Category Archives: Sane Pro-Woman

The Old “Treat Woman Like Crap” Advice

GondwanaMan: Pumpkin Person told to me to try some sociopathy/narcissism, but it’s hard! I started reading Chateau Heartiste/Roosh V, then went outside of my apartment to try it out. First girl I tried it on, walked away. Same with the second. Then I went to a third one. Same thing.

Finally I found an elderly woman and talked down to her like she was stupid. She liked me, but I think only because she was hard of hearing and lonely. So I’ll try again tomorrow on someone else.

Personally, the last men on Earth I would read for advice on how to get women are ultra-misogynists and narcissist/sociopaths Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V. I suppose that technique could work if you are a real scumbag. Roosh’s advice seems to be mostly a How to Date Rape Women and Get Away with It manual. And Roosh is indeed a date rapist. That’s for sure. And boy does he hate women.

You hear a lot of players and womanizers give precisely this advice on how to get women and deal with them. They claim it works fantastic. Some of the worse ones even say that they beat and hit women, and this works wonders. None of this has ever made the tiniest bit of sense to me, and I’m pretty experienced with women.

As a man who has done quite well with women in his life, I would say that acting like a sociopath/narcissist in the sense you are talking about is just not going to work. I’ve never gotten women by talking down to them like they are idiots. Lots of players say the secret to women is to treat them like shit, but I’ve had many girlfriends, and that’s never worked for me. I don’t get it. How to guys treat women like shit and get away with it?

As it is, women in my life are always accusing me of insulting them or not caring about them or being mean or hurting their feelings. That is, being an asshole. However, I am generally not even trying to do that! I actually try very hard not to insult women or put them down too much, but it seems like women are paranoid and always reading insults into places where they are not intended. To the extent that I have treated women poorly in this way, albeit usually unintentionally, it’s never been anything but a disaster. I don’t get it. How do misogynists get women? How does insulting a woman get you laid? How does talking down to a woman make her want to go out with you?

Color me mystified.

17 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex

Berkeley Riots Escalate Dramatically Overnight

Amazing footage shot sometime in the past few hours in the early morning of Thursday, February 2.

Above, footage of the riots occurring while Milo was speaking. A huge crowd is gathered outside the venue. Antifa throw Bricks, rocks and fireworks at the first and second floors of the building, attack police are attacked with bricks and rocks, and dismantle police barricades. Later in the video, on Telegraph Avenue, an antifa assaults a Trump supporter and wrestles him to the ground. Several come to the young man’s aid and pull the two of them apart. The man who was attacked gets up and walks away.

Above, rioters attack pro-Trump people with flying objects and a flagpole. The girl early in the video is hit by a flying object. At :14, an antifa beats a Trump supporter with a flagpole! The Trump supporter somehow gets up and fights back. Later in the video, a bleeding Trump supporter is interviewed.

Incredible video. A journalist interviews a Milo fan wearing a Trump hat. At the end of the short interview, he thanks her and they part. Almost immediately, an Antifa attacks the young woman with pepper spray!

This video appears to be taken on Telegraph Avenue after the campus riot ended. A large group of demonstrators and antifa seem to be attacking and assaulting Trump supporters. The Trump supporters run away but the Antifa chase after them and attack them with poles and iron rods. One Trump supporter lies in the street, possibly knocked out cold. Others are run down and beaten to the ground.

After the riots at UC Berkeley were dispersed, demonstrators made their way to Telegraph Avenue. At some point, more rioting occurred. Ready tellers were smashed at several banks and some banks had most of their windows smashed. Mechanics, Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America branches were all vandalized. There were reports that at least four banks had been vandalized.

Above, rioters smash ATM’s in Berkeley.

Several fires were set in Telegraph Avenue. At least two banks were on fire near Center Street and Shattuck Avenue.

Graffiti was painted around. Slogans included “Antifa” and “Liberals get the bullet too.” So you can see these are radical Leftists who do not like your average Democratic Party peaceful Women’s March protesters at all.

A Starbucks was attacked by having its windows smashed out with iron bars. Rioters then went inside and looted the Starbucks. They distributed the looted property to people in the crowd. Robin Hood, I guess.

Most of the crowd appears to be just looking and cheering them on. There were a surprising number of young women in the crowd. Call me old-fashioned, but I would say, “That’s no place for a woman to be.”

The scene in that video has an air of menace. That looks like a very dangerous place to be right now. I would not want to be in that crowd. Perhaps they might turn on you. There is an undertone of anger and menace there that I would not want to be around.

