were in. In some countries, such as Austria, the age of consent is 14 (present day).

I think you should start questioning why it was determined that age 18 (again, this varies by State, I’m just going with that number for general reference) was the one to go with. Doesn’t seem right to me that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a crime, while a 50 year old having sex with a 22 year old is perfectly ok.

Perhaps you could start mentioning exactly why zero-tolerance policies regarding pedophilia (or more specifically, statutory rape) do exist. What are those good reasons? And do zero-tolerance laws not risk causing more harm than what the slippery slope could inevitably cause? Why shouldn’t these things be judged on a case by case basis?


Post pubescent kids having sex is not wrong in a literal sense, however predators take advantage of children who don’t have a firm grasp on the gravity of the situation and the life long scars they may have to deal with. Also pair bonding will never get it’s proper chance if sex is trivialized. There are some major flaws to your logic, and the 18-17 argument is an obvious bait and switch.


I believe I already stated that your argument is correct in the general sense, that there are child predators who take advantage of children who don’t know any better and give them those lifelong (or at least considerably long) scars. But I also said that there are exceptions, and you’re not addressing those said exceptions. At least aside from calling them a bait-and-switch, which means nothing to me considering those exceptions are valid points. If you still don’t think that’s the case, then you’re going to have to explain why exactly that is without just calling it a bait-and-switch or something like that. You say there’s major flaws. Point out what they are and why they’re flaws.


It comes back to the slippery slope. Of course the 17-18 thing is bait and switch, it’s where the argument “but what about 16-18 pairs?” is birthed from, and just ratchet it back little by little until you’re talking about 9-18 pairs.


Well, considering that puberty doesn’t happen until the age of 12 (sometimes as early as 11), you can rest assured that I won’t be talking about 9-18 pairs. Lowest I’d ever go, just based purely on a biological science point of view, is 12, if even that.

That aside, I’m not exactly seeing any specifics here. You’re not pointing out clearly what these flaws in logic are. Unless it’s based purely on the slippery slope argument, where one could argue that, “One day it will be age 16, next day it will be age 15, then 14, etc.” Kind of like how one argues about the slippery slope of abortion. However, the “slippery slope” itself is an argumentative fallacy. You can’t hope to win a logical argument on those grounds.


Fair enough, and I wasn’t implying you meant anyone that young, however, the rates of early onset puberty in girls has been on the rise, so 8 and 9 year old girls getting their period is a thing. Still advocate for it?


Ah shit. Well now I’m interested in looking into studies that explain why children are beginning to have puberty 1-2 years earlier than what was normally shown a decade ago. Probably has to do in-part with the chemicals in the water (not being ironic here, Alex Jones was kind of onto something there).

I’d have to go through more trials of objective critique, but for now I’d just fall back on my initial position of 12 years at the absolute earliest (if even that, and this again depends on the child itself, let alone what an adult would find attractive; for all I know these early pubescent are ugly mutated freaks). Main reason being is that children need to learn about their own self, their own sexuality, their own wants and desires first. Similar to the reason why I would never advocate for sex-change surgery or hormones or shit like that at an early age, except that is actually worse because that can cause both physical and mental harm in the long-run, maybe even the short term.

And that’s the thing. Some children are faster at learning about themselves in that way than others, just as some children can learn math faster than others, physics faster than others, etc. The only real way it can be judged is on a case by case basis. At the very least, I think we can both agree that each child is different (speaking beyond just sexuality here, I’m also talking personalities, physical attributes, mental functions/disfunctions, etc.)

PS: Have you even read the blog yet?


No, I have not if I’m being honest. Yes case by case is the way to take this situation, however you can’t legislate case by case, that’s why there are age of consent laws. Maybe they aren’t perfect, but they’re designed to protect those who don’t fully understand their autonomy and the repercussions of abuse. Some people probably enjoyed being molested at the time, but look back on it with shame and disgust. That’s worth sparing.


The other side of the coin is that some people may have enjoyed being molested at the time, and not let it affect them at all later in life.

And those laws may be designed to protect those who don’t fully understand things such as anatomy and whatnot, but that’s not exactly helping them completely now is it? How do we know for sure that the alternative wouldn’t be a better option? Not saying I’m advocating for child rape or anything (that should be obvious, but some people on here assume otherwise without looking into the context). Rape should always be punished, no matter the age (that should be independent from age of consent, statutory rape aside). I am saying that the age of consent should be lowered.

In any case, this looks like it’s heading in the direction of “agree to disagree.” Or something like that.


You are the sumation of all the moments of your life. It’s impossible to not be affected. What you’re advocating by saying sex with a 12yo shouldn’t be a crime is the erosion of traditional family values. Traditions exist for a reason. They got us here. I like here.
As far as agree to disagree, yeah pretty much. Maybe age of consent isn’t perfect in it’s current state, but dropping those laws is just inviting the wolves to the hen house.


If only a study could be done for comparison. Like comparing how it was pre-1920s to post-1920s. Obviously, I could see why there would be hesitation (at the very least) in doing a statistical study in that manner. And doing the study by comparing different countries/cultures isn’t a good alternative either, at least in my opinion.


The reason things were different prior to the 20’s is mortality rates were higher and life was harder. Girls of child bearing age were expected to shore up the population. Thankfully things have changed.


“Thankfully things have changed.”

For now.


Exactly what do you mean “for now”?


Things can change again, sometimes reverting. Sometimes moving forward in unexpected ways. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t have been socially acceptable to have drag queens lecture kindergartners (let alone teach them sex ed; seriously, kids that age have better things to do, and should have better things on their minds). Now it is. That means either things are going to start getting considerably worse in a few years or less, or they’ll start to get better. I’m betting on the former, because things always have to get a lot worse before they get better.


I disagree… The pendulum is about as far left as it’s gonna get.


If you really believe that, then you obviously haven’t seen how bad it’s gotten in Sweden, the UK, Germany, and France. Let alone how bad it got in Germany during the 1920s.


I’m talking about the people who aren’t still living in 600 AD


We’ll know for sure by 2025 at the latest. I’m betting more on 2021.





It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation. They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no. A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.

Pedos can live their lives, look at all hentai they want, fantasize all they want but the moment they act on their urges, their life is forfeit. No sex offenders list. No jail or prison. No rehabilitation. No second chances. Just an expedited death.


“It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation.”

Objectively not true. There are some children who are the exception to the rule because they do have minds/bodies that do what you say they don’t. For example, there are children who rape adults.

“They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no.”

Powerless to stop on a physical level, generally speaking, yes. To say no, not necessarily.

“A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.”

No, a child predator takes advantage of this. There’s a distinction between a pedophile and a child predator which should be made. That’s like saying all men who aren’t virgins have raped someone. Not true.


Even if this actually happened, a handful of children raping doesn’t change the fact that pedophilia is highly immoral.

Their “no” is not gonna be respected by a pedo. Children are very guilliable and trusting. They can easily be coerced or pressured into something they don’t understand. That’s the main reason why they can’t consent.

Child predator is a synonym of pedophile.


That’s like saying “statutory rape” is a synonym of “rape.” I don’t consider those equivalent, and neither do various sources.

On that note, from my understanding of the definition of a pedophile, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:
“An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.”

I don’t exactly see that as being the equivalent of a predator.


If a pedo is trying to normalize pedophilia or advocate for it or in pursuit of fullfilling their urges, they’re a child predator.


Yeah, and if someone advocates for pro-life and nationalism, they’re fascists and nazis and sexists and racists and all that other bullshit. You’re argument is the equivalent of that. Except it’s worse, because that’s literally not the definition of a child predator. That’s a political activist.


Dude, you’re talking about advocating for fucking little kids and being called a predator for it.

It’s not comparable to being an advocate for pro-life and being called a nazi for it.

I hope dems and the LGBT crowd back this “pedo is a sexuality” stuff. It will be the end of their party and political movements. So just keep advocating away.


You misunderstand (though I doubt your mental capacity to do otherwise). I’m not calling for the normalization of it. I’m saying there are exceptions here. That there are cases of adults screwing kids, consensually, where the kids don’t turn out all screwed up. In fact, sometimes it’s the other way around; with the kids coming onto the adults and screwing them. But the adult gets punished either way. It’s a problem of, “No matter what the context, the adult deserves punishment,” which doesn’t sit well with me. And if you’re unwilling to consider arguments for that, then we’ve nothing to talk about.


You asked that we don’t use ad hominem against you but yet you do when backed into a corner?

Considering your argument doesn’t mean I have to agree with it in any sense. You haven’t made any compelling arguments. Just false equivalences.

