The End of Porn Month 2019

November is anti-porn month, so I decided to write about porn all month long for 7 reasons:

1. To boost traffic to the site (it's worked).

2. The anti-porn people are obnoxious. They are just as bad, if not worse, than the vegans. How do you know if someone is a vegan? They never shut up about it, that's how. They're always so smug and self righteous, as all stupid people who have a little bit of knowledge think they are.

3. The anti-porn people are creepy and they are clearly a cult, and I've written about cults before.

4. The anti-porn people are hypocrites who only focus on men using porn and don't care one tiny iota about women using porn.

5. The anti-porn people fundamentally confuse cause and effect. Feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce is destroying relationships between men and women, and since everyone needs an outlet for the sex drive that is what is driving men toward porn. Porn is the symptom of the destroyed relationship between men and women, it is not the cause of the destroyed relationship between men and women. Restore traditional gender roles and 99% of porn eliminates itself.

6. The anti-porn people may be wrong. They present no data, only doctrine. At least show me the studies that demonstrate that the brain can be rewired to such a dramatic extent as the anti-porn people allege. If that was possible I would think it would have huge implications elsewhere in the world. Instead of traditional schooling, for example, we could just use some sort of knowledge porn to make children smarter, condensing 12 years of schooling into a single year. We could have war porn to make super soldiers, surgery porn to make perfect surgeons, pilot porn to make perfect pilots incapable of human error. We could have prison porn to rehabilitate gangsters, thieves, and murderers. We could rewire the brain using therapy porn to get cripples to walk again. The possibilities are endless.

And instead of trying to save humanity through exploring these techniques, the anti-porn people want to end the experiment into rewiring the brain, just like the anti-drug people don't want us to experiment with extremely safe substances like psilocybin and marijuana, but do want to keep extremely dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol perfectly legal.

7. Even if the anti-porn people are right about #6, how is that necessarily bad? How is it bad removing men with an addictive personality from the gene pool? I would think that keeping certain weak and pathetic men from breeding would be better for the species.

This was certainly an interesting topic, and because I've been very busy I've in no way exhausted everything there is to say about porn, so you can expect more in the future, along with more usual subjects.

Porn Is Free Speech

"We either all hang together or we all hang separately."
- Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin, who had sex with like five or six thousand women in his lifetime, was absolutely right when he said that.

Franklin was also quite familiar with porn, which existed in the 18th century, by the way. Since the photograph hadn't been invented yet, maybe, people had to use drawings, but what was acceptable for mainstream publication were very different than what they ware today. Porn could be printed in newspapers and no one gave a flying crap about that at the time. Many of these porn drawings depicted old Ben and his innumerable dalliances with everything that moved. One such image (that I unfortunately cannot find online) depicts Ben in standard porn pose, holding a woman sideways with one leg over his shoulder, and penetrating her with his massive cock. You could buy this on any street corner in Philadelphia.

"The things I do for my country."
- Also Ben Franklin, referring to seducing French aristocrats' wives and mistresses to secure the alliance that won the Revolutionary War

I'll discuss more on the history of porn later in the month, and the much freer attitude toward porn the founders had, and how radical leftists in the late 19th century invented the idea that masturbation was unhealthy as a means of controlling men, but for now let us focus on Franklin's first quote.

If the British attack each colony individually then they can defeat the colonies individually with their superior numbers, weapons, and training. However, if the colonies join together they can become a much more powerful force than the British would be willing to muster, and this new United States could win its independence. Only then, when the common enemy is defeated, should all the ancillary disputes colonies be debated.

Unity is strength. It's written into the motto of the United States: E Pluribus Unum, "Out of many, one." It's the rally cry behind Gengis Khan's rise to power, that a single arrow can be broken, but a bundle of arrows tied together cannot. It's what Maximus told his fellow gladiators, "Whatever comes through that door, we stand a better chance of surviving if we fight it together." Unity is strength, because many people can be in more places, fight more enemies, come up with more ideas, and accomplish more work than any single individual can.