When people get like that, they are like sharks who smell blood. You are in the middle of a dangerous, violent riot with some seriously unhinghed people around and there’s no guarantee that they won’t come after you too. These dangerous scenes are unpredictable. The rioters are getting amped up by destroying things, looting business and perhaps assaulting other people earlier. There’s no guarantee that you will be safe if only you appear to be on their side. It’s sort of like being trapped amidst a gang of criminals, but it’s not nearly that bad. But still, the vibe is the same.

63 Comments

Filed under California, Conservatism, Crime, Democrats, Gender Studies, Higher Education, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, US Politics, USA, West

Massive Riots at UC Berkeley Over Milo Yiannapoulis Visit

Here.

Milo Yiannapoulis was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley as part of his Dangerous Faggot tour.

Many of his tour stops on campuses around the country have been disrupted by rowdy demonstrations and even riots. His appearances are being canceled in many cases due to fear of riots. After the election of Trump, the demonstrators have gotten much more violent and rowdy.

At the University of Washington recently, there was a huge riot at a Milo appearance. People coming to see Milo were assaulted by demonstrators, who attacked them with fists, object and paint bombs. Some Milo fans were injured in the meelee. I am not sure if the speech got canceled or not. Antifa and Black Bloc elements present were probably causing most of the violence. At one point, fights broke out between antifa and Trump supporters. In the midst of one of these fights, a Trump supporter drew a weapon and shot an antifa. The antifa was badly wounded in the hospital but may have survived.

Just tonight, Milo was scheduled to speak in the Student Union at UC Berkeley in Berkeley, California. A huge crowd of over 2,000 protesters assembled. At first the demo was peaceful, but later, a smaller group of antifa Black Bloc types broke away and began engaging in violence.

There were shouting matches and fistfights between antifa and Trump supporters. In one case, an antifa threw an object at a young woman Trump supporter, hitting her in the face. She charged the man with fists and returned blows at her attacker. I don’t like the idea of beating up women, even if they are Trumpsters. I couldn’t do it myself. If a woman wants to take her on, fine, but men assaulting women even in political demos leaves me cold. Men should fight men and women should fight women, sorry. I guess that’s that horrible, evil Alt Left conservatism of mine that makes me such an vile scum according to the Cultural Left. Isn’t it horrible that I want to protect women from violent men? Disgusting! I believe in chivalry. Is that scummy or what?

Large amounts of fireworks and smoke bombs were set off, most of them being thrown at the building where Milo was speaking. People charged police barricades and tore them down. They then used the barricades to smash the windows of the venue where Milo was speaking. People set fires here and there, including a large bonfire. At one point, the mob charged the building, smashed open windows using police barricades and managed to breach the first floor of the venue where Milo was speaking! Wow! I wonder what they would have done with Milo if they got their hands on him. They might have lynched him. Security at the speech panicked and the speech was canceled. For a while it seemed that Milo was trapped inside, but officers managed to escort him to safety.

Police had to resort to tear gas, pepper spray and even rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. Police gave orders to disperse, warning that anyone who did not leave would be arrested.

This was probably the most serious riot at UC Berkeley in quite some time, but of course, in the 1960’s and 70’s, huge demonstrations and even riots rocked the campus on a regular basis. Governor Ronald Reagan even called out the California National Guard to restore order on California campuses.

3 Comments

Filed under California, Conservatism, Gender Studies, Higher Education, Law enforcement, Left, Man World, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, US Politics, USA, Washington, West

Trump’s Sexist Remarks about Women

All of these remarks by Trump about women have been called sexist by feminists, the Cultural Left, and the popular culture at large, which is really just the Cultural Left as we are getting to the point now where the Cultural Left is actually our mainstream culture, which is pretty sorry. The remarks were rated on whether they were really sexist or not, and reasons were given for my opinions. Sexism really does exist. Misogyny is real and an awful lot of men are guilty of it. In fact, you might say that misogyny is the norm in male culture. It’s simply normal when among men to be a sexist pig and have a low view of women. That’s just the way men talk when they get together.

To some extent it’s understandable as women tend to make us insane, but it’s still not ok. You guys don’t like females who hate men, right? Well then,  don’t be a woman -hater. Anyway, I feel that most of the serious complaints against women are due to things women cannot help. Their brains just work in a certain way and most male complaints about women seem to be due to women’s brains working in exactly the way they are programmed to work. In other words, I don’t think there is a whole lot women can do about this stuff and I doubt if they are deliberately going out of their way to act horrible when they act bad. They  probably do not have a lot of control over it, and to some extent, women, like men, are probably prisoners of our biology.

Comments welcome.

“I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?” Sexist – lousy attitude to have towards your wife.

That women are essentially aesthetically-pleasing objects: In his 2006 book Trump 101: The Way to Success, Trump wrote: “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.” Not sexist – true.

That sexual assault in the military is totally expected. 26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?  Not sexist – true.

