Some Men are Inadequate

Some people assume that just because I’m a male supremacist, on certain romantic, civic, and moral issues, that means that I’ve never experienced the worst of men, or that I believe that all women must be submissive to all men at all times, or that all people are happier in a male-dominated heterosexual relationship. Those suppositions are just not true.

Meanwhile, I’ve had all manner of horrible things befall me, with the majority of the actors being male, albeit with women always having some sort of role even if that role is not immediately apparent. I therefore look after myself the best that I can even though I prefer life as the submissive under protection of a man who I Love, respect, and admire. However, until I willingly make such a choice under a man who will have me, I am my own agent.

It is an uncomfortable situation which I attempt to make the best of by, at the least, making a record, of sorts, of my revelations.

In a perfect world I would have parents, family, and community who would look after me before, during, and after such a choice to commit to and submit to a man, with “after” representing a case of abandonment or his death. Similarly, I understand that a man requires support systems of his own in various capacities.

No man is an island and certainly no woman.

In our dystopia, government performs the function of parents, family, and community, and dysfunctionally so. Moreover, associations not approved by our government/monopoly “partnership” are forbidden in one way or another, with the smoking bans one way of discouraging even conversation.

In my case, I have today nearly no one but family—who I cannot trust nor rely on—and friends who I can rely on only situationally. That last is no fault of my friends, but rather a consequence of my being removed from society by The Han for 13 years, and returned to it socially alienated and misfiring, and then largely but voluntarily sheltered by Axel for another four years to include a move away from his own friends and family who he had already largely voluntarily abandoned for his own reasons.

We returned to a portion of his BDSM and swinger acquaintances as a measure of a form of “social life” such as I was denied by The Han in The Andes. He bore this as a favor to me. I do not and still do not readily meld into what passes as “society” among vanillas, except for limited superficial duration. Certainly not as a matter of choice. However, being that the BDSM “community” is now thoroughly poisoned by SJW’s, I am now forced to negotiate vanilla life among aliens. It is awkward, particularly when I am suddenly conferred authority I do not wish to possess.

I would rather rely on one mortal man, and take my chances at survival after his death than to be married to the government or entrenched within a community who I cannot relate to or vice versa. At the same time, a life with such a man on whom I can rely and vice versa is worth more to me than prioritizing my survival after the fact, as evidenced by my current predicament. I made my bed and am lying in it but at least I have my integrity.

However when it comes to men in general, I don’t hold them blameless in terms of the outcomes of the pathology that is Feminism. Far from it. When I was growing up, it was mostly men who were urging me to a) be promiscuous, b) be a career woman, c) not have children, d) be independent. Of those four, I’m glad I didn’t have children, but as for the other items, I didn’t have much of a choice in terms of my own survival. I am not sure that most women within my demographic did or do.

However, power-mongering via government and Feminism by that demographic—my demographic—isn’t merited. By definition we are the offspring of demographic dupes themselves.

I was not confronted with tons of options when it came to marriage. Those few proposals I did receive were bad moves—not so much because of insufficient hypergamy but rather too many areas of incompatibility or not enough in the way of sheer practical game plans. I’ve largely been uninterested in egalitarian relationships but it somewhat surprised me to find out that so many men who were interested in me earned so much less than I did, had worse credit ratings, were less responsible, etc., and otherwise wanted me to pick up the slack. One could say that I didn’t have the best of taste but it was also true that I had poor defenses or sense of boundaries as a consequence of very poor upbringing to include sexual abuse. Moreover various demographic realities that were ultimately a consequence of the entire Progressive Era of amendments to the U.S. Constitution resulted in fewer choices for a woman of my age, a “Baby Buster,” on the tail end of the “Baby Boom”.

The number of men destroyed by the prevailing trends of my era to include the Vietnam War, the Great Society, the Drug Wars, and Counterculture cannot be overestimated. I also diverge from many so-called “traditionalists,” when it comes to the supposed bliss of the “Nuclear Family,” in terms of suburban and consumerist Hell and lack of ability for self-actualization in terms of both the commuter husband and the consumerist wife. The “traditional” Socialism of an imposed egalitarianism within a manufactured community of the 1950’s and 1960’s was a logical step toward today’s dystopia even if the former may have appeared more homogeneous prior to forced multiculturalism and thereby can easily be seen as an improvement over today.