Conquerors throughout history have employed the tactic of divide and rule to break any unity, because an individual can be dominated a lot more easily than a group. Napoleon famously brought his army to bear against a divided enemy, defeating each individual group in turn, and in so doing defeating a much larger enemy by creating several smaller enemies to fight one at a time.



This is a tactic we see being used in politics all the time. The elite have got us divided by race, sex, and all sorts of other bullshit to keep us fighting each other so we don't band together and overthrow them. I've spoken to people at length about this during the last election, people on the "left" and never-trumpers on the "right" and they all said "NO! Orange man bad! REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! He will nut inside us!"

Now, after that rather long introduction, let's get on to the meat of the issue.



Paypal has banned Pornhub, which, according to this chart, is the 38th biggest website, and the second biggest porn site on the planet, so it's a pretty big deal (Paypal is number 68 on the same chart). Of course the anti-porn people are braying loudly over this, offering up ululations to their deified egos. Conservatives similarly chant "Good, get rid of the degeneracy!" and then go back home and beat off to men piledriving each other because they're all so deeply in the closet that they're in Narnia. Meanwhile the leftists can't decide whether porn makes women into livestock (they don't give a wet bucket of shit about men, who are just prop cocks), and the ones who call it "sex work" and praise it like certain ancient peoples praised temple prostitutes.

Of course all of these same people who cheer the deplatforming of their enemies hiss and complain when they are the ones who are being censored and deplatformed. As Styx alludes to in the above video, the vast majority of the anti-censorship people are hypocrites (just as I said a decade ago about the anti-war people).

It shouldn't matter whether it is the almighty government or "muh private corporation", it's about one thing and one thing alone: control. Authoritarians love to control people, and controlling access to private economic transactions and free speech (as well as the right to self defense, which they hate as well) is the ultimate form of control. You don't need to round people up in a concentration camp like the three million people China has incarcerated, or shoot people in the heads, like China does with its mobile execution vans. All you have to do is take away a person's right to earn money and that person will simply starve to death, or else turn to a life of crime, giving you a pretext for imprisonment.

Remember, liberals get the bullet too. No matter how far left you are (or how far right, when the pendulum inevitably swings in the opposite direction), you are never far enough. You are never pure enough. Any group, Antifa, the MRA, Alt-Right, they always enter purity spirals and eat themselves. They always crucify members who are not pure enough, and hate these not pure enough even more than they hate their supposed enemies. We are seeing in this election a growing number of people who think Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who used to vacation in the Soviet Union and has lived in an actual communist village, is not far left enough.

And now we have a handful of big tech oligarchs, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, who are controlling what we can think, and say, and do, who can have a job, why can buy and sell goods and services. We have an authoritarian control grid whose power will soon be so great that it can never be challenged. And the only way to defeat them is together. Any attack on the free speech of anyone must be treated as an attack against everyone, whether you like the person or not. It doesn't matter if the elite are trying to censor Alex Jones, porn, Dave Rubin, Hasan Piker, that Nazi guy they made a movie about, anyone you don't like, if we don't stand together against censorship and deplatforming we will all surely hang separately. A tech oligarch or government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take from you everything you have when, not if, when the pendulum of society inevitably swings in the opposite direction. The proper thing to do is to allow the free and open exchange of ideas, not to censor anyone. Let people reach their own conclusions. Try to be more persuasive and win people over to your side. Working together is the only way we can continue to live in a free and open society.

Martin Goldberg on Porn

Because I'm not bored as hell by the topic of porn just yet, here's the first of two videos from Martin Goldberg, Mr. Economic Invincibility himself. This one deals with porn directly. Here he presents a rational, balanced perspective and actually brings up one of the few good points on the subject, that porn can be an excuse for some men to not take risks with women.

He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.

Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.

Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

The Cult of Anti-Porn

It's November, so now I have to watch all the quasi-religious freaks try to look special by denouncing porn.

Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.

I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.

And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.

So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.

The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.

Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.

The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.

Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.

It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.

Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.

Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.

The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.

They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.

Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.

The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.

The Non-Problem of Porn

It's November, so the anti-porn cultists are coming out of their basements, with those disgusting, stained mattresses they live on because of all the nocturnal emissions they have from never getting it off, and they have to bray in the streets about how they stopped nutting for fifteen hours and have now become motherfucking immortal and can now see through time and fly.



Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.

A Very Brief Introduction to Political Groups

We hear a lot about the "political spectrum" and different groups like the alt-right, Antifa, and good old fashioned conservatives and liberals, but what does all that really mean, really? Using a decade and a half of first-hand experience in "the biz" I break it all down for you in the most urban way possible.

Mainstream Republicans want to bend over before leftists and accept the throbbing cock of defeat in order to look like nice people. Love me, Daddy.

Conservatives want you to die in the gutter for not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps while they smoke cigars on a golf course and drive around in gas guzzling cars to show off how much money they can waste.

Liberals want you to live in the gutter in a deluxe cardboard box with free heroin and designated shitting streets while they party on Epstein's rape island.

LOLbertarians want the same thing as liberals but with legal weed and naked fat guy dancers.

AnCaps (sometimes called "libertarians") want you to die, but not in the gutter because that's private property. Fuck you.

AnComs (sometimes called "Antifa") want to throw piss bottles at you and LARP at being revolutionaries but will scatter to the winds if you fight back.

White (German) Supremeists (sometimes called "black pill") don't care what you do, but they want all white people to move to Montana and secede from the United States to make white people even more powerless and irrelevant because they're fucking retarded. They worship Adolf Hitler, who murdered more white people than anyone else in history. They also what to replace Christianity with either German paganism or state atheism.

Black Supremeists want to turn America into Detroit and make white people pay reparations and become slaves because "We wuz kangz and shiet!"

"Democratic" Socialists want free shit provided for by printing money because they're all trust fund babies who don't know how economics works.They also think the Nordic countries are socialist because they can't tell the difference between socialism and hyper-capitalism coupled with a welfare state.

Progressives have NO endgame. They constantly move the goalposts because they need a reason to be offended all the time.

Was Thanos Right?

If you look at history you start to get the "evil" idea that Thanos was right. Every time the population is halved, or at least a significant part of it is eliminated, the standard of living of the survivors increases.

The Black Death (which was not bubonic plague, it was a hemorrhagic disease, which plague is not*) turned Europe from a continent where lords owned the people as slaves to one where workers had the power to demand improved standards of living and allowed for the creation, for the first time ever, of a middle class. Social mobility was created. Had millions of people not died and the social order of the world not been overturned those opportunities would never have arisen.

After 100 million people died in the Second World War America, as the only industrial nation that was not destroyed, saw the greatest boom economy in human history. For the first time ever a man with no education, no training, and no connections could demand, and get, a job that could support a wife, three kids, two cars, a house, a month of vacation, and retire in 30 years and live off a full pension. It was the first time ever that young adults could venture off on their own and not have to live in multi-generational families just to make ends meet (something still tragically seen as normal in our crippled economy). Had millions of people not died and nations not bombed to oblivion that opportunity would have never arisen.

Even in the Soviet Union, with that man-made catastrophe rent by Stalin that saw the murder of 20 million people, actually dramatically improved the lives of the survivors. An entire nation of peasant slaves was turned into an industrial super power with a standard of living half that of the United States in only 70 years. The survivors did have their lives improved. That would never have happened under the Tsar where everyone lived as chattel in an agrarian shithole.

History seems to attest to the fact that there really is a finite amount of resources, and if you eliminate half the people everyone not only gets double the share, but those double shares are worth even more.

"But why not just double the resources?"

Because things that are not earned have no value. Low IQ people take resources given to them by guilty Westerners and use those resources to quadruple their populations. Doubling the resources just exacerbates the problem by incentivizing bad behavior.

Everyone wanted silver, which was rare and highly valued. Wars were waged over silver. But when Spain discovered Potosi, the largest silver deposits in the world, and the supply of silver increased dramatically, all of a sudden silver became worthless because everyone had it and the Spanish economy collapsed.

Everyone wants to be a trillionaire, but when Zimbabwe made everyone a trillionaire the money became worthless. If everyone has a trillion dollars then no one will work, no one will pave roads, or build houses, or bake bread, or raise chickens. Why work when you're rich? But then, since no one is working, all those ordinary goods become extremely valuable and money becomes worthless.