That women on The Apprentice need to rely on sex appeal. “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on The Apprentice were to a very large extent dependent on their sex appeal.”  Sexist – was the show supposed to be about how sexy the women were?

That bad press doesn’t matter as long as you have a sexy girlfriend. “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” Sexist – poor taste and a lousy way to talk about your woman.

That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist. “I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters,” Trump said to a female reporter in a clip featured on Last Week Tonight. “Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.” Sexist – sex appeal should not be a factor in whether a woman is a good journalist or not.

That pumping breast milk is “disgusting.” When a lawyer facing Trump in 2011 asked for a break to pump breast milk for her infant daughter, The Donald reacted very poorly. “He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me, and he screamed, ‘You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting,’ and he ran out of there,” attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN. Trump’s attorney does not dispute that his client called Beck “disgusting.” Sexist – lousy attitude towards breastfeeding.

That all women hate prenups because they are gold diggers. “The most difficult aspect of the prenuptial agreement is informing your future wife (or husband): I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband solely for himself but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.” Sexist – probably not all women are this avaricious.

That women have a “great act” going on to trick men. “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.”  Not sexist – true.

That Hillary would be a bad president because of her husband’s actions. “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, how can she satisfy America?” Sexist – the behavior of her husband has nothing to do with how good of a President she would be. Poor taste to imply that she is lousy in bed.

That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive. “[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby… And, I just don’t even find her attractive.” Sexist – slut shaming.

That Bette Midler’s “ugly face and body” are offensive. While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct. Sexist – that is not a good reason to dislike a person.

That Rosie O’Donnell is “crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb. My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner, and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.” Sexist – Lousy way to talk to women on a habitual basis.

That a journalist who offended him had an ugly face. New York Times columnist Gail Collins recalled: “During one down period, I referred to him in print as a ‘financially embattled thousandaire’ and he sent me a copy of the column with my picture circled and ‘The Face of a Dog!’ written over it.” Sexist – her looks are not of any importance.

That Cher is ‘lonely’ and ‘a loser’ because she doesn’t support him. @cher should spend more time focusing on her family and dying career! “Cher is an average talent who’s out of touch with reality,” he said in a 2012 Fox News interview. “Cher is somewhat of a loser. She’s lonely. She’s unhappy. She’s very miserable.”  Not sexist – he does not like this person. Has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful. “Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred,” Trump said about himself one time. “Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.”  Not sexist – probably true.

That the ladies on “The Apprentice” are all super into him. “All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”  Not sexist – possibly true.

57 Comments

Filed under Culture, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Left, Politics, Psychology, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics, Women

More Marxists Against the Alt Left

Well, against my Alt Left anyway.

This is from Lost Generation, a reddit purportedly about the economic troubles of the Millennial Generation, but which seems to be populated mostly by Marxists for some odd reason.

All of the usual charges that get leveled against me by the Hard Left types are here: I’m a racist, sexist, fascist, crypto-Nazi Alt Right guy masquerading as being on the Left. What’s ridiculous is that I hate all of these people and have never felt at home at any of their websites. I am usually appalled by their racism, sexism, fascism, Nazism, etc. and I really cannot stand most Alt Right sites for similar reasons.

There is just about no one I hate as much as fascists, and I’ve never found a racist website where I felt at home and was not bothered by their hard racism. I also hate Nazis. And one of the main reasons that I hate the Manosphere so much is  because it is so misogynistic and sexist. In other words, I cannot stand sexist Manosphere sites. They’re awful and it’s their misogyny that I hate so much. I love women, I don’t hate them.

All of the attacks on me and my ideology are italicized.

Here’s the critique:

digdog303: Why isn’t there any alt-left?

Get_Erkt: I saw some dudes using that, but they seem keen to ignore everything we’ve learned in the past 100 years about how patriarchy and white supremacy/ imperialism are more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. Like they’re mad they might have to stop macking on comrades or share the spot light with others, and they think socialism means having a PS4 pro and $4K TV.

SayingStuffOnReddit: Ugh, exactly this.

I found this guy’s WordPress blog the other day, first one I’ve seen that was an “Alt Left” blog. He regularly bans people for very petty things, and it’s always race-related. He’s always hurling racially or religiously charged insults at people who say the slightest thing that makes HIM uncomfortable, and he always points out how someone is “ARAB” or a “JEW” even if there is zero evidence of them being that, it’s like “Hey, I think you look like you’re from X, so I’m going to call you a name associated with that area of the world.”

It was fucking ridiculous. Very little discussion of actual socialist theory and a whole lot of whining about “SJWs” and “feminism” while not really putting forth anything that really distances his views from a typical Alt-Righter.

For a self proclaimed Leftist (he had pictured of Stalin and Lenin, for example) it is pretty disgusting to see this kind of crap being spread as “valid” forms of agitprop for “socialism.”