Yes, you’re making the argument for decriminalize/normalizing it at least in part. That’s what this whole thing is about.


Then let’s compare. You have argued that having sex with minors is wrong because their minds and bodies aren’t developed enough to handle it; the implication being this applies to ALL minors. You state that this is an objective fact (without citing a source to back it up). I argue back, objectively, that there are minors who do have minds and bodies that are developed enough to handle it, while keeping in mind this is a case-by-case basis that depends on both the child and the adult; an objective statement.

Your response to that is that (aside from attempting to redefine the actual definition of pedophile and equating it with child predator, of which there is a clear distinction definition-wise, which can be shown objectively) is that sex with minors is highly immoral either way. Well, that’s not quite how you word it; you worded it as child raping, which I think we can both agree is wrong, but that’s not what I’m arguing for here (unless you want to bring up “statutory rape,” in which case I am arguing exclusively about that). But anyway, assuming we’re on agreement that you intended to say that sex with minors is highly immoral no matter what, that’s a subjective statement, and you haven’t gone into the details as to why it is or isn’t immoral.

I made the mistake of not going into detail as to why I don’t believe it should be considered highly immoral when consensual sex is involved (and if the adult truly has no manipulative intent; that the adult has no intention of physically and mentally harming the child). Though I gave those details in the blog linked in the OP, which of course you haven’t read because you’re not interested in taking this discussion seriously, if you ever had that intention to begin with. So I’ll just repeat it here:

The golden rule, which multiple religions share to an extent: “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.

Therefore, if the adult is not causing harm to the child through consensual sex, then it’s not immoral.

If none of that can be considered a compelling argument, than neither is anything you have said. And if you’re referring to my alleged ad-hominem against you when I said I doubted your mental capacity to understand (ie reason), that’s a way of goading you into trying to prove me wrong. You’ll either respond with an ad-hominem yourself, or you’ll show that you do posses an amount of reasoning capacity. If the former, then it will accelerate this conversation between us ending, and me potentially muting you. If the latter, then maybe things will get more constructive and enlightening.


You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth. I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.

Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.

You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for. You’re being a hypocrite for breaking your own rule.

I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it. It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.


“You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth.”

Fair enough. Here’s one study stating that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex:…

And another that hypothesizes (and concludes) youth would experience more positive and less negative affects following sexual intercourse than at other times in their daily lives:

As for studies demonstrating that it can be beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor, good luck finding one of those. Although it may be possible if one were to go overseas to analyze such studies in certain countries where that is more legal. In any case, the studies above show that minors having sex has benefits in terms of mental development, potentially even physical.

“I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.”

And they say the same thing about the Holocaust, and some places outlaw questioning it. And yet there are valid reasons to question it, some of which I’ve looked into, which provide very convincing arguments. This response of yours isn’t good enough. You do need to back it up if you wish to challenge my argument successfully. And if you have decades of medical professionals at your disposal, then this should be easy for you.

“Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.”

Science says otherwise. Exceptions make new rules (or formulas) all the time in those fields.

“You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for.”

As Socrates once said, strong minds discuss ideas, weak minds discuss people.

“I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it.”

Then consider my responses to you as intended to do the same.

“It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.”

Perhaps. But it’s also something I being brought up so it can be challenged. I want to see if it stands up to scrutiny. So far the primary thing being scrutinized is me, and not the idea itself.



Your question is mainly about the age of consent.

The age of consent is there to allow someone enough time to mature in order to lower the chances of predators taking advantage of someone.

This issue is a question of capacity. It is better to be cautious than allow room for predators to take advantage. That’s what predators do.

The goal is to prevent harm by predators.


But how does one arrive at that “age of consent” number? Especially when children have been shown to develop at varying rates; including maturity.

And I’m sure we can both agree that no one wants a predator to take advantage of a child (or of anyone for that matter, of any age). The issue is that sometimes the children themselves can become the predator. At which point they are the ones taking advantage of the age of consent laws (potentially for blackmail, let alone other reasons).


Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility. Those situations will almost never happen. Wringing your hands over that small possibility is a waste. Due Process will take its course if someone has a good, competant lawyer.

The number is arbitrary. How can someone ever predict someone else’s capacity via age? It’s too broad and specific language written in law defining all of that would never be decipherable. Something has to be in place and it is better to not allow room for potential predatory behavior to occur thus becoming a deterrent.

It may not always work at deterrence but what does 100% of the time?

You may have self-control but not everyone does or wants to exercise self-control.

For simplicity purposes, statute uses 18 (mostly). The law has to be used as a deterrent and punishment. It isn’t perfect but predators never sleep.

This is a proper use of law.


“Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility.”

Oh come on. Like laws don’t exist because of a minimal possibility. “Mountain out of a mole hill” is pure semantics. They used to say we shouldn’t take the PC police so seriously, not to make a mountain out of a mole hill regarding PC arguments during the 90s, and look how that’s turned out today.

If the law isn’t perfect, a way to make it more “perfect” should be sought out, while taking various things into account. For instance, statistically speaking, what kind of people are these child predators? Is there a predominant race in relation to them? A predominant religion? State? City? How about false accusations (or how often those are exploited; consider #MeToo as an analogy)?

And what of other countries that define such a law differently?

I’m more interested in the ethics/morals of it than the legalities, mainly because the legalities should serve the ethics, not the other way around.


The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.

By using 18 (mostly) as the benchmark, it will act as a deterrent and punishment towards those who would engage in predatory behavior because it will be enforced and prosecuted.

The morality involved is preventing predatory behavior.

Ground cannot be given in favor of predatory behavior of any kind, it must be fought, not negotiated with.

Law cannot be perfect, that is a losing pursuit, it can be just or unjust. Due process exists to determine whether applied law is just or not. If it isn’t, the evidence, circumstances and facts will prove someone innocent.

Using minority possibilities is the same argument used by anti-death penalty advocates and many people buy it. It doesn’t represent a solution.


“The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.”

True, but there are scenarios where the cons outweigh the pros (or at the very least don’t make enough difference to the point where such a law is pointless). It should just be stated that, “rape is illegal, end of story,” and everything would/should be honkey-dory. But no, they had to throw in the whole statutory rape thing, and an age of consent (which for the record used to be 10-12 years of age during the 1880s, maybe even up to the 1920s). Just making rape illegal wasn’t good enough, they had to take extra measures. Because, you know, society couldn’t be trusted anymore to raise kids to say no, or trust communities not to take care of their own and have police and courts handle the matters themselves on a case-by-case basis.

No more than you could trust people to use guns responsibly. That’s why there are gun-free cities and states (and even countries). And look how well that’s turning out for places like the UK, and Chicago, among others. That certainly stopped gun crimes (let alone crimes that guns would act as a deterrent to) didn’t it? That’s sarcasm, just in case that needed to be pointed out.

Sticking to more basic functions tends to be more beneficial, such as just saying “murder is illegal,” which you would think would act enough as a deterrent towards people with guns who want to kill other people. Because the laws aren’t exactly acting as a barrier towards the degradation of society. What good is the law if society is becoming rotten? Because sooner or later, a rotten society will make rotten laws. Then what good is the law?

You could argue that “rape is illegal” is an imperfect law. After all, there are false rape accusations. The side-effect of statutory rape (ie age of consent) laws make such false accusations even more deadly. Many would be crucified just from those accusations alone, whether they are true or not. They even used such a tactic against Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Granted, there are times where the evidence will show that this isn’t the case, but sometimes that’s not enough.

By using examples of similar laws as a comparison (such as gun ownership laws and their various forms, among other types of laws meant to deter crime such as violent crime), it can be argued that statutory rape laws do more harm than good.


There are too many variables in the human condition to legislate morality. However, there are situations in which law, with some arbitrary elements, is necessary to be applied. Not in all areas nor too broadly.

Consent laws have already been re-written over the years to allow for accommodation of circumstance-in the interest of fair justice and due process.

I maintain that the arbitrary consent benchmark is not as draconian as some people think it is.

It is a necessary arbitration in law used with more mitigations on behalf of society by preventing a predatory instinct in some people from doing harm by prosecuting them.

It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.


“It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.”

I’d rephrase it as a law made with the best intention possible. I have already had my say on why those good intentions cause harm that can be avoided. You’re basically repeated what has already been said, none of which directly addresses my earlier statement(s) in such a way as to challenge me to say them. And I’m not sure what else I can say without repeating myself. Each child is different, some mature faster than others, and thus some become mature enough to be considered adults earlier/later than others. And my opinion is that making such laws, considered non-draconian, causes more harm than good.