Prior to marrying for the one and only time, there was a particular Nisei with whom I was very much in love, but he didn’t believe in marriage. He was not handsome by conventional standards and with more than a passing resemblance to this guy (albeit anatomically correct and then some):


I worshiped that great big warm face of his, those short little stout legs, great big round belly, his long black hair, and you know what else. We had pleasant companionship including during extensive travel together, and I appreciated his mechanical ability, creativity, strength, beautifully deeply resonant voice, and our high sexual compatibility.

I was relieved that he was not a drinker or drug user except for a tobacco habit, as I tend to gravitate toward smokers, as is my choice, even though I was not myself smoking at the time.

His career in movie production was also admirable albeit somewhat problematic in that it would appear he worked extra hard to cushion nepotistic slackers around him, and those same types were part and parcel of our social life together.

I therefore made an effort to expand our social life within the BDSM community into which I was already well-entrenched, until it became apparent that we were both cushioning pathetic and dysfunctional slackers around us and otherwise adding more than what we were gaining by the association.

On the negative side of a more serious note however were political and spiritual incompatibility, and then there was his daughter.

It was the daughter who eventually succeeded in driving me away, which was her intention all along. This goal was doubtlessly encouraged by her girlfriends who it would seem all wanted to sleep with her father but recognized her as an ally who could, at the least, drive me out of the picture. Although we had an open relationship, apparently the energy he wished to expend on me was considered to be contrary to their ends of his complete subservience to their ambitions. The daughter was a college student with a steady boyfriend who, in my view, was being psychologically abused by her as well.

When I broke up with her father, she was pregnant, to abandon the father of the child soon afterward, as I was so apprised by the grapevine, while my then fiancé still allowed me some access to it. Meanwhile, daughter already had her father at her beck and call, and with a grandchild, so much the more so, and therefore apparently saw no need to keep the baby’s father around, except for financial support.

She was only 10 years or so younger than I was but considered herself my superior, so it seemed. Her mother was very pleasant and agreeable and was surprisingly sympathetic to me in terms of her daughter’s controlling behavior and desire to see her ex-lover/ex-husband happy, even though she was more than ten years older than I was, Ashkenazi Jewish, unmarried, and had become a lesbian. The Nisei was twenty years older.

Perhaps she was aware that I had had my tubes tied and therefore had no ambitions in terms of dynasty.

The father’s political and spiritual views were all a part of the negative dynamic. It was ironic that he was such a chivalrous feminist, for instance, giving his daughter so much control over his life along with female friends who flat out expected him to wait on them, while meanwhile I was his submissive and adored him even if he also spoiled me, as was his volition.

In those days, I was a Liberal and a Democrat, but not nearly as far Left as he was, and I believed in a superior being, as I do now. While it was true that he would spoil me with fancy restaurants, travel, and gifts. I didn’t think those things necessary, but I enjoyed them, while mostly enjoying the obvious attention and affection they represented. However, I would have been happier with commitment from him and a less extravagant lifestyle to involve significant financial contribution from me as my own career in technical writing was advancing as a buffer in the event that the volatile egos that he catered to in the movie business should self-destruct. Since he had gotten his start with corporate and advertising video production, I could keep a channel open for him for similar endeavors within my own contacts. All of this of course contributed to my threat level in terms of the show business coven within which he was entrenched.

I believe now that in his opposition to marriage, he was compensating for a deep insecurity which he kept tightly concealed to include his own guilt for his own masculine sexuality—a shame given how sexually and dynamically gifted he was. I certainly did my best to assure him of how appreciated he was by me. Ironically, I find the current state-sanctioned definition of marriage to be problematic myself; however, lacking a decent alternative I certainly do not condemn the practice for others even if I advise undertaking less-state-sanctioned methods of protection from a predatory spouse or other family members.

Of course, the daughter did me a favor in revealing to me just how shallow was that dominance of her father’s over me, without complete ownership of me, ability to stand up to his daughter, or negotiate the brainwashing of Leftism and Atheism. But that doesn’t mean that the depth of my feelings for him weren’t real, and perhaps contributed to my vulnerability when The Han came a-courting. At last a man who I could submit to who wanted to keep me around! An MD, PhD who had lived around the world! A sophisticate! He wanted me!

Finally I was able to shed myself of The Nisei without remorse. I had tried to break up with him twice before but would melt when he would call me or show up at my door and it was during such a break up that the possibility of reconciliation was foiled by The Han in similarly underhanded fashion as employed by the female Sansei. (I’ve decided not to reveal details that others might imitate.)