Increasing the supply of a given resource devalues it. Increasing the supply of food, for example, would cause the excess food to rot and be wasted, or would incentivize people to have more kids who would demand more food, which would require resources to be doubled again to meet the new demand.

Any perceived increase in standard of living brought on by increasing resources is an illusion predicated on credit. Extraction of ground water and phosphate have allowed for an increase of food production which has allowed 6 billion extra people to be born in excess of the carrying capacity of the planet. The problem is ground water and phosphate take thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years to become replenished. Meanwhile they are exhausted in generations. Saudi Arabia totally depleted its ground water supply in a couple decades. There are places in America where the ground has subsided 70 feet or more because of the extraction of aquifers that took millennia to fill up. Whole "guano islands" were mined below the waves to extract phosphate for fertilizer and for making explosives and have been depleted in the past century.

It's a simple calculus: extraction of these resources allows for the increase of the population because most people have no concept of a future beyond their own death (or maybe the deaths of their children), an increase in population leads to an escalating pace of resource extraction beyond the point where those resources are being replenished, which leads to a population crash.

Now, it's true that places like Japan and Europe, especially Eastern Europe, have seen declining populations, but Africa's population is exploding. Within the next 50 years 1 in 3 people on the planet will be African if this trend continues. Sustainable agriculture can only support 2 billion people, and there will be at least 4 billion Africans who will not work, who will not invent new particle physics, who will not build rockets to colonize Mars. 4 billion more mouths to be fed by an increasingly smaller pool of Western workers who are being replaced in their home countries.

The long-term survival of the human species requires colonization of other planets. That cannot happen if dumb Westerners keep giving aid to countries in Africa and across the third world where people breed like crazy. There is a finite supply of resources, and those resources must be apportioned toward advancing the survival of the human species over the long-term, not increasing the population dramatically in the here and now.

The long-term survival of the human species requires the immediate end of foreign aid across the board.

“But wouldn't the population just grow back if half of it is eliminated?”

No, not if you eliminate the half that breeds beyond the replacement level.

You're committing the fallacy of assuming humans are fungible, like bacteria. If you eliminate half of a colony of bacteria the colony will just continue to grow until all the resources are consumed. If you double the resources for the colony to grow on the colony will continue to grow until all the resources are consumed.

If you double the resources on Earth some humans will continue to breed until all the resources are consumed. If you remove the half that is breeding beyond replacement level then those resources can be recycled, as they always have been.

Resources are recycled. There are water cycles, phosphate cycles, nitrogen cycles, carbon cycles. Humans use resources, die, and the dead bodies decompose and return the elements to the Earth to be reused. If population is kept stable, at the carrying capacity, then resources can be recycled endlessly. The world will not become overrun with Japanese people, ever. Japanese people are not exhausting resources to fuel their bottomless thirst for expansion, like in China or Saudi Arabia, or Chad. If the wasteful half is eliminated, or simply not allowed to expand, then the stable, sustainable half can reuse the world's resources endlessly until the Sun dies.



*The disease that killed most of the people in the Americas when the Spanish arrived is called "Cocoliztli". It has the same symptoms as the Black Death: high fever, profuse bleeding, large dark spots - especially around the neck and genitals, bloody diarrhea, bloody vomiting, severe body pains, delusions, discoloration and necrosis of the skin. Death was usually in 3-5 days after onset of symptoms, an extremely short amount of time. We don't know the incubation/latency period is, there are very few diseases that kill that quickly. People with Ebola usually linger for 21 days or so. Cholera can kill quicker, but that's from fluid loss.

Coupled with the fact that the disease is spread primarily from person to person, and was devastating in areas that were virtually rodent free while sparing other areas that were teaming with rats, indicates that some unknown viral hemorrhagic fever was the worst killer of humans of all time. It wiped out 75% of Eurasia and 90% of North and South America. We are all the survivors of some extremely virulent disease that nearly brought humanity to extinction within a span of 300 years.