The compromise, in my opinion, should be, “Let the parents decide.” I don’t mean them deciding on a law, I mean on them deciding on what is in the best interests of their children in such matters, while also having the consent of the child himself/herself. I think we can both agree that in the majority of cases, the parents will say no. But there will be cases where they will say yes. I would know, I’ve seen examples of such cases, where the kid was fine with it (the kid came on to the adult in one such case), the adult was fine with it, and the parents were fine with it, but later on the adult got arrested and incarcerated when others found out and informed the authorities. It seems to me that in that situation, common sense would dictate that those two should just have their relationship until it eventually breaks apart. Or, and this is the difficult outcome for some to fathom, they stay together happily for many years.… 

Not to mention studies showing that having sex at a young age (teenage years, 13-15 years of age), not necessarily with adults mind you, can actually be beneficial towards their development, making them have a healthier social life in the long-term.… 


You’re failing to see human nature. Humans will gravitate toward the destructive side of their nature if given the chance.

You’re arguing to give more people that chance but you don’t see it. You’re excusing potential predatory behavior by masking it with variable consent.

The intention of the law is to prevent predatory behavior. It will prevent that behavior more than people will be able to engage in it through prosecution, prison, sex offender registries and intervention.

It will deter potential predatory behavior by planting the thought of consequences in the minds of those who consider those actions. Nothing will stop man’s destructive tendencies but effective consent laws such as 18 (mostly) as the age of consent will establish boundaries that are needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading.


I agree, human nature does tend to cause humans to gravitate towards their destructive side. However, to turn that argument back around onto you, this also includes children, who are arguably more aggressive in nature than adults are. And they can exploit these very laws you deem necessary to act as predators on adults. As mentioned earlier, false rape claims (and how much worse they are when it’s a child making the false rape accusation), and the damage that can cause on adults who did nothing wrong. By putting up such legal boundaries, that breaks down others.

While there’s no agreeable percentage as to how often false rape vs. real rape accusations occur, false rape accusations do occur far more frequently than actual rape accusations. And the reasons for false rape accusations can be any of these reasons (among others):

• Mental Illness
• Depression
• Profit/Financial Reasons
• Create an Alibi
• Attention
• Sympathy

Now tell me that at least half those reasons wouldn’t apply towards a teenager, especially in this day and age when they demand attention (particularly online on social media), when there’s a promotion of victimization (thus a want for sympathy), many with mental illnesses included Trump Derangement Syndrome (I’m starting to believe that’s related to some real medical illness) and transgenderism (that I also believe to be an illness the majority of the time), and depression caused from all of the above, among other things.

Boundaries needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading? Statutory rape laws are ticking time bombs in that regard in this context.


You’re jumping around too much. Let’s stay on one topic. Your blog post is asking about the age of consent in law.

It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.

18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.

Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.

Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.


“It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.”

Which is why I suggested earlier it should be scaled back to just making “rape” in general illegal, kicking out the “statutory rape” part (or even downgrading it to age 14), and letting the parents be the deciding factor along with the child who have their own desires. That addresses the variabilities to a reasonable extent.

“18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.”

Generally true, but I’ve already addressed why it may not be unreasonable to lower that number. I’d just be repeating myself if I brought up those points again. But I can add one thing I didn’t bring up before. How do we know laws such as this, and the societal norms that have spawned from, and been built upon, such laws haven’t had a detrimental effect on society? For instance, coddling a child too much ultimately makes them less independent in their later years; and laws such as those encourage, and increase the likelihood of, that happening to the average child. 18 may only sound like a good age to draw the line simply because we’ve been trained to think that way because of conclusions drawn from flawed studies that we take for granted regardless (more on that later). Been trained so much that many react violently to just even discussing the alternative, as anyone can see from the responses the OP has gotten.

“Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.”

Ah, the accusation of the “small number statistics” fallacy. That would be a good point, if there were statistics to back your position. Plus that same argument you just made could be used during the 1960s civil rights movement when it came to giving rights to minority blacks. Or even further back, minority Japanese, or minority Irish. Except in this case it applies to all children of all races.

Plus you base that accusation upon the “bandwagon” and the “appeal to tradition” fallacy. Using tradition/cultural belief as the basis for the argument. I’m more interested in the arguments and studies used to reach those standards, because I’ve seen cases (not necessarily related to age of consent laws) where such standards were set due to faulty studies and arguments. One only has to look at the Hays Code, or even aspects of climate science, let alone certain historical events, to show how that line of reasoning can be faulty.

“Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.”

You need me to point out cases where those who were falsely accused still got sentenced and punished, for crimes they didn’t commit? For reasons similar, if not entirely related, to age of consent laws?


You’re looking for justification to enable predatory behavior. You don’t think so but that is what would happen if your ideas were to become implemented.

Bad ideas like this will cause much harm to people that could have been avoided.


Well now it seems you’ve run out of ways to attack my position in a logical manner. You’re utilizing the following fallacies:
* Slippery slope

* Argument from incredulity: denying my claim because you refuse to believe it could ever be true under any circumstance.

* Appeal to consequences: the assumption that my premise is false because of the alleged harmful consequences that may follow, even though I have mentioned how current age of consent laws have their own harmful consequences.

* Argumentum ad baculum: attempting to incite fear over what may happen should one carry this line of thought.

* Argumentum ad populum: you’re appealing more to sentiment than to reason at this point.

* Begging the question: justifying elimination/downgrading of age of consent laws will cause more harm than good. But would the elimination of such laws actually make things worse, considering how things were pre-1920s?

* Composition: incorrectly assuming that elimination of age of consent laws will increase the number of child predators nation-wide, when in fact other factors independent of that law do exactly that (illegal immigration).

* Confirmation bias: ignoring facts I brought up so you can make a case based on your own personal beliefs.

* Excluded Middle (aka Black & White): Implying my propositions can only lead to predatory behavior.

* Straw Man: Misrepresenting my argument to be pro-predatory, when I have explained I am against rape and taking advantage of someone to their detriment.





PS: There’s a chance this post might get updated, should the conversations continue, or if a new one starts.  Though if there’s too many, that would be cause to create a new post altogether.  Regardless, anyone wants to challenge my position, feel free to do so.

John Wick 3: Parabellum (2019) review

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Rated: 4 / 5

So I’m sitting in the theater, and watching all the trailer for the upcoming films this year.  And I felt nothing.  Felt no anger at all the PC feminist SJW NPC moments in practically all upcoming films.  I’m burned out from being angry.  I’m just bored with it all.  I’m just waiting for it to end.  And if it doesn’t end, that’s fine by me, ’cause I’ll just find something else to do.  Like trying to find employment somewhere where I’m not going to get circle-jerked everywhere between cities and states.  Or maybe even try writing a fucking fantasy book again.  Dare I try making a video again?  Not today with the latter (just to squish any of your hopes).

Before you all get up in arms and put a contract out on me, you should be warned that spoilers will follow.

Honestly, there are only two films coming out this year that I have any semblance of interest in seeing.  One is Godzilla: King of the Monsters, but each new trailer I see of that movie crushes my hopes a little more.  It looks like it’s pushing the same bullshit diversity message that I’m sick of seeing, to the point where it’s going to knock the enjoyment factor down a couple notches (these talentless hacks have spread far and wide enough to fuck up Star Wars and Game of Thrones, I should’ve figured Godzilla would be next on the chopping block; next sequel will probably have him kill some white nationalists and some albino monster or something).  The other is Joker.  After all, life isn’t a tragedy.  It’s a comedy.  Sometimes I just have to look back at everything and laugh.

John Wick hasn’t succumbed enough to those attacks yet, but I’m sure some pushback is building from this successful franchise.  To make my case, consider what happened near the end of John Wick 2.  He kicked Ruby Rose’s mute ass so hard, she got pissed at him and men in general.  Pissed enough to regain the gift of speech, start trashing on men, get hooked up with a black lesbian lover, and steal Batman’s persona (along with a black butler pretending to be related to Alfred), dress up as Batman while calling herself Batm’am, try acting more “handsome” masculine and manly (penis envy), and start kicking dude’s asses while trash-talking men in the process.  John Wick is sending some serious shockwaves (as Atomic Blonde will attest).  But that’s one of the main themes this film is carrying: consequences.  He’s not the only one feeling them.