I was so relieved not to remain unmarried forever even if in hindsight it was the worst mistake of my life. Meanwhile, I would not be missing that daughter, for sure, albeit retained melancholy feelings for the man I was never to see again but with no regrets in leaving him. I merely wish an alternative branch had presented itself.

(Found the Nisei on Facebook, still alive, kicking, pumping iron, and a Bernie Sanders supporter. Fare thee well. I’m glad that he is far away in a State I wouldn’t consider, as I’m sure that the political arguments would be as explosive as the sex was when I believed in him.)

It would seem to me that as much as I admire the character and wisdom of men overall when compared to women, the Achilles Heel of men is always women. That first glance at mother in infancy creates an irrational bond that cannot be dissolved by mere rhetoric or even maturity entirely, even if she was highly inadequate and perhaps especially when she was highly inadequate. For some men, like the aforementioned, that hypnotic power is eclipsed by the power of their daughters. In all cases, it would seem that the more dysfunctional the relationship, the stronger the influence. Therefore, the burgeoning State has an investment in keeping maternal bonds dysfunctional.

Similarly, vain, narcissistic, immature men would not have been able to survive and reproduce if they weren’t enabled by women to do so. This doesn’t say a lot for those women who are that gullible to believe that their own empowerment is better than submitting to a superior man. I mean, who cares if a man does housework, dishes, and childcare? Who cares if he is an obedient corporate clotheshorse? Who cares that he is so obsessed with trappings of class that he forgets that he is a man? Why is a man capable of those things considered by feminists to be superior to one who disdains such acts as a matter of course unless absolutely necessary?

(Why do men I meet seem to expect that I want these things? Why is this sort of supplication considered foreplay that will cause me to be sexually aroused? Vanilla dating is difficult! How has the species survived!)

What is so wrong with waiting on a man who one loves and admires, and deferring to him, rather than some impersonal employer or customer? How would it be that putting me on a pedestal is supposed to result in my arousal! What? Does it work on anyone?

That said, considering my intellectual and world achievement, combined with my own dysfunctional childhood and poor role models, I knew it was never going to be easy for me to find someone who not only could I look up to and admire but he would be confident that he could be “enough of a man” for me. It hasn’t gotten easier despite my inclinations for spreading my reach internationally.

I don’t personally believe that it is doing women a favor to overly emphasize their achievement or celebrity at the expense of men, and children. As for the appropriate solution to a situation where there is an overabundance of unmarriageable women in a generation? I tend to lean toward voluntary lesbian colonies, but without undue influence on political discourse, and therefore isolated.

Suffice to say, I would rather have death than to be such an inmate myself. I’ll settle for a used RV while I am a caretaker on a modest farm. That’s the extent of my lonely ambitions today. I think that I am recovered well enough from my experiences to care for certain livestock. Oh joy. Survival. Alone. How empowering.

Because of my complicated sexual persona, I naturally have to be very careful as to what sort of man I would trust enough to become intimate with, and my standards are very high in terms of scarcity. When women condescend to me as well, however, I bristle. I have rejected the female hive mind and reject men overly deferential to it.

Although I don’t really have a culture, myself, because of all the moves throughout my life, and necessary alienation from my immediate family, I don’t think culture and values are superficial at all, and like it or not, such things tend to be associated with geography, race, class, and religion or belief system. Flattening out those differences superficially will simply result in less excellence while meanwhile entrenching those with the least character in positions of authority, to include the movie business.

Everybody’s a critic.


11 thoughts on “Some Men are Inadequate

  1. Pingback: Some Men are Inadequate –

  2. Sorry for the length, but this isn’t a subject suited to twitter-style sound bytes.

    I think a large part of the problem you’re describing is rooted in both an inadequate understanding of the true nature of women as well as a false dialectic that’s taught to men. In saying that, I take a very simple view of things, at the core of which is the idea that God can do whatever He wants to and doesn’t need to explain it to us.

    It often amuses me that people will do just about anything in order to explain any particular phenomena in a way that fits within their belief system or “frame” (your personal overton window, if you will). Most people profess a belief in God and many identify with Christianity, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, from a purely historical and pragmatic viewpoint, the devil was and is the organized church.

    The story goes that Adam and Eve sinned (each in different ways) and for these acts, God punished them. This is the part that *everyone* wishes would just go away. The manosphere leaders (most notably Rollo Tomassi) explain female hypergamy from the standpoint of evo-psych, but the fact is, female hypergamy is not an evolutionary-developed behavioral pattern, it’s God’s curse on all women.