Dude identified as a “race realist” and basically spews Nazi propaganda 50% less of the time than an actual fascist would.

I mean, I hate being called a brocialist, because I’m not one, but I’ve had people irresponsibly throw this at me when I’ve tried to critique Identity Politics and such in good faith. This guy, however, totally fits the bill and totally showed me why the term exists and is used as an insult to begin with.
They want “liberation,” but just none of that icky stuff that has to do with race, gender, or anything outside of class.

It is truly strange and something I cannot remotely relate to. I can only imagine that his “activist” group (if he even has that) is just a bunch of angry White dudes, which, in spite of me being a White male, I simply can’t get down with.

I live in a predominantly Black area, and this kind of shit would never fly in public, it is the product of upper-middle class White folks playing the role of revolutionary from their gated-in communities in the ‘burbs.

I hate sounding so condescending too, because I know it isn’t helping, but sometimes people really do need to meet you half way, and this guy is one of them; he’d do better to just shut up and read a book than spew more of this incoherent “Alt Left” bullshit.

pikapizza: The double-edged sword of the Internet is that it gives any idiot or socially-marginalized weirdo a voice. Embracing the ‘brocialist’ smear (anyone to the left of Hillary = hates women and likes the KKK) because you found one such idiot or socially- marginalized weirdo is not the way to go.

SayingStuffOnReddit: I don’t embrace it as a smear, I was just saying that I now understand why people might so easily sling it around when people like that guy are basically fascists appropriating left-wing aesthetics and terminology.

pikapizza: People using that epithet aren’t thinking of this guy. The whole ‘class politics = racist and sexist’ meme only got traction because millions of young Americans weren’t doing what they were told and started voting for the evil brocialist Bernie instead of the devout feminist and anti-racist progressive Hillary.

They have in mind the 22 year-old college student who has the disgusting, privileged audacity to think economic justice might be more important than smashing the patriarchy, and insults like this are their way of telling him to fuck off, that left-wing politics are not for him, and to go vote for Trump.

SayingStuffOnReddit: I know what you’re talking about, but I’ve seen it used in many other forms than the one you just mention. I was citing one instance.

And tbf “smashing the patriarchy” and “economic justice” have to go hand in hand. I don’t see them as at odds with one another, that’s all I was saying. Hillary supporters obviously can’t make the connection there, and doubly so for the right wing. People like Robert Lindsay see them as “polar opposites” which really just shows his lack of understanding of what actual feminists (the socialist ones, at least) believe. Instead, he lambastes caricatures of what feminism actually is or just takes pot shots at random individual actors without grappling with any real ideas.

He and his ilk spend more time talking about what a woman decided to wear to a “Slut Walk” than what her views are on “patriarchy,” how she might define it, and why she came to such an event in the first place. In a way, he doesn’t “dismantle” feminist critiques of society; he inevitably proves their legitimacy.

pikapizza: But they clearly don’t go hand in hand. We’ve just witnessed an election where the self-described feminist and standard bearer for progressive Identity Politics in the US was also a multimillionaire, staunch neoliberal and hardline imperialist who openly spoke for the interests of business and the very wealthy. Her campaign overtly used gender politics to dismiss economic justice as a sideshow issue (if not a sneaky cover for the Left’s closet racism and sexism) and smear any criticism from her left as veiled misogyny.

This is the new political reality. Thinking you can ignore it and keep on pandering to identitarianism with ‘oh, that’s not MY kind of feminism!’ or whatever is quite stupid.

SayingStuffOnReddit: Dude whatever i’m not gonna argue with you about the importance of gender and race and its relationship to class.

There’re books that talk about the significance of these, even when people try to insist class is some kind of “be-all” “end-all.”

If your idea of progressivism is “don’t talk about gender or race,” and you essentially equate any discussion of gender or race as “Identitarianism” then you’re just driving away people.

I feel like we’re talking about two different things, and you seem to be insisting that I’m promoting some kind of neoliberal Identity Politics. That’s not the same as taking an intersectional approach where we acknowledge that class is the key unifier of all oppressed identities.

Furthermore, Hillary isn’t nor has she ever been the “standard bearer” for progressive anything.

That is catering to and propagating neoliberal media narratives and ultimately capital interests.

There’s many different angles one can discuss gender and race, which I’m completely fine with so long as they’re rooted in anti-capitalist critiques.

Get_Erkt: Brosocialism existed before Sanders but referred to men who didn’t care about women’s issues, like whether we ought to discipline or expel men who preyed on women from socialist organizations. There were several high profile cases of rape cover-ups in Leftist organizations recently, but marginalizing women and relegating them to “women’s work” was something even the Panthers and Soviets were guilty of.