I was expecting this film to be the conclusion to the franchise.  Up until this point, I’ve been hearing, “trilogy,” and some talk of how the 2nd film ended on a cliffhanger because the writers didn’t think they could condense the story they had in mind into a single film.  Well apparently, that story didn’t involve wrapping things up in a satisfying manner.  So, yeah, this film ends wide open for a sequel.  Not quite as cliffhanger-heavy as the 2nd film, but definitely not as conclusive as the first.

Women say men are bad because they’re dogs, yet women love dogs.  Have a biscuit you bad boys!

That disappointed me a tad, but that was simply due to my expectations (I don’t have much of a problem with those kinds of expectations being subverted; you listening Rian Johnson and David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, you fucking hacks!).  But I got over it quickly, because this film is expectedly awesome.  I’d even go so far as to say that it’s the best John Wick film to date.  The first film was an unexpected solid surprise introducing us to gun-judo-fu (it was Equilibrium that introduced us to actual gun-fu, John Wick just threw in the judo aspect, and ultimately does it all better than Equilibrium).  The 2nd film was a solid follow-up, but the gun-fu started to get monotonous.  This film mixes things up with a pleasant mixture of gun-fu, judo, martial arts fights, various non-gun weapons, motorcycles, horses, dogs, and iron chefs.  Seriously, Keanu Reeves actually fight Mark Dacascos, and that is something I never thought I would ever want to see, let alone ever think it would happen.  But it does happen, and it’s fun as fuck.  And Dacascos is practically winking at the audience at various points in the movie letting them know he also thinks it’s fun as fuck.  That would probably be the best martial arts and blade fight in the film if not for the fight that precedes it, where Reeves goes against those two guys from The Raid films (it’s not Iko Uwais).  Goddamn if I wasn’t having a fun fucking time with this thing!  I recommend this highly over Triple Threat (what a disappointment that ended up being; it wasn’t terrible, it just wasn’t “great,” and any self-respecting martial arts film with the cast that film had needed to be “great” at the very least).

I won’t spoil all the action stuff that’s in this film, but I will say the only moment where the action felt like it was dragging too much was this sequence where Reeves and Berry and the dogs were going on a killing spree.  That sequence lasted too long.  Mainly because they wanted to prove Berry was capable of kicking ass in something outside of Catwoman (huh, maybe that’s also why she’s a dog person in this film, plus this joke metaphor acting as a callback to the first film).  Goes on a minute or two longer than it should have.

So I guess my worries about this franchise running out of steam were unfounded.  Plus I was pleasantly surprised to gain insight into John Wick’s origins at one point in this film.  Seems like each film manages to not only build upon the lore, opening up this assassin world even more, but also showing more about John Wick himself.

Still, as far as action sequences are concerned, I am starting to get a tad bit irritated at seeing these faceless bad guys running into the open and becoming easy targets, hesitating a bit too long during some of the close-quarters-combat sequences, etc.  You know, the kinds of irritations we’re not supposed to have when watching any shoot-em-up and martial arts flick where one or two protagonists go up against multiple opponents at the same time.

Plus the plot and situations get more fantastical than in the previous film, and that’s saying a lot.  A part of me started to hope it would get ridiculous enough to where the Iron Chef’s cat would face off against John Wick’s dog.  Honestly, wouldn’t that be great?  Maybe in the next Dog Wick parody they come up with (please oh please make a sequel to that, I’m begging you; come on, people loved it enough to where they included it as a special feature of the blu-ray release of the 2nd film).  Considering how the 2nd film ended along the lines of, “Everyone is an assassin,” at that point my level of disbelief went to, “This does not take place in the same dimension we’re living in.”  You either go along with it or you don’t.

Go see it.  It’s likely the best action film we’re going to get all year.

Entertainment Industry Nostalgia: April 1990

The “Ha!” comedy Channel on cable TV begins transmitting.  Wrestlemania VI, Ultimate Warrior fights Hulk Hogan.  World’s largest bunny hop at Radio City Music Hall (NYC).  Madonna starts her controversial Blond Ambition Tour in Tokyo, Japan.  Hubble space telescope is placed into orbit by shuttle Discovery.



Honorable mention to the soundtracks that have their fans but that I can’t personally get into: The Lightning Seeds: Cloudcuckooland; Fleetwood Mac: Behind the Mask (I was never into this band, though it was difficult to get through the 90s without hearing them mentioned); Suzanne Vega: Days of Open Hand (won a Grammy); Lou Reed and Jon Cale: Songs for Drella; Barry Manilow: Live on Broadway (eventually reached Platinum status); A Tribe Called Quest: People’s Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm; The Dead Milkmen: Metaphysical Graffiti; Hunters & Collectors: Ghost Nation; The Afghan Whigs: Up in it.

En Vogue: Born to Sing

This is the type of music you would expect to hear in those gangsta teenage/adult flicks that have a romantic main plot or subplot to it.  Decent music to fit those type of films where they couldn’t think of something better to play over the opening or closing credits of a 90s film.  But in all seriousness, this did make Platinum, so it has to be up there for consideration.  It may not be my type of music, but this is some definitive 90s hip-hop, soul, and r&b.  “Strange” is the track that stood out for me.


Public Enemy: Fear of a Black Planet

Now while I usually don’t prefer giving significant mention to rap groups (because rap isn’t really my kind of music), when we’re dealing with Public Enemy, and with the album that released the track Fight the Power, I kind of have to make an exception.


Green Day: 39/Smooth

Yep.  The debut album from Green Day.  You know their name.  And as far as debut albums go, this is a pretty damn good one.  Top song pick: I Was There.


That Petrol Emotion: Chemicrazy

This was supposed to be the “make or break” album, their “do or die” attempt.  Some say it is the best stuff the band has ever put out, and is one of the best hidden gems of music out there.  Which pretty much says all you need to know as to whether or not the Irish alternative rock band made it.  They didn’t.  But there is this stuff to look back on and remember them by.  And I have to admit, this album isn’t half bad.


Death Angel: Act III

A band that attempted to be the next Metallica, and many would argue they succeeded when they released this album.  Considered their magnum opus.  Unfortunately, they would break up soon after this album’s release, but reunite during the next decade to release some more albums.  Personally, I think the album is just ok.  No single track is fantastic or terrible.  The whole thing is consistent, and decent.


Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds: The Good Son

Huh.  I’m honestly at a loss for words for this one.


Johnny Gill: Johnny Gill

So this isn’t an album I would listen to.  But, this is one of those albums whose style screams 90s.  Well ok, so it’s more like mid-80s to early 90s, which is basically when this style of music called New Jack Swing burst onto the scene, but it was definitely prevalent during much of the time period.  It had 4 hit singles: “Rub You the Right Way,” “My, My, My,” “Wrap My Body Tight,” and “Fairweather Friend.”  While I wouldn’t purchase the album to listen to, I would eat up these songs when they play in a movie or 90s tv show.


Warrior Soul: Last Decade Dead Century

Fairly good grunge rock album before Nirvana came along and popularized the genre.  A pity they ended up not catching on to popularity.


Consolidated: The Myth of Rock

This one is interesting.  That’s all I’ll say.  This is one of those strange hip-hop, hard-rock, and industrial mash-up styles.


Fugazi: Repeater

Interesting punk-rock style, which basically has some genre titled post-harcore.  Well whatever you want to call the style, the album itself, it’s not bad.


Beats International: Let Them Eat Bingo

Some damn infectious funky stuff.  If you should ever seek this album out, try to get the out of print Japanese 2-disc release.  Otherwise, it might either be missing a couple songs, or trimmed down a few.

But anyway, the album of the month for me would have to be, undoubtedly:


Bathory: Hammerheart

Now this is more like my kind of metal.  And not just metal, but Viking Metal!  In fact, one could argue they created the genre, starting in 1988 with their album Blood Fire Death; only to completely define the genre here with this album.  Just listen to this epic masterpiece (assuming it’s your kind of music, like it is for me).


Now for my highlights for films of the month.


Honorable mention to a film called Spaced Invaders.  Not because it’s good, but because it’s a notorious piece of shit.  And there’s this horror film called The Guardian which has a bit of a cult status, but I personally didn’t think much of it.  Some people who like Ernest will likely enjoy Ernest Goes to Jail, but I didn’t find that movie all that appealing; but it does highlight kiddie 90s humor at some of its most extreme.  With that out of the way…


The only real reason to mention this movie is because this was Johnny Depp’s performance that put him in the spotlight.  Otherwise, the film itself is a lesser version of Grease, and just meh overall.