    “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

    That’s it. The word “desire is only used two other times, once in Genesis 4:7 as a desire to conquer, to overcome; and again in the Song of Songs 7:10 as a sexual desire. In Genesis 3:16 (the curse) it’s both. Women are cursed to have a desire to be ruled by men, but they will test the men (“fitness tests” or “shit tests”) to see if they are worthy. If they pass the tests the desire to conquer turns into sexual desire.

    The response when a man passes one shit test after another is so predictable that it’s amusing to men and frightening to women who are confused as to why they are *so* attracted to the man. However, the subject of hypergamy is profoundly uncomfortable to men, especially in the church. If the subject is examined at all today, what the Bible says about the relationship between men and women is almost always couched in terms of misogyny; but the fact is, all of it points back to the curse.

    This is also profoundly disturbing to women because they find their intellectual programming (be a Strong Independent Woman!) fighting their hardwired behavioral impulses. The prevalence of women’s fantasies of rape, bondage and enslavement to a strong man are reflections of this hard-wired behavioral model that was put in place by God with the curse on women. Their desire to find a strong, dominant, masculine man they are attracted to and can submit to is frustrated by the cultural emasculation of men that is the product of feminism.

    There are a few basic passages on marriage that are so uncomfortable that the church simply wishes that they didn’t exist, so they don’t teach about them or even mention them; but they illustrate the rules God laid down both before and after the curse.

    Genesis 2:24 is the authority granted to the man to initiate marriage. He leaves his parents (intent to marry), joins to his wife and they become one flesh. There is no limit to the authority (polygyny is allowed) and no authority to end the marriage (divorce is not allowed).

    Exodus 22:16-17 is specific instruction on the initiation of marriage. Wipe out the fluff and it says if a man has sex with a virgin (he takes her virginity) the two are married. If her father does not approve, he has the right to annul the marriage. That’s it. Sex with a virgin equals marriage.

    This is further emphasized in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that a virgin seized and taken by force (violated) is married to her attacker and (if discovered) not only can her father not annul the marriage, but he cannot divorce her all the days of his life (wives have no authority to divorce their husbands).

    It gets really hairy when one carefully examines the text concerning the issue of rape (found only in Deuteronomy 22). Essentially, rape is only a crime when committed against a married woman. If committed against a virgin not betrothed, what we call “rape” is the consummation of her marriage. There is absolutely no mention of widows or divorced women. I believe that this is not a case of God not caring about such women, but rather a further extension of that part of the curse that says “he shall rule over you.” The lack of protection granted to women who are no longer married is incentive to re-marry and implied is the idea that women are to be under the authority of a man.

    (Marriage isn’t a zero-sum game as modern folks might suppose because a man isn’t limited to only one wife and there was plenty of room in the household of many men for another wife who could be useful- and I’m not talking about sex.)

    That polygyny is specifically permitted in Genesis 2:24 by the lack of limitation on the authority to initiate marriage is reinforced by the fact God regulated polygyny in the Law, condoned it in 2nd Samuel 12:8, commanded it in Deut. 25:5-10 and Jeremiah 31:31-32 demonstrates that God participated in polygyny. Obviously the church is full of shit claiming that something God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in is wrong or a sin, but they had their political reasons for doing so and feminists love the idea of monogamy because it empowers women at the expense of men.

    Numbers 30 is the Law of Vows, which states that a young woman living in her fathers house can make no agreement not subject to his approval. Likewise, a wife can make no agreement not subject to her husband’s approval. A widow or a divorced woman’s agreement is the same as that of a man- they are completely responsible for their decisions.

    The implications derived from just these few passages of Scripture are enough to send people of the church off into a tizzy and the linguistic gymnastics I’ve seen as theologians tried to “prove” that what the text plainly says doesn’t would be amusing were it not so sad. Everything goes back to Genesis 3:16 where God said “he shall rule over you.” Women don’t seem to have a problem with this, only with finding a man worthy to rule over them.

    The real tragedy is some women (perhaps like you) come to a realization of just how they’re wired and have the courage to act on it, but don’t recognize where it came from or why- that it isn’t a ‘kink’ but rather the way God made them. I know I’ll catch hell from a certain person if they see this, but given what the Bible actually says about women and what wives are commanded to do, I think they’d be far happier with the concept of John Norman’s “kajira” than what even the most conservative of Christians think of as the role for women and wives.

    However, if you think it’s bad for women, it’s actually worse for men. Especially in the feminized society we live in today.