Patriarchy was the first form of economic class and exploitation, but brosocialists don’t want to hear it. Our organizations aren’t dating services, and comrades are held to a professional, disciplined standard of behavior in our personal interaction, but brosocialists don’t want to hear it.

The people who used Clinton’s gender as a lasso or whip against opponents were cynical opportunists. Clinton is no friend of women or anyone. But the Left has to struggle against internal sexism and racism nonetheless because we are products of a racist, sexist society and understanding the struggle revolving around class is only the first step to liberation. Patriarchy and White supremacy/settlerism/imperialism are manifestations of class across physical human characteristics.

pikapizza: Brocialism has been around for awhile, sure, but it’s never had that sort of narrow definition. It’s always been an ideological pejorative for any left-wing politics critical of or hostile to Identity Politics (you can be a woman and be a brocialist). So it was very much consistent and predictable that it was picked up by the Hillary campaign. The ruling class’ embrace of ‘Leftist’ Identitarian ideology and politics in support of imperialist policy, state repression, curtailing civil freedoms, divide-and-conquer political strategies et al. has been ongoing for many years.

And Clinton’s Identity Politics were only cynical opportunism if you’re still clinging to shitty and delusional assessment of Identity Politics that hasn’t moved past the 1960’s where racial and gender politics are still radical and revolutionary and haven’t been thoroughly integrated into modern bourgeois ideology and the daily functioning of big business and liberal bourgeois democracies.

It’s based on this completely unfounded premise that there is some secret and intrinsic connection between Identity Politics and the Left when the plain reality is that these are basically right-wing, anti-Marxist conceptions that dovetail perfectly with neoliberal politics and ideology. A right-wing multimillionaire shill for Wall Street like Hillary becoming the standard bearer for Identity Politics isn’t an aberration or a ploy, it’s a perfectly logical outcome.

SayingStuffOnReddit: There is an Alt Left, but it’s basically a bunch of “left” wingers in denial of their White Nationalism. They claim to be separate from the Alt Right, but it’s all propaganda that any well read socialist can point out.

An easy one is they have a distaste for “Cultural Marxism” in common with Alt-Righters.

Yet nobody seems to want to admit that “Cultural Marxism” is just a nice dog whistle for actual Nazi propaganda that was used during WWII.

It’s just that back then, it was called “Cultural Bolshevism“.

It’s funny how much this phenomenon has in common with the modern Alt-Right as well. Any symbols representing the authorities of the current prevailing order, if disrespected through art or expression bring shame and derision from the Alt-Right types, yet these are the people who are supposed to be the “revolutionaries” and “rebels” of the current time.

You’d think a bunch of revolutionaries would be more interested in disrespecting and subverting authority than supporting (let alone protecting) it.

60 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Gender Studies, Left, Marxism, Nazism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Revolution, Sane Pro-Woman, Socialism, US Politics, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, Whites

Official Renunciation of Two Alt Left Groups and Two Alt Left Factions

According to Ryan England’s seminal work on the Alt Subtypes these are the main subtypes:

“The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still.  Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

“Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics, though they are usually not that far Left.  Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory.  Remember kids that SJW and social liberalism are not the same things.  Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

“Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

“True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJW’s lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the alt-left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

“Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support.  Used as a pejorative by the “Lorettas” of the present day left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

“The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left you’d find /leftypol/ on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol.  A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the alt left.  I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

A few types that I have not seen many of and would have expected more are:

Christian Leftists (Catholic Social Teaching, the social gospel and even liberation theology seem especially well suited to alt-leftism),

and

Dissident Feminists  Surely, some feminists must be frustrated with what’s happened to their movement.  It’s been a long, long time since anything this dogmatic, intolerant, and puritanical has arisen in the western world.  Those well meaning devotees to feminism and social justice time and again are the ones who come under the sternest censure for the most minor of transgressions.  How many women out there, after getting called out one time too many for some sleight micro-aggression or another think “screw this” and drift away from the movement, while still holding to its essential ideals?  Many, I would think.  I would hope.  They can’t be that hive-minded, could they?  In any event, if there are, the alt-left must be the port-of-call for women of liberal sentiment overall who reject this 21st century rehash of 16th century puritan culture.

We have already discussed most of these types here, and we can do so again if you wish. But I would like to highlight one group in particular and say that I am renouncing them and want no part of them in our movement. I am tossing them out, in other words. Well out of my Alt Left faction anyway. And as the person who created the Alt Left, I think I might want to have some say on who’s in and who’s out.