Mister Johnson

While I don’t personally enjoy this movie myself, it has become revered as a classic that isn’t all that well known.  It’s about a black African who was more or less raised as a British person, and how both those cultures end up clashing with each other in the worst ways.  He embodies the best and worse traits of both, which inevitably leads to a tragic albeit fitting conclusion.  A film misunderstood back in the day, and deserves a chance.



An interesting enough police procedural, with Nick Nolte giving a great performance.  That is all.


Miami Blues

Bit of a cult classic, with a role that Alec Baldwin is actually good in (because he plays an asshole).  Sort of like Payback in that you get ready to root for the bad guy.  And this film doesn’t beat around the bush with his character, he stays villainous, with only small slivers of good that temporarily peek though, until the very end.  And this film had the plot of a criminal stealing the identity of a police officer before that show Banshee did it decades later.


I Love You To Death

This is one of those movies I wouldn’t enjoy so much, if I didn’t know that it was based on a true story, and some of the most insane events that take place during the film’s second half actually happened.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  This would be the most criminally overlooked film of the month if not for…


Backtrack (aka Catchfire)

I reviewed this film.  A misunderstood masterpiece that has been crippled by a theatrical cut, only for the Director’s Cut (the way it is meant to be seen) to pass by largely unnoticed, only given a VHS release.


Now for my highlights for videogames of the month.


There was sort of a sequel to Metal Gear called Snake’s Revenge that came out on the NES, but that’s one of those Metal Gear titles everyone would like to forget about.  There was also a Fist of the North Star release for Game Boy, the system’s first fighting game.  But it didn’t seem all that great, despite the existence of a few people who seem to enjoy it.


NAM-1975 (April 1990; Arcade, Neo Geo)

Gotta point out the first major Neo Geo game.
Galaxian 3 (April 1990; Arcade)

This wasn’t just an arcade game.  This was a motherfucking 90s event!
Ivan “Ironman” Stewart’s Super Off Road (April 1990; NES)

Oh yes.
Phantom Fighter (April 1990; NES)

Pinbot (April 1990; NES)



Tecmo World Wrestling (April 1990; NES)

Some call this the greatest wrestling game of all time.  Eh, I don’t know about that, but many loved it back then.
Super C (April 1990; NES)

The sequel to Contra.  And it was better.



WCW World Championship Wrestling (April 1990; NES)

Well, they weren’t going to let Tecmo have all the fun.  So here’s the other good NES wrestling game:

Wrath of the Black Manta (April 1990; NES)

Despite just about every video reviewer bitching about this game today, it holds a lot of nostalgia for many, who still proclaim this game to be good for a Shinobi knockoff.  It may be inferior to Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden, but it had its fans.

Xexyz (April 1990; NES)

Oh lord yeah!

Air Diver (April 1990; Sega Genesis)

Well, the Sega Genesis had to have at least one decent one.  The system was still just getting going.  It would get better titles and be more capable of competing with Nintendo down the road.  Until then, this was their Top Gun (more like Firefox, the Clint Eastwood film).

Nemesis (April 1990; Game Boy)

Basically an inferior port of Gradius.  But everything on the Game Boy was inferior, so…



Heiankyo Alien (April 1990; Game Boy)

This game is unique and weird, and that’s all I’ll say.

Flipull (April 1990; Game Boy)

Man, just when I thought the Game Boy had no more surprises in it, we get this unique little puzzler.  There’s a Famicom version with better graphics.




TV Shows

Afterdrive (April 1, 1990?; Ha!)

The Ha! channel before it became Comedy Central.  They had this little show with Dennis Leary and Billy Kimball.  Never saw it, but people seem to remember it for Dennis, the theme song, and a couple comedy sketch bits that they retained in their memories over the years.


Marshall Chronicles (April 4 1990; ABC)

Only ran for one season.  Many loved this show, but it never had enough viewers to keep it maintained.  The fans claimed it had a great combination of intellectual and slapstick comedy.



Shannon’s Deal (April 16, 1990 – May 21, 1991; NBC)

Shannon's Deal (1990)

Another short lived 2 season series that had its fans who wished the show ran longer, or at least got a legit video release.  About a lawyer/gambler.  I mean, seriously, there are fans of this show who legitimately love it and consider it one of the best ever.  And I never heard of it until doing research for this month.



Cartoon All Stars to the Rescue (April 21, 1990; 4 major TV networks)

Gotta inform the kiddies about the war on drugs.




And now for the big 3:

Wings (April 19, 1990; NBC)

Famous comedy series that ran for 8 seasons.  Though the show did decline in quality during the last 2 seasons.



In Living Color (April 15, 1990 – May 19, 1994; Fox)

Of course, who can forget one of the best skit-comedy shows that is probably only topped in terms of popularity by Saturday Night Live?  Not to mention all the celebrities who were made famous because of this (again, like SNL).  Watch how long it takes before the anti-PC jokes start to fly.



Twin Peaks (April 8, 1990 – June 10, 1991; ABC)

Undoubtedly the most influential prime-time television series of the year, let alone of the month.  The show that broke ground of having an ongoing story progress from episode to episode, as opposed to having most episodes be stand-alone events (like sitcoms).  Everyone was in a frenzy over the first season, to the point where even news broadcasts would ask the question, “Who killed Laura Palmer?”  Unfortunately, the second season answered that question, and many have mixed opinions about it, mostly negative.  But then we got a third season in more recent years that is far more difficult to approach for casual viewers.

Europa: The Last Battle (2017) review

So today is April 20th.  A day of infamy.  Where everyone is encouraged to roll a joint and smoke it; bake a batch of edibles and eat ’em.  It’s international pot day!  It’s a day to celebrate!

It’s also Hitler’s birthday.  The man who has been considered the most vile, racist, fascist, inhumane villain ever known to man (some would consider him worse than Stalin).  The man who founded the Nazis.  The man responsible for the Holocaust.  The man responsible for attempting to take over Europe.  The man responsible for making plans for Nazis to set up a base on the moon and eventually take over the world.  Well ok, that last bit might be a bit over the top.

Actually, there are those who say that virtually everything in the previous paragraph is over the top, minus the birthday.  That he wasn’t as villainous as many were and are taught.  That there wasn’t really a Holocaust.  That he wasn’t planning on taking over Europe, then the world, then the moon.  How much of that is true and how much of it isn’t?  Well, a documentary certainly aims to tell as much.


Rated: 4 / 5

Understand that any film we credit with changing the world is a distraction. Films don’t change the world. They react to changes in the world.

Sally Jane Black

I disagree with the above quote.  Because it’s been proven that propaganda can sway minds and thus influence a change in a community, in a nation, and in the world.  And they don’t necessarily react to changes either, they can cause these changes.  Many wouldn’t disagree that The Birth of a Nation (1915) made some changes in the United States, breathing new life into the Ku Klux Klan, which stuck around decades afterwards before dissipating again (except in the movies where they are bashed, which seems to happen roughly once a year).  But an even bigger reason to disagree with it is because those who have owned all the major film studios since that very era have pretty much all been Jews.  That in of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since we all like a good movie.  But we do certainly see their influence throughout history.  Same thing with documentaries like Blackfish which affected Seaworld.  Or Super Size Me, which impacted McDonalds.

For instance, the first major film to be released with actual audio (as in you hear what people say or sing) is The Jazz Singer (1927).  In the film, a man who has been rejected by his father because of what he sings, eventually decides to use his voice at a Jewish event to help lift his father’s spirits; so that his father doesn’t die from some bout of depression or something.


Eh, I just don’t have the willpower to type up anything fancy, so I’ll just say what this documentary is.  It’s a long 10+ hour documentary divided into 10 parts (sort of).  It’s not professionally made.  It’a basically a glorified youtuber documentary.  Well that’s not entirely accurate considering YouTube won’t allow this documentary on their site.  But hey, there’s always BitChute (thank God for alternative platforms).  Mostly made by 1 guy by the looks of things.  But he certainly did pool his information from an assload of sources.  Various books, film, podcasts, documentaries, etc.  All of which are listed at the end of the last episode.  The episode lengths vary from 35 minutes to 2 hours (though only episodes 8 and 9 go that long).

And is the documentary overlong?  Kind of.  There are 2 episodes, maybe 3, that could’ve used some trimming.  Here’s basically what the documentary does that bugged me with some of these excessive sequences.  It talks about some event that caused a lot of pain and suffering to a lot of people, and then spends no less than 10 minutes (maybe even 30) showing interviews with these “survivors” who talk about the event(s) and cry about it.  Because this documentary really wants to hit you over the head with that sadness.  In all fairness, these are sad moments.  But they could’ve been condensed.  The point had already been made.  This doesn’t happen regularly, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t ruin the whole documentary.  But the second half of the first episode is basically like this, and it can be off-putting to some who would even dare try to watch this thing in the first place.  But stick with it.  You’ll want to at least make it through episode 8 to get the brunt of the impact of this documentary.