    There are other issues I could discuss related to sexuality that the church adopted as doctrinal prohibitions, even though they’re wildly in conflict with what the Bible actually says, but this comment has gone on long enough.

    • I am so very sympathetic with your views on so many levels and read your post on the subject along with the comments on your blog. I therefore have two questions of you because you are clearly a scholar. What is “virginity” exactly? Is it pre-fucking? pre-penetration? or pre-any sex?

      Assuming I’m now widowed from the actual first “fucker” effectively (an uncommonly sleazy Mob contractor–it’s a good bet he’s gone), and the man I legally married is pretty sure to be dead (but not positively), and the man who I remain married to in a way in my heart but who actively encouraged me to get outside attention even if I only barely availed myself of it, do I need to do anything before committing to the next guy in the eyes of God? (I’m hoping that I don’t have to actually live in any sort of harem to do so because I do not trust women today.)

      I have tremendous sympathy for men. Please feel free to stop by and make long winded comments any time you like. I’m going to have to read more of your blog. Tempted to comment on what you have to say about Alpha Widows (not the same as “Size Queens” who are victims of poor muscularity as a result of propaganda) and how to increase penis size, but afraid that it would up the quantity of attention rather than the quality. There are myriad ways of addressing these issues to include those forbidden to discuss. There.

  3. Hmmm… OK, from the Bible, not my opinion:

    Virginity = Woman’s hymen not yet broken by a man’s penis in the literal sense, but strong implication of no man having ever planted his seed in her. In this case (and we drill down to the Hebrew words for this) the concept of virginity has a lot to do with the modern concept of telegony and issues raised by the study of the microbiome. (I could literally write a book on that alone but given that my background is in toxicology I’d be out of my field WRT genetics and microbiology.)

    So, with the idea that the first guy who “planted his seed” in your vagina (whether you still had a hymen or not) is your husband per Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 22:16-17 (assuming you weren’t raped), there are questions.

    You say you’re pretty sure the guy is dead. Well, what if he isn’t? Is your Dad dead? If you’re like most women you didn’t tell him about giving this guy your virginity and even if you did he didn’t know it was your marriage (you didn’t know that’s what you’d done either), so, since there’s no time limit in Numbers 30 all he’s got to do is say something like “As God is my witness, I hereby annul your marriage.” That’s it, you’re free and clear, no court hearings and no paperwork, your marriage is no more.

    Assuming your husband (the mob guy) was not dead at the time and assuming your father had not annulled your marriage, your “legal” marriage to some other guy was not a marriage because a married woman cannot have a licit marriage to another man while her husband is still alive. I don’t know if that makes sense to you or not, but it’s explained in Romans 7:3

    “So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man”

    So… if your husband is still alive and if your father isn’t around any more or refuses to annul your marriage, (and assuming your mob-guy husband isn’t a real Christian) you could get your husband to give you a certificate of divorce for adultery. That’s a piece of paper that says “I hereby divorce Caprizchka for adultery.” That’s it. Where does that leave you? Free to be you. Literally.

    What drives the X-ians up the wall is the fact that as a woman who is no longer married, there is literally NOTHING in the Bible that says you having sex with any other man is a sin. It doesn’t matter if he’s married or single. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say, essentially, ‘where there is no law there is no violation and thus, no sin.’ That also applies to the female side of things as well because there is literally no mention of girl-girl sex anywhere in the Bible. You would expect to find it in Leviticus 18:22-23, but it isn’t there. This is one of the other things that drives X-ians nuts because what is there is this:

    **men-men, prohibited, (death penalty);
    **men-animals, prohibited (death penalty);
    **women-animals, prohibited (death penalty).

    On the subject of women-women you get *crickets*

    Personally I believe that it’s because men can have more than one wife and a guy with more than one wife will sooner or later want them in bed together… assuming the girls don’t get there first. Women are to be ruled by their husbands and are commanded to submit to him in *everything* (which includes doing what he wants in the bedroom). If one really studies the Bible… God’s standards WRT sexuality really boil down to this: God cares far more about the relationships of the people connecting their plumbing than how they connect their plumbing.

    What position one is in and things like oral and anal are simply not found in the Bible. The only prohibitions on marital sex are no intercourse (nothing about blowjobs) while the wife is menstruating and no intercourse while the wife is in the proscribed period of time after childbirth: 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. “Kinky-fuckery” is only a taboo because the perverts in the church made it so.