The faction I am renouncing is here:

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

I just came from an Alt Left Facebook group that threw me, the founder of the movement, out of the group. And this is apparently the shitposting site for the Sam Harris group on Facebook. So these are the Sam Harris people and this is what Sam Harris people are like. Well, guess what? You’re out. As far as I can tell, you want no part our movement and we want no part of yours. Most of you are not Alt Left anyway – and many of you are actively hostile to us. Well guess what? If you are hostile to us, ou are out. Bye bye. They’re not a part of the Alt Left at all. They can go off and form their own movement and call it Sam Harris’ Jerkoff Boys Movement or whatever.

I am also renouncing two Alt Left Facebook groups who have nothing to do with our movement.

Alt-Left: Those would be the “less crazy but still crazy SJW’s and sexual deviants centered around the Alt-Left site. Renounced. You’re not us. Bye.

Alt-Leftists: The other would be the Alt-Leftists group on Facebook, which is run by Sam Harris execrable crowd. It’s not that we on on the Alt Left do not have concerns with Islam and radical Islam. It’s not that we have no concerns with Muslim integration into the US or even Europe. We just feel that it is not a core issue and it brings in far too many people who are opposed to the core principles of the movement. You’re out. Bye. It was not pleasant having you over.

Also a new faction has emerged in the True Liberals Faction. Suffice to say that these are the crazy SJW’s who are fighting the crazier SJW’s. The movement is mostly made up of sexual deviants to boot, which makes even less palatable to us. Of course true biological gay men and lesbians are welcome in any faction of our movement, but it is beyond me why would need an Alt Left gay faction? I mean I am open to the idea, but what would it look like?

Anyway, here is the new faction:

True Liberals: Anti-racist, pro-feminist (pro equity feminism, in any event) but put off by SJW extremism.  I’ve noticed a subcategory of these who are, say, cisgendered gay males or transgender people who’ve quarreled with trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERF’s.)  I’ll call these kinds Equal Rights Advocates.  Perhaps you recognize yourself among them, dear reader?

These people are not us either. They were hostile to the founder of the movement and in the short time I was in their group, they were violating quite a few of our principles, including some of core principles. They’re not one of us, or they are not part of my group anyway. They need to leave. There is no room for these showboating SJW freaks and weirdos in our Alt Left. We are trying to get away from the 24-7 Gay Pride Parade in the Streets that the Cultural Left seems intent to shove down our throats.

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Catholicism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Homosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Science, Sex, Socialism, US Politics, Weirdos

Alt Left Support of Men’s Liberation – the Left Wing of the Men’s Movement

Men’s Liberation was the left wing of the MRA movement that actually came out of the various cultural revolutions of the 1960’s. Warren Farrell was a Men’s Lib type or at least he was before he went crazy. Men’s Libbers and feminists started fighting pretty quickly because the feminists were so insane and also because a lot of Men’s Libbers realized that feminism was a war against men. Men’s Libbers who wanted to go to women’s groups’ meetings and ally with them were banned, as the feminists pushed “women-only fora” and “only a woman can comment on the problems of women.”

In particular, gay men were some of the first to break off from Men’s Liberation. Men’s Lib had a reputation for being a bunch of faggots, but that while there was some truth to this because there were more gay men as a percentage of the movement than there were in society at large, that was not really true, as most Men’s Libbers were straight, although their position on male homosexuality was very stupid. The early feminists attacked gay men a lot (Isn’t that incredible?), accusing them of being the ultimate woman-haters for bailing out on women altogether. At the same time, feminist idiots were cheering on lesbianism like they always have from Day One. So lesbians were ok, but gay men were not. Screw that.

I will say though that gay men were some of the best of the early Men’s Libbers, and even today, gay men play a surprisingly important role in the left wing of the MRA’s such as the Good Men Project. Straight men have to suck up to women to get laid, so these leads to a lot of pedestalization, reality distortion and failing to see the down side of women. Gay men are estranged from women completely, so they can sit back at a distance and judge them fairly. That said, there is a faction of gay men who are very ugly misogynists, and this gay “type” has always been around.

However, most gay men do not hate women at all. They just don’t want to have sex with them. Ever known a straight women who was not some sort of a fag hag? Neither have I. Straight women always love their gay pets.

So you see the feminists have been insane for a long time. Simone Beauvoir was an extreme man-hater, and the genocidal SCUM Manifesto (a classic treatise in the feminist canon) was written in the heat of the 1960’s. The Redstockings out of Boston were one of the first hardline feminist groups. Ellen Willis was a member. They were insane, and this was 1969. Feminism didn’t go nuts, it was crazy from the beginning. That said there are some equity feminists we can ally with, and to the extent that women are still treated unfairly, we will support their causes.

There is not much left of the Men’s Libbers, but there are some leftwing men calling themselves masculisits or even masculinists. Generally, most such men are fairly sane, and most masculists also identify as feminists in a way. These are leftwing MRA’s who are also sympathetic to the problems of women. In other words, these men say that both sexes are oppressed nowadays, and furthermore, both sexes oppress each other. They argue that there are many injustices against men now too that women have turned the tables and predictably turned from oppressed to oppressors by enacting laws that oppress men. Humans can’t seem to do equality. The oppressed never want equality. They only want to turn the tables and lord it over those oppressing them and turn into oppressors themselves. Humans are rather lousy.

Men’s Lib  barely exists anymore if at all, and it should be revived. A lot of progressive men need to get on the ball. The women have turned the tables on us and are now oppressing us with a lot of new “Female Rule” type laws they put in to privilege women and attack us unfairly. They did this because feminism now is mostly just paybacks and revenge. I assume that all leftwing men are not masochists, but sometimes I wonder. If leftwing men are willing to sit back and let women abuse and oppress them, they are beyond hope. It will be hard to rouse these men though because most leftwingen are badly brainwashed by feminism.

17 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Sane Pro-Woman, Scum, Sex

Why “Rape Culture” Is Simply Normal Human Culture As It Has Always Existed

Tulio writes:

Logical fallacy. “Normal” does not equal good or acceptable. I’m not just talking rape, I mean anything. Slavery was also once normal too. Just sayin’.

Tulio: Let’s look at their definition of Rape Culture. Once we look at it, this Rape Culture thing is simply the way that all or nearly all human societies have functioned all through time. In other words, it’s normal. It’s not even pathological. It’s just the way people are.

In rape culture:

  • Men act masculine and practice obligatory masculinity. Normal.
  • Women act feminine and practice obligatory femininity. Normal.
  • Women are sexually objectified by men. Normal.
  • Women experience high levels of “sexual harassment” by men in the workplace and elsewhere. Normal.
  • “Sexual harassment” is seen by women as “just men being men.” Normal but possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Society is dominated by men. Normal or at least typical and de facto among humans. Possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Rape is an ever-present fear for women. Normal.
  • Rape is seen as something which can never be eradicated. Normal.
  • Men are expected to prove their manliness via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men prove their competence via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men are expected to suppress their feminine sides. Normal.
  • Women are expected to suppress their masculine sides. Normal.
  • Rape has an evolutionary basis, and males have an inborn tendency towards rape. Normal.
  • The onus is on women to avoid being raped. Normal.
  • The onus is not on men to control themselves and stop raping. Sadly normal in much of the world, but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Women take all sorts of extra precautions to avoid being raped. Sadly normal.
  • Women must treat every man they meet as a potential rapist. Sadly normal.
  • Patriarchy dominates society. Normal but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Men are supposed to be the protectors of women. Normal.
  • Although men are supposed to be the protectors of women, they do a rather lousy job of it. Sadly normal.

Do you see what these nutcases are doing? This horrible thing that they call rape culture that we are all supposed to be freaked out and upset and wringing our hands about is simply the natural, normal, probably biologically driven way that the vast majority of human societies on Earth have functioned as far back as we can tell.

In fact, societies used to be far worse with regard to this normal human rape culture. Human society at least in the West has gotten far less rapey in the modern era than it used to be. In fact, there are suggestions that among Pleistocene humans, rape may have been nearly continuous and the violent abuse of women was so common as to be typical. Look at the skeletons of humans from 12,000 years ago that have been found in Mexico. The people appear rude, crude and robust in terms of features, were very strong in terms of bone size, and most of the women were found to have suffered many injuries. Even teenage girls had suffered quite a few injuries.

The thinking is that these early Amerindians were an exceptionally brutal people for whom violence was the norm, the females of the society experienced a lot of serious violence from the men, and rape was probably the norm. To say that life was short, nasty and brutish was an understatement.

Worse, the feminuts say that unless we unravel the way human societies have always been, we will always have this Rape Culture bullshit. Well, I guess we will always have Rape Culture then because it doesn’t look like any of this is going away anytime soon.

Nor should it, I would argue.

Look, the feminists have already told us what their idea of a Nonrape Culture is. And it’s not a culture you would even want to live in unless you were a Cultural Left nut.