And what is this documentary?  Well, for the most part, it basically tells the story of World War II from a perspective you are guaranteed not to have been taught in any school or any university.  But it does more than that, it also covers the Bolshevik Revolution (and how that started and who started it), it covers World War I, it covers the Holocaust, and it then basically jumps ahead to some modern day messages about the current state of things (most of which is basically repetition to those who have been taking a good look at the state of the world through sources that aren’t considered mainstream).  But the main thing it does is state who was behind much of these catastrophic events and world wars.  The Jews, who wanted to establish the dreaded “New World Order,” along with an Ethnostate run by Jews and only occupied by Jews (Israel) to eventually, long term, control the world under a world Communist government.

Yeah, I know, I know, antisemitism, racism, fascism, blah blah blah, I’ve heard it all before, and you’ve heard it all before.  But you likely haven’t heard much of what is in the documentary before.  And it’s worth watching for that alternative perspective.  Because this perspective fills in some gaps that I’ve wondered about ever since learning about these events in school.  Plus it provides a very compelling case that much of what we have been told has been a lie, and provides alternative (or additional) facts that are very much worth pondering.

It’s best if I break it down episode by episode.

“First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.”

Episode 1: Primarily states that Jews were the ones that founded these major banks that have their tentacles in everything today, and have always been controlled by Jews.  Just to name one example: the Rothchilds.  The same organization stated to have created the Federal Reserve, which the U.S. has based its currency on ever since Woodrow Wilson allowed that to be in the 1910s.  In addition, it states that the people who organized, led, and funded the Bolshevik Revolution were Jews.  Because the Jews also founded Communism (and yes, Karl Marx was Jewish too).  Thus when Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks into taking over Russia, they turned Russia from Christian to Communist.

Episode 2: Basically talks about how it was those elitist Jews that started World War I in order to get a further grip on Europe (particularly Germany), and spread Communism.  And how the Treaty of Versailles made Germany lose parts of its country, and pay an insane amount of financial reparations for the war.  During post WWI, Germany was in dire straight, where everyone was in poverty and suffered, and how their society became corrupted with, well, similar stuff that many say is corrupting the U.S. today.  Either way you look at it, the Germans were suffering.

Episode 3: Hitler’s rise to power, how he eventually managed to overthrow the current rulers of Germany, kick out the elitist Jews that were running the financial system (basically the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve), and establish a Nationalist-Socialist form of government with its own independent financial system that brought Germany out of poverty and reparation payments.  And transformed Germany into an economic powerhouse.  Even those who believe Hitler was an evil son of a bitch have to admit that this achievement was nothing short of incredible, transforming the nation from one hopelessly in debt to being the most efficient and powerful economy in the world next to the United States in less than a decade.  And then the episode goes on about how it was the best of times, that it was the ideal place to live in, blah blah blah.

Episode 4-5: Well, the Jews weren’t going to stand for this.  They did allegedly want world control after all.  So they can’t have a strong independent nation that doesn’t base their currency on elitist Jew controlled world banks now could they?  So they use their communist influence (as they had communist infiltrators within just about every country, including the U.S.; something Andrew McCarthy tried to fight post-WWII) to get other countries to go to war with Germany.  Starting with Poland, then France and the U.K., and eventually Russia (though Hitler managed to get Stalinist Russia to maintain a peace pact between them for a while before Russia eventually decided to turn on Germany).  And it portrays Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as major assholes who were influenced by elitist Jews.  As for the Jews in Germany, Hitler did propose a “Final Solution,” but it wasn’t to exterminate the Jews.  Rather, it was to relocate them to Madagascar.  That plan fell through for various reasons.  The documentary also points out how other nations (ie Axis powers) were so inspired by Germany’s sense of nationalism that they were willing to fight for Germany’s cause against the Allies.  What is especially interesting is that there were Jews in Hitler’s army, fighting for his cause, intentionally.  One of the reasons why the documentary points out that it is important to distinguish the elitist Jews from the regular Jews (who may or may not have supported the elitist cause, or even be Communist).

Episode 6: Part of the insurance for winning the war was to eventually get the U.S. involved.  While Roosevelt did want to go along with that plan, America wasn’t exactly pro-war at the time, despite some communist propaganda and front groups (elements of this are backed by a novel I read a portion of titled Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies, by M. Stanton Evans).  But then came Pearl Harbor, which was apparently arranged by elitist/communist Jews who had political connections to influence the leaders.  Once that attack took place, that caused American sentiment to turn from anti-war to pro-war.  So they went to war with Japan and Germany (and Italy).  This was the nail in the coffin for Germany, as they had no hope of winning after failing to take the capital of Russia during their initial attack and push (which happened as a result of Hitler learning that Russia was planning on breaking the pact and secretly attacking Germany).  And it was even worse off for Germany once they lost the Battle of the Bulge.  And the Allies firebombed the ever-loving hell out Germany, indiscriminately hitting both the military and civilian population.

Episode 7: Apparently, there was a more effective way to enter Germany and get to the capital city of Berlin besides what the Allies actually did with D-Day.  But they intentionally took the long and hard way through.  Why?  So that Russia could have more time to push westward and be the first to take Germany’s capital.  Why let the Russians get there first?  So they could massacre the population.  The Russians were more brutal than the Germans, and I think even mainstream sources would be willing to admit this.  It was arranged that Russia would rape and pillage and kill their way towards Germany’s capital, where they would continue to do the same.  This frustrated certain military commanders, such as Patton who wondered why they weren’t driving into Germany more efficiently, and why they were receiving orders to halt on occasion.

And then came the post-war.  Even the mainstream narrative can’t disagree with this aspect.  Post-war, the allies treated the Germans in such an inhumane and deplorable manner it baffles the mind.  While it is alleged the Germans killed six million Jews during the Holocaust (something the next episode would address), the Allies caused the death of roughly 9 million Germans during a 6 year period after the war (outnumbering the number of Germans killed during the war).  Via slave labor camps (ie gulags, death camps, some of which were Eisenhower camps) among other reasons.  It was at this point that I thought this was pure incomprehensible insanity; that made me feel ashamed.  And these motherfuckers had the balls to use the piles of German bodies from these camps as historical photos claiming them to be a part of the Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

In order to help rebuild Germany, there was a forced deportation of Germans from the U.S. (among other countries) to Germany that totaled between 11-12 million.  To help rebuild.

Are you a man of peace
Or a man of holy war
Too many sides to you
Don’t know which anymore
So many full of life
But also filled with pain
Don’t know just how many
Will live to breathe again

A life that’s made to breathe
Destruction or defense
A mind that’s vain corruption
Bad or good intent
A wolf in sheep’s clothing
Or saintly or sinner
Or some that would believe
A holy war winner

They fire off many shots
And many parting blows
Their actions beyond a reasoning
Only God would know
And as he lies in heaven
Or it could be in hell
I feel he’s somewhere here
Or looking from below
But I don’t know, I don’t know

More pain and misery in the history of mankind
Sometimes it seems more like
The blind leading the blind
It brings upon us more famine, death and war
You know religion has a lot to answer for

And as they search to find the bodies in the sand
They find it’s ashes that are
Scattered across the land
And as the spirits seem to whistle on the wind
A shot is fired somewhere another war begins

And all because of it you’d think
That we would learn
But still the body count the city fires burn
Somewhere there’s someone dying
In a foreign land
Meanwhile the world is crying stupidity of man
Tell me why, tell me why

Please tell me now what life is
Please tell me now what love is
Well tell me now what war is
Again tell me what life is

For the greater good of God

He gave his life for us
He fell upon the cross
To die for all of those
Who never mourn his loss
It wasn’t meant for us
To feel the pain again
Tell me why, tell me why

— Iron Maiden, For The Greater Good of God


Episode 8: And this was the episode that dealt with the Holocaust itself.  It’s one of those episodes you need to see for yourself to get a real grasp of it.  But in general, it basically states that the Holocaust was a lie.  That the “6 million” number was invented long before WWII, that this sacred number can be found in the Jewish book The Talmud itself.  And it was used as propaganda to claim that the Germans were killing that many Jews in Germany even before the Allies could enter that country to confirm this.  As for the “concentration camps,” if you could call them that, there were no gas chambers.  There were shower rooms, and mini-gas chambers used to disinfect clothing, as there tended to be a buildup of lice and diseases if there wasn’t some form of disinfectant (they often sprayed insect-killer on the jews in the camps).  The prisoners were not treated all that harshly.  And the reason many of them were put in these camps in the first place because 98% of them were communists or communist sympathizers (because the elitist Jews were all about control through Communism).  Any serious investigation of these camps proves that there weren’t any gas chambers or mass graves or anything like that.  However, there were plenty of deaths near the end of the war.  Because the Allied bombing runs eventually hit German supply routes, leaving the camps unable to gain supplies, causing many of the prisoners to starve to death, and for the German troops charged with running the camps to abandon them.  There’s more to it than that, but there’s no real way to explain it all in an adequate fashion without reading a book dedicated to it (virtually all of which have been banned from Amazon and any major retailers), or watching some documentary telling it from this perspective (like this one).