    Some relationships are forbidden (men-men, incest), some are regulated (male-female) and some are so unworthy of concern that they aren’t mentioned (masturbation, girl-girl). What’s funny is the average up-tight X-ian is quite likely to have violated one of the very serious sexual prohibitions (in the same category with bestiality, incest and adultery)- sex while the wife is menstruating. Yet, they throw rocks at women who identify as Bi or Les. It’s all part of the legacy we received from the Machiavellian perverts who’ve run the church for the last 1500 years.

    OK- bottom line, you’re either a married woman or you are not. The Law says you’re married to the guy you gave your virginity to, but your father could annul that or he could divorce you. Or, he could die. Until one of these things happens you’re a married woman and having sex with a guy is adultery. Adultery is (Biblically speaking) a death penalty offense, but the real issue is it’s sin. Sin scars the soul and causes damage that comes out in both predictable and unpredictable ways. If you’re still married, stick to girls or toys until you can get it taken care of.

    If you’re not married, you’re free to fuck anyone you like, although you really should marry them… and now we’re back to the idea that women will be far happier living in submission to a man who is worthy of her submission.


    I also didn’t say anything about monogamy or polygyny. That’s something else the Bible doesn’t delineate, it only speaks of ‘marriage’ because both monogamy and polygyny are Biblically acceptable forms of marriage. Personally I prefer polygyny but even if I settled down with one woman it would be a marriage in which there would be clear agreement that another wife (or wives) was an option; although I’d certainly want wife #1’s input in the selection process. But that’s me and I’ve written more than a few books about this.

    If you want to discuss Alpha Widows, wow… be my guest. Here or there doesn’t matter. It’s pretty much anything goes on my blog if it fits within the subject matter and so far I’ve only banned one person; and that’s because he tried to dox another commenter. I’m curious what you’d consider “forbidden to discuss” given your FetLife personae.

  4. Thanks. Very helpful. (Isn’t that wild about how every man’s sperm affects a woman’s eggs, genome, I’ll bet hair ecology, skin ecology, and all sorts of other things?)

    Would love to continue this discussion in such a way that anything I say can’t be recorded. Fat chance on the internet but there would be something for you, and something for me, of that I’m certain. I’m referring to knowledge of course, and not in the Biblical sense. LOL.

  5. This is what I love about the Internet: You have no clue how many screaming lunatics populate your country until you go online.

    Democracy is a fucking wish.

    • I assume by “you” you’re referring to yourself. If “one” builds it, they come. Free entertainment. It’s like putting a bit of wine in a glass by the window. In the morning it’s full of dead gnats. Read any Mencken? Just type the word into your search engine. It’s easy. Even a screaming lunatic can do it.

  6. Actually (and I have been very good about not pointing this out to the HDB people, some of whom are friends), research into the microbiome has a pretty good chance of turning a LOT of research into human genetics on its head because a lot of what is considered “genetically determined” in humans is actually either controlled or greatly influenced by the microbes in our system.

    I took a look at some of your comments on FetLife and in some ways you remind me of my grandmother (that was a compliment) in that she was a very tenacious woman who could not only think but articulate her thoughts. Married to my grandfather (150+ IQ) she had to be.

    Would love to continue this discussion in such a way that anything I say can’t be recorded.

    There’s only two ways that can happen and one of them requires nudity, close examination and cavity probing in a safe location. In fact, vigorous cavity probing and an exchange of DNA in an appropriate “clean” location (a noisy shower with the lights off works well) might be required to establish the proper environment for such communication and ensure the ensuing conversation could not be recorded via audio or video. Since that particular protocol can’t be accomplished online (I don’t care *what* the Japanese say about their VR), other alternatives must be employed.

    “Recorded” is such an interesting word, but is that really what you meant? Perhaps what you mean is “not attributed to me” or better yet “not available at a future time to come back and bite me in the ass.” I have been in this position before and the last time I was required to meet the person in a different country and we held our conversation swimming in the ocean about 50 yards out from a fairly deserted beach (no, I’m not making that up). It was cool because the other country wasn’t far away and it didn’t cost me anything to make the trip, but it was a conversation that could only take place in absolute security, face to face.

    Not having something come back to bite you in the ass comes down to attribution. There is no form of communication that could not be recorded in some way, given enough time and effort, but attribution is a very different creature. An analogy I’ve used in the past is to walk around outside until we come to an anthill (very common in the south). “Ok, we are the NSA and we can see everything.” I kick over the anthill and the ants come boiling out. I turn to the other person and say “Tell me which one is Fred. Or Joan. Or Mike, or Susan or even Shannequia. The answer is you can’t, until you can tie that person to a physical identity that allows you to differentiate them from everyone else. in order to do that you have to have a way to get down into that boiling mess and identify them as an individual.”

    We both have WordPress blogs so you know as well as I that anything either of us might say on the others blog reveals the email address we use and the IP address WordPress receives. Yet, we have control over that information because anyone’s email address can be used (I’ve used Amanda Marcotte’s before) and proxy services can easily hide the true IP address. The question isn’t whether one can be anonymous, the question is how hard it would be to break that anonymity.

    I’m actually an expert on this and I know that because some years back I produced a video series called “How To Disappear And Never Be Found.” I them to Sister Golden Hair, an old girlfriend (now a federal prosecutor) and asked her opinion as to whether the techniques could beat the feds. She got me on the phone a few days later advising me to destroy every copy and never mention the subject again. Then she went on to list all the felonies I’d committed in “advising” people how to get away with committing a gob-wad of felonies in the process of creating a new life for themselves.

    I let her rant until she wound down (she still cares about me) and asked her again- if somebody did what I told them to do on those videos, would you guys be able to find them? That got me a response in her *little girl voice* that was always the signal she was about to throw something at me. “If the advice was no good I would have offered to endorse it, but instead I told you to make them go away. Doesn’t that tell you anything?” Several years later when was back in the US I met her for lunch and her first question (little girl voice again) was “Did you get rid of those videos like I asked?” No dishes were harmed in the course of our meal and we spent a pleasant afternoon catching up with each others lives.

    Back to the problem. Sooner or later the question becomes one of who might be trying to attribute something you said to your real identity. What follows is not tinfoil hat stuff, but it represents a range of behavior that goes from cautious to truly paranoid. Keep in mind that some people have very good reasons for being paranoid.

    Given enough text as a reference (writing known to be attributed to me- my blog, for example) there are some rather sophisticated text-analysis programs that could identify me as the author of a surprisingly small “anonymous” sample of text. The larger the known reference work and the larger the sample, the greater the ability to ID me as the author. I solved that problem in the past using Google translate, going from English to Russian and back to English again. Sometimes I had to edit the finished product for clarity, but the syntax and word patterns could no longer be identified as mine. I dealt with the IP problem by parking in front of large apartment buildings and hijacking any open WIFI signal with a long-range WIFI antenna (proxy use was a no-go).

    In theory the issue boils down to your trust of me and my trust of you. Assuming neither of us knows each other (which would be arguable if a bit of effort was expended because we’ve both written extensively in public) to have trust the other not to release the conversation to the public, a reasonable alternative to email or our own blogs is to find a 3rd party blog or (better yet) a defunct forum that’s still open but not really managed. It’s easy enough to use a throw-away email address and a proxy service like TOR to make finding where a comment came from impossible for anyone but the NSA. I don’t know that it’s a trust issue on your part or mine because in a lot of ways we’re the same. What I’m reasonably sure of is neither of us wants is for something we say to come back and bite us in the ass later.

    The easy solution to have a conversation and deny attribution to both our online identities and our real identities is to find a 3rd party blog (blogger) that:

    -allows anonymous comments
    -hasn’t locked down comments on old posts
    -doesn’t display recent comments on the sidebar.

    Use a throw-away email address for notifications and check that email address with your phone. Use a different throw-away email to communicate location information to the other party and after that have discussion as “anynomous” or some other innocuous handle. For extra security, pick an individual who has similar views/experiences and use their online identity. On certain subjects I could’t get away with that because my perspective is fairly unique and I’ve argued it on multiple different forums. YMMV However, doing that will pretty much ensure there’s no way for any random person online to attribute whatever was said to you unless it’s the government using text analysis software. If you want to have a conversation they’d be interested in, ummm, that defaults to the face-to-face method.

    Back to trust. We have our conversation and you know what has been posted and I know what has been posted. Yet, neither of us could possibly *prove* who we were talking to, so if you wanted to accuse me of torturing little old ladies’ cats with pepper spray or even stalking crazy women drugged up on SSRI’s in order to anonymously torture them with malicious acts of kindness, there’s no way to prove *I* actually said those things. And, of course, there’s no way I can *prove* you said your secret fantasy is [fill in the blank] because no matter how salacious it might be, it’s just some random person I’m talking to on the Internet and I don’t truly know who that person is and I sure as hell can’t prove it.

    For the paranoid, use two unrelated blogs, one blog for each person. Requires reading on one blog and replying on another, but anyone looking can only get a single side of the conversation.

    For the truly paranoid, use hosting sites and hide the messages in photos using steganography software (free and easy to use). Give it a day or so and replace the photo with one that doesn’t have the message in it. No more evidence, and no way for either party to prove the other party put the message in the photo. All it takes to open an account is a throw-away email (account is needed in order to “manage” photos, which includes deleting the ones with the messages and replacing them with ones that don’t have messages). Do you have any idea how many free hosting sites are out there? This can also be done on social networking sites as well. A comment from the other person means they have the message and the photo can be swapped out for a vanilla photo with no message.

    Having lived under conditions in the past in which I had to communicate with people in a hostile environment (it wasn’t in the US) using unorthodox methods, I know there’s almost no limit to how far this stuff can be taken. And if you get off on the drama of it all, it’s a pain in the ass but in the same way as getting a spanking- it’s something you desire.

    There is one final technique. Pick an asshole you know in real life and create an online personae for them using lots of information that would quickly identify them. The better you know this person the more effective it is. Do whatever you want with that online ID and as long as you handle the IP issues, you’ll be fairly safe. If you were going to be under NSA level scrutiny this requires a separate computer or phone that is only used online with that particular ID. In fact, a prepaid cell phone could be in that person’s name. That doesn’t show up online, but law-enforcement level access (CALEA) to the phone company records gets it within a matter of seconds. Remember, it’s not ID theft until you use the identity to commit a crime…

    At the end of the day, when it comes to physical attribution a throw-away email address accessed from a phone or using a computer connected to a public WIFI hotspot is the 95.45% solution. Add in TOR and you’ve got the 99.7% solution. It is far easier to slip up and reveal personally identifying information in what you say than in the techniques you use and most people are doxxed because of the information they release online, over time. A bit here, a bit there, over time it adds up.

    And thanks for the walk down memory lane… this brought back some interesting memories of living in the most corrupt country in South America.

    • You lived in Venezuela too?

      Fascinating stuff.

      I could go for a disappearing act myself.

      Attribution is only one part of the issue. The other part of the issue is what Pandora did: she opened the box. I don’t think I want to do something like that with someone who I haven’t met face-to-face.

      I guess I hadn’t realized before just how vested we all are in sexual and biological narratives. I can get away with a lot by simply talking in poetic or mystical metaphor because simply sounding like a crackpot is it’s own protection. Not all knowledge is power. Sometimes it is the seed of madness. Would I inflict the knowledge? On you? Anonymous lurkers? Questions that can’t be answered on the internet.

  7. Heh. I think our “six degrees of separation” IRL just went down to one, no way more than 2. Been to Margarita?

    Not all knowledge is power. Sometimes it is the seed of madness.

    You have far more to fear from what I could tell you than what you could tell me.

    Tengo en todo el mundo amigos alta y baja. Algun son banqueros y funcionarios, algun son putas y sicarios. Mi vida tan como una telenovela, pero peor, porque es vida real.

    I honestly don’t think anything you could possibly say would surprise me, but if you told me you’re 6′ 2″ tall, a natural red-head who used to live in Cardiff by the Sea with a crazy sister named “Betty” and a doberman named Dutchess you might get there. If that’s the case you already know me really well because I was your marine biology project all those years ago. Or you could step it up a notch and tell me you’re that crazy woman I met at Guyacuco beach 10 years ago and you’ve got a nine-year old child that’s half my DNA.

    OTOH, if you told me you really work for the CIA and your bosses are still pissed off with me over that little stunt from back in 2011, all I can say is I believe you, I’m sorry, and please tell them I thought the money belonged to someone else. Honest. And nobody got killed, which, if you’ve read my history, you already know was definitely an available option on the menu. So… how about we just call it a truce. OK?

    • No. I have not been to Isla Margerita. Stuck to the mainland.

      Re: “You have far more to fear from what I could tell you than what you could tell me.” Is that a wager? It’s not one I accept in virtual conversation regardless of whatever bona fides you yourself choose to reveal. My winning streak is unbroken.

      Word to the wise: don’t take up such a wager with the intentionally childless.

      LOL! No Betty but I know Cardiff. Raised German Shepherds in Venezuela.

      I’m not your *intentional* nemesis. I wish you well and like you. Don’t want to be your *unintentional* nemesis either, said the scorpion to the tortoise. Joking! It gets worse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s