A Nonrape Culture is one in which:

  • Men do not act particularly masculine and women do not act particularly feminine. Granted we are already getting there, but is that a good thing? You want this? What sort of freakazoid society is that?
  • Men do not attempt to prove their masuclinity. Maybe not a bad idea, but it will probably never happen, one reason being that women themselves will not tolerate this as it is often women who try to force men to prove their masuclinity.
  • Men do not attempt to prove their competence by acting masculine. Ok, that sounds like a very bad idea and a recipe for mass incompetence.
  • Women are not sexually objectified by men. Granted we are already headed that way, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where you where if you try to be sexual in any way with a woman in public, even by looking at her, it is nearly illegal? Sucks or what?
  • “Sexual harassment” is removed from work and other public spaces. To feminists, sexual harassment means men looking at women, men flirting with women, men making sexual remarks to women, men acting seductively towards women, men asking women out, men asking women for their phone numbers, etc. Feminists apparently think this is evil or something, and they want to remove the ability of men to act sexual towards women in most public spaces. I agree that they might grant us active heterosexual scum special “pickup zones” that might look like bars, nightclubs, or special cafes, but they would resign this activity to those areas only and proscribe it everywhere else. Granted we are already halfway there, and it’s just about a firing offense to ask out any woman at your work, but is that a good thing? You want this?
  • The onus on women to avoid being raped is removed. This would be nice, but logically that would just result in women doing a lot of stupid and heedless things and probably a lot more women getting raped.
  • Rape is seen as something that could be wiped out if we only tried hard enough. It would be nice if we could have a society where rape was seen as something that could be wiped out, but logically that is probably not even possible, and it would just result in the sort of thing we are already experiencing: endless, vitriolic, pointless, irrational and poisonous “wars on rape” which would boil down to “wars on men,” more women hating men, more women turning into lesbian idiots, more insipid laws and rules like consent agreements on college campuses, and more men responding via reactionary movements. Sort of like the society we have now.
  • Men no longer feel that they have to protect women. Fine! We won’t protect you ingrate bitches anymore! See how you like it! Tell you what, men resign from protecting women, and the rates of violence and rape against women are going to go way up. That’s because contrary to Mary Edwards Walker (probably a dyke no man would protect anyway), men protect women from violence, rape and other harm every single day, possibly hundreds of times a day or more, often with considerable risk to themselves. But they want us to stop risking our asses for women? No problem! See how they like being even more defenseless!

27 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Feminism, Gender Studies, Latin America, Mexico, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sane Pro-Woman, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.

I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.

I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.

I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.

It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.

I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.

As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.

Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.

So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.

An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.

An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.

(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.

(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.

Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.

In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”

(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.

(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.

(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.

(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.

(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.

However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.

(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.

(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.

8 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Islam, Law, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Traitors

Man World, Woman World and Universal Gender

I finally noticed something  very  curious about me. I’ve probably been  doing it my whole life and recently I have surely been aware of it on some level, but I never quite pinned it down.

When I am out in public in a business somewhere, the males are not even in the room. There could be 20 males in the room, but there might as well be zero. The only entities that exist in the room are me and all of the females in the room. And I am picky even there because really the only sentient beings in the room are me and whatever attractive women are there.

The unattractive women are more sentient then the men, but not by much. I am too busy focusing on the attractive females in the room to pay attention to the landwhales and muglies. Sure, some of them are very nice people and they are often kind to me, but they’re not very interesting.

So the whole time I am in say an ATT store or a coffee shop, I will be focused on whatever attractive females in the room much to the exclusion of everything else. You can call me a creep and a stalker all you want. Call the cops. Try to have me arrested. Call the Gender Police.

I really can’t help it. My mind simply naturally homes in on any attractive women in the room like a bee to honey. It’s as if I am drawn to them by some sort of compelling energy such that I can barely pull away or maybe I see no point in pulling away.

If there are attractive females in the room, that’s all I want to be looking at while I am in the room. There’s nothing else to look at, and besides they seem to have some sort of an energy field that actually pulls me towards them like suction and then locks me onto them like radar. I finally realized that I do this completely normally and naturally, and I have probably been doing this my whole life. But I didn’t actually pin it down until age 58. Life is an ongoing project the objective of which is the progressive accumulation of wisdom and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of human social and psychological life.

As an androgynous spirit, I have always felt a great commonality with women. It’s not that I am a woman too. It is hard to explain. It’s more that women and I are the same gender. And we are neither men nor women, but we are instead something in between, a common gender that we both share. On the other hand, I am also very much a man. What I mean is that I like females so much that I can quite easily suck myself into their spiritual Gender World, call it Woman World.

Let’s say that Woman World is half the universe, and Man World is the other half. I can go romp around in Female World to my heart’s content because I feel quite at home there. While being very much a man, I also have a feeling that woman are “just like me.” Women and I are not really different. I am not a woman because I do not act like one, thank God, but still there is a sensation when it comes to women that “I am one of them and they are one of me.”

I think what that means is that instead of acting like a woman, I feel like one of them because I can go romp around in their half of the world and feel quite at home, as if I am with people who are “just like me.” It’s almost like when I am romping around there that is there is no Male and there is no Female. There’s One Gender, call it Universal Gender if you will, and that’s the one I share with women. Women and I are not really different. We are the same essential being, a shared entity and spirit.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Sane Pro-Woman, Women