Episode 9-10: Basically epilogue episodes that go on for too long, discussing the present day situation and what the elitist Jews that run the major banks, the United Nations, the European Union, and Israel.  How they want globalism, 3rd wave feminism, inclusion, diversity, mass-migration, destruction of culture, etc.  Everywhere except in Israel (or China for that matter, so far).  Their plans for expanding the size of Israel westward towards Egypt.  And the slow awakening of nationalism in various parts of the world as a backlash against these globalist policies.


So, yeah.  This documentary has some heavy stuff.  Stuff that is usually dismissed as “revisionist history,” racist nonsense, pro-fascist.  Dismissed without even giving it a thought.  In Europe, it’s illegal to even question the legitimacy of the Holocaust, which makes me even more suspicious of it and more willing to believe the stuff in this documentary.  And the way it’s presented, it’s very very convincing.


… there are some problems here with it.  You have to take into account that every documentary tends to have some element of bias.  And the bias of this documentary tends to overlook that Germany was nationalist to a fault at some points.  For example, the White Rose movement.  How the people (primarily German school students) in that anti-war movement were prosecuted and killed in Germany for spreading anti-war propaganda.  And I doubt that’s the only instance of a German atrocity committed (though I’m willing to listen to those who wish to debunk that, or other alleged atrocities, like how this documentary debunked the Diary of Anne Frank, and the Holocaust).  I’m always suspicious of anything that tries to portray some individual, or some party, some nation, etc., under an angelic light.  And that’s what I was getting with episode 3 primarily.  It was so in love with Hitler and what he did with Germany I’m pretty sure the guy who made the documentary wanted to suck Hitler’s cock.  There’s no such thing as a perfect nation.


That being said, I don’t find it far-fetched that Hitler and the Nazis were villianized beyond how they were in reality.  Especially considering where much of the information we gained regarding the Holocaust came from.  Especially considering that, if this New World Order run by elitist communist Jews is to be believed, the Jews own or control roughly 98% of all television networks, major movie studios, major news networks, and major newspapers.  Especially considering how questioning some aspects of this established history is a crime in Europe.  Especially considering how Europe has now passed laws that are going to make a stranglehold on the Internet, censoring sites for “hate speech” among other things (the definition of which is whatever the elites feel like making it).  I mean, just the number of anti-Nazi films that come out on a yearly basis seems to indicate they really want to keep anti-nazi sentiment fresh in everyone’s minds very very badly; even going so far as to promote the idea that “it’s ok to punch a nazi.”  All so that no one will take inspiration for how successful Germany became on an economic and cultural level because of their national-socialist policies (even the word “Nazi” was a slang term created to insult that party).

D1xjqHpWwAAC6yd.jpg large

If even half of the stuff this documentary teaches is true, and it certainly seems like most of it is, then it is a must watch just for the sake of hearing the other side of the story.  To gain another perspective.  To grasp the bigger picture of history.  Or at the very least be familiar with the arguments “revisionists” have.  This is not only a recommended watch, it’s a necessary one.


Though that being said, there are portions of episodes 1, 3, and 9 that you’ll probably find yourself skipping through (there’s a portion of each of those episodes where the information gets monotonous).

“You watch those nature documentaries on the cable?  You see the one about lions? Look at this lion. He’s the king of the jungle, huge mane out to here. He’s laying down under a tree, in the middle of Africa. He’s so big, he’s so hot. He doesn’t want to move.

“Now the little lion cubs, they start messing with him. Biting his tail, biting his ears. He doesn’t do anything. The lioness, she starts messing with him. Coming over, making trouble. Still: nothing. Now the other animals, they notice this. And they start to move in. The jackals; hyenas.

“They’re barking at him, laughing at him. They nip his toes, and eat the food that’s in his domain. They do this, and they get closer and closer, and bolder and bolder. ‘Til one day, that lion gets up and tears the shit out of everybody. Runs like the wind, eats everything in his path. ‘Cause every once in a while, the lion has to show the jackals who he is.”

What is censorship in the face of sensitivity?

So I originally had this as a blog post on  I suspected it would be too hot for it to handle.  Sure enough, before the day was over:

admin message

“Your blog has been deleted due to multiple severe violations of site rules, including defending sexism and objectification, dismissiveness to concerns about inclusiveness, personal attacks, and antagonizing.”

And when they mean “blog,” they don’t just mean this post that I’m basically going to mirror on this site.  They mean EVERY post that I have ever made under the “Board Game Philosophy” blog title, which is roughly 30 blog posts I think.  Jesus suffering Christ, that’s overkill isn’t it?  Considering all my other posts weren’t anywhere near as bad as this one in terms of arguments against inclusion.  Granted, I’ve evolved a bit since my earlier posts, but I referred to them every now and again for an introspective.  My thoughts on what I thought about dice rolling, solo gaming, critiquing games objectively, etc.  Basically the only surviving posts from that series are my rant against Gloom of Kilforth, and then my apology for the rant.  I mean, fuck man.  Those EU articles about Internet censorship must really be fucking them in the ass if they want to fuck users who have legit grievances about board game news up the ass that hard.

Dismissiveness to concerns about inclusiveness?  Could’ve just said “dismissive.”  But anyway, that was the whole point.  The whole point of the blog was an argument against inclusiveness!  Bunch of hypocritical cocksuckers these admins, especially when they’ve got exclusive groups on their inclusive site.

rainbow bggers
I’m feeling the inclusiveness from this forum doesn’t apply for straight people.

I’ve heard about how restrictive this site was, how hypocritical and selective the admins were about what comments they would allow and which they wouldn’t.  But now I see how bad it really is.  Honestly, after seeing this, it’s worse than I thought.  So bad that you can’t even argue about how the community would be better without inclusiveness.  So bad that they don’t even practice what they preach!

Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that’s your best, your best won’t do

Whatever, here’s my damn blog post that got me a stern talking to (and worse).  I did add in some fuck-bombs though, for this site (along with some images and vids).

Continue reading

Thoughts on Game of Thrones: Season 8: Episode 1 (they’re not good)

I suspected they were going to drop the ball with this season, especially after seeing how season 7 went.  Season 6 made me think, “Oh, maybe there is a chance they could do well even after going beyond the books that George Martin will probably never finish, because he didn’t have a clear ending in mind).”  Season 6 had some issues, but they were largely forgivable in my opinion.  Then came along season 7 which confirmed by fears.

I knew the first episode of this final season would let me know very quickly whether or not it would improve.  Well, I saw it, and I can say, it didn’t.  It might end up being worse.  Let me give an example of what I’m talking about.

It does seem to have a pro-wall anti-illegal alien message though.

There’s this scene where Snow, Fire, and the two dragons arrive in Skyrim: Winterfell, and they do some trash talking in-doors with other leaders from other families/nations.  It is scenes like this where the earlier seasons were at their strongest.  The dialogue, the setting up of ulterior motives and plans within plans, the political trickery, the personal grudges, the hopeful alliances, etc.  The opportunity was ripe for discussing all this stuff and spending plenty of time with each of these characters to get to know their plans.  They could’ve easily spent half the episode here.  Especially when they have to discuss the issue of the dragons, whether or not they will start killing other people, infighting with the natives against the outsiders, etc.

What do we get instead?  Just a bunch of small setups to petty one-liners.

“What do the dragons eat anyway?”

“Anything they want.”

Seriously, rather than spend time in-depth with these people and their diplomatic talks that should really fucking matter, and get us more immersed with their plights and points of view, we just get setups for dumb one-liners.  That’s the whole fucking episode!  It moves too fast for its own good, suffering from the issue of trying to be more action-oriented than character/dialogue-oriented.  But they probably don’t have any choice, because the writers have lost the best of their talent by the time season 7 came around.

And even when the fucking action does happen, it comes off too clean and orderly.  If an episode of Game of Thrones comes off with an aura of, “Everything is going according to plan,” you know you fucked up.  The rescue operation for that bitch on the ship.  Contrast that with the rescue operation a few seasons prior where that same bitch tried to rescue Mr. Dickless.  I mean, for fuck’s sake, even if the rescue operation wound up being a success in that past episode, they would’ve been losing several men in the attempt.  The fucking rescue attempt in this episode is not only successful, but goes off without a fucking hitch!

Like how these two are probably going to get hitched.  Because the one thing this show is lacking is dragon sex.

The one and only decent moment in the entire episode is when fat fuck Tarly meets with dragon lady, and then meets with John Snowflake.  Even fucking then, he sure does manage to move his fatass around very quickly around the kingdom, managing to get from one place to another.  Seriously, is the entire continent the size of Rhode Island or something?

The dialogue is poor.  The characters are shells of their former selves (for the most part).  Characters have gained the ability of plot armor.  And they are trying not to show their pro-feminist hand.  Seriously, virtually every major male protagonist character has something physically wrong with them.  Whether it’s not having a dick, being a midget, having burn scars, being old, or having been dead.  What the fuck kind of physical ailments are most of the women in this show supposed to have other than maintaining a face expression of, “I’m better than you are.” Seriously, they’re trying to push the idea that Sansa is one of the bestest greatest smartest women in the kingdom.  Fuck Sansa, Sansa sucks.

EVERYONE should be suffering from something in this show!  Despite the fact that winter is here, it all seems like Happy Days.  I’ll stick it out, but my expectations are very much lowered at this point.


Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is pissing me off.

“Being humiliated doesn’t bother me that much; I’ve been raised on humility.  It’s the risk of not being humiliated enough that worries me.”

— The Anomalous Host

There are times in my life, amidst my searching for jobs and thinking about my purpose in life, I start to reflect on the things I enjoy the most in life.

I enjoy watching movies and shows, yet find many of the films and shows today lacking in what I enjoy seeing.  In fact, most movies and shows today contain things that I find to be downright stupid and insulting, just like the viewers they were intended for.

I enjoy board games, yet I have a hard time remaining focused on creating my own (same applies to video games).

I enjoy lectures on certain topics, but I find myself unwilling to participate in-person (ie outside of typing) because I have a hard time getting my words straight and not sounding like an idiot when reading from a script.  I’ve tried making sound recordings in the past, and I never end up liking the way I sound.  And when I try to wing-it (not using a script), I tend not to be all that focused, and I wander around the topic more than I do on my average blog post.  And on top of all that, I find my own voice a bit annoying.  I frequently get brain farts and draw a blank and wander to some other subject when I try making video responses.  That is, unless I go by a script.  And I’ve learned that I can’t just talk what I write the way I’ve written it.  It doesn’t sound natural for starters.  And even worse, I have a hard time using the right tone of voice for certain words and sentences when I’m reading from a script.  Hence to say I would be terrible at acting on stage.

I tried writing a book a couple times, and after reaching 100 pages and looking back on it, despite some sections I found to be good, most of it just seemed like trash.

I know putting an actual voice out there could let me be more widely known; but even assuming I could make a decent video and make it sound the way I want (with the right tone and emphasis on the right words and the right sentences), there’s the other problem to consider.  What if the video, successful or not, ends up getting me the sort of attention I don’t want?  What if it makes me lose any chance of having a decent job in the workforce?  What if the thought-control fanatics decide that I’m not someone capable of separating my personal political/theological/philosophical thoughts from the job (which I know I’m capable of doing, because I’ve done so successfully in the past)?  What if they don’t care (most likely)?  It’s hypocritical, when considering the type of people out there who do manage to get employed, who seem less capable of keeping their emotions and personal feelings in check than me; but that’s the reality of things.

On the other hand, it’s not like I want to live forever.  What kind of a man would I be if I were to let fear of backlash from those more rich and powerful and numerous be enough to silence a voice that has legit concerns and grievances about the state of things?  What kind of man would I be if I didn’t throw my hat into the ring to challenge their ideals, and challenge them to do the same?  They can kill the idealist, but they can’t kill the idea.

I wouldn’t feel the urge to do this if those I follow, those I respect, those I rely on for news/opinions/information didn’t say something I know is wrong.  I wouldn’t feel the urge if I didn’t felt I know better than them on that topic.  With Andrew Klavan bitching about white nationalism and confusing it for white supremacy, and Ben Shapiro seeming to have misconceptions regarding what Julian Assange has done in the past (plus Shapiro is very overrated), and Michael Knowles having a piss-poor argument against the use of marijuana.  So I’m going to respond, in an audio/video format.  I just don’t know if this is going to turn into a regular thing or not, especially since I know for a fact I don’t sound as great in reality as I envision myself in my head (which I guess makes me possess an alter-ego when I’m typing).  Because it’s really fucking hard for me to do this.

Ultimately, when I think back on the past, the thing I find I’ve always enjoyed doing the most, from middle school and onwards, is critiquing critics, challenging the views and opinions of others, and daring them to attack mine.  This aggressive nature has proved a bountiful source of knowledge that has changed my outlook on life at times, especially when someone eventually comes along and actually manages to destroy a position I’ve held for years.  It’s liberating, but also dangerous.  I always find myself walking that fine line between wanting a debate for the sake of challenging the opinions of others and encouraging them to do the same to me; and forming a pride-filled ego making me think I’m better than them.  It’s easy to fall into that trap, and I have done so on occasion.  But if it didn’t come with its own set of risks, what fun would that be?

So… here I go:

Text response:

@Klavan You either don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re completely ignorant as to what white nationalism actually is; or you do know what you’re talking about, and thus you’re not as reasonable and level-headed of a man as I thought you were. I’m hoping for the former, because that can be forgivable in the long-run.

“I think white nationalism is bad because it’s stupid and wrong to make moral judgments about people according to their race rather than by their actions, ok. […] You don’t violate rule 1 because you don’t want it done to you. The golden rule. Everybody knows he’s an individual responsible for himself. He’s not responsible to everybody who’s the same color he is, whether he comes from the same country he is. You know, you can’t say, ‘Oh, white people held slaves, therefore you’re responsible because you have the same color as those white people.’ And it wasn’t white people holding slaves, it was some white people holding slaves, while other white people of course were fighting to free them. You can’t say, ‘Black people commit crimes, black people are muggers,’ because it’s some black people, it’s not the guy you’re talking to at that moment. He feels himself as an individual, you want to feel yourself as an individual, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Breaking rule 1 is wrong.”

First of all, that’s whole statement is made under the partial assumption that race does not equal causation when it comes to general crimes/personalities/IQ, etc. There have been many books written by those holding phd’s which state otherwise, from books like The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994, to A Troublesome Inheritance by Wade in 2015, to The Diversity Delusion by Mac Donald in 2018. Average IQ has been linked by genetics. It’s not the only factor, but it is a big enough one to where it can’t be ignored. And considering that blacks commit considerably more crime on average compared to whites (statistics by government and non-government sources support this), I’d say there’s enough reason to believe that having a desire for nationalities based on race isn’t exactly a bad thing, that segregation has been given a bit of a bad rap over the years, though it’s ironically making a return by those who tout inclusion.

Second of all, regarding the other part of that assumption, the idea that white nationalism (or even black nationalism, brown nationalism, etc.) is bad because it breaks the golden rule of “do unto others” and sacrificing the notion of individualism is false. White nationalism is the idea that white people want to be proud of their race and their accomplishments (they are responsible for a great many inventions, from various technologies to the U.S. Constitution), and have whites remain. To have white groups, to have white towns, etc. Many whites only want to hang out with whites because they have more in common with them on both a physical and mental level (for those who argue how looks aren’t everything, you would second-guess yourself if you took into consideration what kind of actors and actresses have been the most popular and the most in-demand over the many decades, not to mention the porn factor). And you can’t convince me that black people don’t feel the exact same way, in general. That’s not to say we should be against interracial relations, I’d imagine those people would want to have their own community to thrive in as well. But not at the expense of those wanting racial purity in their groups and their communities.

You say white nationalism breaks rule 1. I say anti-nationalism break rule 1, because white nationalists respect the decisions of other races to be themselves in their own communities, and would expect those communities to do the same for white communities. White nationalism doesn’t break the golden rule, it encourages the golden rule. Don’t confuse white nationalism with white supremacy. Despite what those ass-hats in the MSM may say, those are two very different ideologies.

Video/audio response: