Category Archives: Left

Opinion: The Alt Left Should Be Neither Feminist Nor for Men’s Rights. It Should Be for Good Relationships between the Sexes

Great piece by Ryan England. Personally, I feel things are far, far, far too gone for this and this sort of pacifism is just not going to work. England is calling for unilateral disarmament on the part of the men and then sending us unarmed men in to negotiate with savage, ISIS-like terrorists (the feminists). That’s not going to work. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It would be great if this would be enough but I am afraid that things are far too gone for that now and the only thing left is the more extreme measures. Hey, the feminists started it. They started shooting at us men. You want a war, baby? Bring it on!

Beyond Feminist vs. MRA

OPINION: THE ALT-LEFT SHOULD BE NEITHER FEMINIST NOR FOR MEN’S RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It’s a familiar story for anyone who’s been online for any length of time. A discussion starts over a gender or feminism-related topic.  There’ve been plenty of these lately since the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal broke in Hollywood and the metoo hashtag campaign, so there’s no shortage of examples to choose from. There’s nothing unique about these conversations, however. They’ve been taking place on social media since Facebook and Twitter first launched and were commonplace on bulletin boards long before anyone knew what a comments section was. The basic conversation hasn’t changed much in the decades since Al Gore invented the internet. A typical conversation will go something like this.

Feminist: Men rape and harass women. That’s why men suck and women should reject them.

MRA: But not all men. But not me. That should give me an advantage in the mating game with women, should it not?

Feminist: But only men. Plus patriarchy, power, privilege, rape culture, etc. Not so fast, buster!  You’re part of the segment of the population that does the most rape and who benefits from rape and are therefore not so innocent as you’d like to believe. And therefore suck no less and are no less deserving of rejection.

MRA: But what about false accusations? What about women who sexually assault men? This nullifies the advantage you claimed in your previous statement. Therefore, women should more readily accept and sleep with us. I mean me!

It’s never long before a conversation like this breaks down, and school yard level copypasta insults break out. “Boo hoo! Eh poor menz!” “Enjoy your cats!” So on and so on. It’ll inevitably come down to one or both sides being ugly, living in their parent’s basements, and being unable to get laid. This is due to the fact that the surface conversation is never nearly as important as the subtext that continually underlies conflicts over gender theory and its real world implications.

The unstated but nonetheless omnipresent axioms that are revealed when any kind of deconstructive analysis is applied to such discussions are that male power is expressed through sexual conquest of the female, and that female power is expressed through sexual rejection of the male. All else is ancillary. Which is largely why pro and anti feminists talk past one another and at one another far, far more than with one another. The legitimate issues raised by either side fall by the wayside because they’re obviously being weaponized to one or the other of those two ultimate effects.

The real purpose for bringing up rape, harassment, divorce, child support, or any other issue, at least in online discussion, is to lower the value of one gender relative to the other for the ultimate purpose of making sex either easier (in favor of men) or harder (in favor of women) to attain.

There’s just one problem with this paradigm, however. It doesn’t work. It’s not making anyone happy. It’s based in a glaringly flawed assessment of human nature and is much more rooted in ego than in reason or human empathy. Men were not rejected into sympathizing with women’s concerns. They go their own way instead, doubtlessly with the intent of bringing those pesky, uppity women to heel. No dice: women are angrier now than ever. Who’d have guessed? The result is that heterosexual activity has been driven into a kind of moral black market wherein most people actually do it at some point or another but also have to conceal it, rationalize it, or engage in it under some kind of false pretenses much of the time to avoid social censure. No wonder bad behavior abounds.

It’s time to smarten up, people. Get out of the grade school mentality. Let’s at least try and hit puberty, okay internet? Human nature is not especially complicated. We tend to simmer down when we feel that our concerns are being heard and taken somewhat seriously, even if disagreed with in some ways. The natural response of people when faced with a lecturing, condescending tone is to get defensive, not to open one’s heart or mind. This is true however legitimate the surface grievance actually is or is not. Which isn’t to say you accept bullshit uncontested. Rather, let your assessment of what’s bullshit and what isn’t depend on honest appraisal, which you can’t get without listening and understanding.

Whatever your claim to victimhood past or present, however poorly you were treated as a child or in your past relationships, other people, even the opposite sex, will not accept your shitty and abusive behavior. Not indefinitely at any rate. However much you feel entitled to it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we feel instinctively if not intellectually. It stops mattering who started it or who inflicted or suffered the greater suffering after a point. Neither women nor men will accept the other’s claim to morally superior status based on previous victimhood and grievance even if real.

It is easy to say that we should set our fragile egos aside and listen seriously to the other side when they lay out their grievances and issues. This is true. But when the other side does not expect this of themselves, even the most legitimate gripe becomes tainted by the ultimately self-serving purpose to which it is put. The kinds of behavior displayed by feminists and MRAs alike in most internet discussions between the two would be emotionally abusive were they done in real life, and increasingly these kinds of relationship dynamics are spilling out of cyberspace and into the real world. It is no wonder that growing numbers of people, especially the young, are eschewing relationships with the opposite sex all together and claiming to be happier doing so.

And that’s fine for some individuals. If you’re happier going it alone, and I think some people are naturally disposed this way, have at it.

But that’ll be a disaster for society as a whole. Fewer lasting successful marriages and long term relationships (LTR’s) are poised to cause all kinds of problems down the road. Demographic and economic dependency ratios are bound to get worse, and socially destabilizing levels of mass immigration will need to be employed to compensate for falling birth rates. Frustrated romantic and sexual drives will find expression in other usually more antisocial ways from mounting political or religious extremism to mental health problems and increased cynicism.

Even many, though not all, of those who claim to be happier being single are not so much once you scratch the surface. A certain regret often though not always presents itself. And why not? Humans were not hardwired to live alone and not pass on their genes to future generations. A society losing its capacity for love and empathy is not one we should aspire to be a part of.

So here’s a proposal. The Alt-Left should be neither feminist nor MRA. Not exclusively. We should be instead for healthy and good relationship dynamics, be they platonic, romantic, or erotic. We should listen to the concerns of both sides and sort the valid and legitimate grievances from the entitled whining and vapid boasting. It should not be a concern of the Alt-Left which of the two has the more legitimate grievances and is therefore more deserving. Ten years and God knows how many flame wars into the social media age later, we should know by now that ideological partisanship and competitive victimhood isn’t actually helping anybody. It’s driving a spiral of mutual frustration that is causing increased polarization and extremism.

Even if one gender really does have it worse than the other by a wide margin, our approach should be one of mutual listening and empathy, not one of grievance and vengeance. This is not to say that we can’t prioritize some issues over others or that wrongdoers can’t be called out and exposed to such sanction and censure as their actions warrant. But it should never be an ego stroking exercise. Even if you’ve had it worse or your sex or gender has been on the receiving end of injustice, the world doesn’t owe you anything, whatever you may think. Success, be it alone or in partnership, derives from responsibility, not entitlement.

So if you’re single or attached, male or female, here are some things you can do vis-a-vis the opposite sex to improve the situation. And in case you are wondering, this is over twenty years of relationship success (I’ve been with my present wife since 1995) and a decade of every mistake imaginable leading up to it, talking. There’s much I learned the hard way:

  • Listen. Nothing is more effective at defusing anger.
  • Do not stereotype the opposite sex unironically or for non-comedic purposes.
  • Stop with the vain, stupid games. Crushing some young man or woman’s confidence in him/herself won’t bring down the patriarchy or gynocentrism, and it doesn’t make you strong or independent. It makes you an asshole, be you male or female.
  • Do not participate in discussions that tend to descend into pissing contests of competitive victimhood, and clearly state this. Ask instead, “What do you want?”  That’s a powerful question that can very effectively shut down entitled whiners with weaponized grievances.
  • You are owed nothing. Approach all relationships with the opposite sex or with anyone with that in mind. This is not to say that you should tolerate shit and abuse. Don’t. But don’t expect to be put on a pedestal either.
  • Do not have as an expectation for an ideal partner a trait you do not have or can not match. Half of our problems stem from 6’s thinking they’re actually good matches for 10’s, so to speak. Do not expect a prince if you’re not a princess or vice versa. And assess yourself honestly to save a lot of trouble.
  • Live a good life outside of a relationship context. This signifies that you will not be dead weight but instead a net asset in other people’s lives. No one wants a needy dependent.
  • Trust must come before any kind of relationship intimacy, be it physical or emotional. Always. Take it upon yourself to earn rather than demand trust. Decide at what point your efforts are in vain and when to move on.
  • Do not expect from a relationship partner anything that you can do for yourself.  Relationship success thrives best when free of contrived obligations and expectations. Otherwise resentments creep in and do damage.
  • Do not be afraid to point out the elements and their underlying axioms (see above for examples) in gendered discussions but do so only if the person you’re discussing things with becomes obstinate, obtuse, or clearly hostile. The underlying pettiness and stupidity become readily apparent when brought to light.
  • Likewise, if need be, remind people that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plus, no man was ever rejected, nagged, scolded or castrated into liking and respecting women. No woman was ever convinced by rational argument or else likewise rejected, scolded or shamed into liking men. People don’t work that way. Don’t hesitate to point this out.
  • Make your disdain for passive-aggressiveness clear, if need be.
  • If people insist on dominating conversations with socially destabilizing displays of rudeness, sarcasm or hostility, do not be afraid to call them out on it and exclude them from further social activities. If you moderate or administer an online or social media space, you have a special responsibility here. Trolls thrive on the emotionally destabilizing effect that their refusal to be decent and reasonable people has. Do not tolerate it, and ban them at once.
  • Admit that the opposite sex doesn’t always have it easy.  Try to replace resentment with walking in the other man or woman’s shoes, as the case may be. This isn’t to say it’s equally bad on both sides, all the time. Occasionally people will need to be told to stop whining.
  • Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to clumsiness or ignorance without evidence. This is especially true with flirtation, flattery, or the like.

And above all …

  • Get the f**k off the Internet every once and awhile. Yeah, I know. It’s hard. But there are numerous dynamics that contribute to the Internet being a relatively uncivil place where your faith in humanity can easily go to die. Meet people in the real world from time to time. They’re usually (though not always) not what they appear to be when seen as just a social media profile.

So that in mind, get out there and see the world, dear reader!

1 Comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Masculinism, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

A Call to All Liberal and Leftist MRA’s: Please Join Us in Building an Anti-Feminist Left!

I submitted a post something like this to a couple of Reddit boards, including Men’s Rights and Masculinism. Masculinism is probably saner. Men’s Rights are MRA’s and most of them are nuts. Men’s Rights buried my post somehow. Masculinism kept it up there, and we will see what the response is, if any. It’s a low-volume group. There’s no way to post on Redpill, and it’s probably a waste of time anyway. Men’s Liberation are some feminist MRA’s. It’s crap. It’s part of the feminist movement, thought I will grant that it’s a bit more sane than feminism. Men’s Liberation started out great. Warren Farrell was one of the founders, but it went full SJW long ago. There’s probably something worthwhile there, but they would never accept a post like this.

Regarding this post:

I believe that the Alt Left should incorporate anti-feminism as a core value. Nevertheless, that statement is an extreme one. I think there are many good things about feminism, but some things are so horrific that they have poisoned the entire movement. In particular, they seem to have morphed into Puritanical, Victorian, prudish, frigid Comstocks who seem out to shut down all heterosexual sex as illegal or a societal transgression.

I am an MRA. In fact, I am an ultra-MRA. Nevertheless, I do not like many things about the MRA movement. In fact, I hate the MRA movement. The MRA’s are almost as bad as the feminists. Nevertheless, the toxicity of modern feminism must be opposed. Mostly I feel like Ryan Englund that the MRA movement is the other side of the mirror of the feminist movement. They are basically the same thing while being opposites of one another. And I am very concerned that the MRA movement is becoming just another Identity Politics rabbithole.

I also, like Warren Farrell, came out of the feminist movement back when it was sane. I was actually a dues-paying member of NOW for a number of years, much to my mother’s pride. I would not join NOW at the moment if you put a gun to my head. I still support liberal feminism, equity feminism, and sex positive feminism. Nevertheless, it is clear that feminism is a clear and present danger to all real men in the West. And as this feminist cancer spreads beyond the West, all men on the planet will soon be menaced.

Yes, we hate feminism, but we are Leftists! Or at least the movement as it started was a Leftist movement. The real Alt Left worth defending has morphed into a Leftist wing and a liberal wing. The rest are just rightwingers, and most are supporting Trump. I have renounced all of them.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/dealbreakers-what-the-alternative-left-is-not/

Those are two early foundational documents.

We are a big tent movement with a philosophy of “everyone form your own wing.” That’s not completely true, but what I mean is that except for a small set of non-negotiables, everyone construct your own ideology via picking and choosing the beliefs that suit you best. We are not party line, and we don’t have a lot of litmus tests.

The early founders were straight, masculine men who love sex. Such men either do not exist on the Left anymore or they are being burned at the stake as witches. However, one of our top thinkers is also a gay man. Nevertheless, we do not spend a lot of time on Gay Rights. The Cultural Left has that area pretty much covered. I myself support gay political causes and I even work on them. I am on a number of gay political mailing lists and I work for their causes. A lot of them hate my guts and call me homophobe, but I will continue to work for them no matter how many names they call me. For the most part, gay rights is a matter of doing the right thing. People deserve basic rights whether they like me or not.

We started out as race realists, but most of the movement has rejected that.

Mostly we just think the Cultural Left is out of its head. A lot of us are social conservatives to some extent, but we are not femiservatives and we despise the social conservatism is the US Republican Party. The principal nonnegotiable is on economics. You must be Left on economics! No exceptions! Other than that social conservatism is ok. Some have called us conservative Leftists or socially conservative Leftists. But at least my wing are radical social libertarians.

I came out of the Left. I was a member of the Communist Party USA. I even got a membership card! I used to be on the mailing list for the Weathermen. I bought guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. You get the picture. But a man-hating psychotic feminist Left is something I want no part of.

As a Leftist, I am utterly sickened and disgusted at the reactionary nature of nearly the entire MRA movement. It’s vile and disgusting. We are MRA’s, but we want no part of these ruling class suck-ups. We are for the workers, the working MEN in particular!

Peace out, from a brother to the brotherhood.

I make this post as a call to all lonely MRA liberals and liberals and Leftists wandering in the political wilderness. I call on all of you to come join us to help us build a real anti-feminist, pro-men Left!

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics

A Motto of the Alt Left, Via Liberation Theology

La gente, unida! Jamas sera vencido!

The people, united! Will never be defeated!

– An old Castroite Marxist revolutionary chant from Central America and South America, with roots back especially to the great Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador (who I used to buy guns for), the URNG in Guatemala, probably the ELN in Colombia, and probably the great FARC in Colombia.

All of these movements except the FARC were “Christian Communists” or “Catholic Communists.” Most of the rank and file guerrillas all the way up to the leadership were Catholics. In Nicaragua, leader Daniel Ortega was and still is a practicing Catholic and one of the top leaders of the Sandinistas was Tomas Borge, a Catholic priest. The ELN was led by a former Catholic priest named Camilo Torres, who traded his frock for an AK-47 and led a guerrilla group in the mountains of northwestern Colombia. He was killed soon after he started the ELN in 1964. The ELN has never renounced its Catholic roots and is a de facto “Catholic Marxist” organization.

 

The Eastern Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox have been much more progressive than the  Catholic hierarchy, but that was not so at the  beginning of the century when the Cheka executed over 12,000 top ranking Orthodox officials in first several years of the Revolution. The Russian Orthodox Church or at least many believers are quite leftwing these days. They often hobnob with Communists, Leftists and even monarchists. Even the monarchists are pretty leftwing in Russia today.  Russia is a place where everyone is leftwing. There is no Right in Russia. Well actually there is,  but the Right has only 10-15% support. Putin’s party is defined as “Russian conservatism” but Putin says he still believes in the  ideals of Communism and socialism which he regards as very similar to the Biblical values of the Russian Orthodox Church. This marriage is not unusual and high ranking Church officials even today regularly make pro-socialist and pro-Communist remarks. Sort of ” Jesus as a Bolshevik” if you will. Stalin himself was studying to be a priest in a sen\minary of the Georgian Orthodox Church when he gave it up to be a full-time bank robber/revolutionary.  The thing is that you cannot understand Stalin at all until you understand his deep background in the Orthodox religion. Although Stalin called himself an atheist, he remained deeply Orthodox in  his mindset until he died. He ever revived the Church during and after the war for patriotic reasons. Stalin was very much a social conservative and his social conservatism was deeply inflected by his Georgian Orthodox seminarian roots, which he never renounced.

The Orthodox Christian churches of the Arab World have always been leftwing, along with the Church in Iran and Turkey. George Habash, founder of the Marxist PFLP in Palestine, was a Greek Orthodox. Many of the rank and file even of the PFLP armed guerrilla have always been Orthodox Christians. The Greek Orthodox SSNP in Lebanon and Syria are practically Communists. Interestingly, this was the first group to widely use suicide bombings early in 1982 and 1983 in the first years of the Lebanese Civil War. Most of the first suicide bombings, up to scores or hundreds in first few years, were by Communists, often Christian Orthodox Communists. Many of these suicide bombers were even women. It was only later that the Shia adopted the technique.

The man who created the Baath Party, the Iraqi Michel Aflaq, was an Orthodox Christian. The party had Leftist roots as an officially socialist party. Tariq Aziz, high-ranking member of Saddam’s Baath party, was an Orthodox Christian and a Leftist. Assad’s party in Syria is a Leftist party. Most Syrian Orthodox Christians are strong supporters of Assad, the Baath Party and Leftism. Recently the Syrian Defense Minister was a Christian.

The few Orthodox Christians left in Turkey are typically Leftists.

Many Greek Orthodox are Leftists. Serbian Orthodox laypeople and hierarchy long supported Milosevic, who was a Communist.

The Russians who violently split away from Ukraine in the Donbass were so Leftist that they called their new states “people’s republics.” Most of the leadership and the armed forces are Orthodox Christians. The armed groups had priests serving alongside in most cases. They often led battlefield burials for the troops.

There are deep roots of this sort of thing in Russia. Tolstoy is very Christian in an Orthodox sense, but he is also often seen as a socialist. Dostoevsky’s work is uber-Christian from an Orthodox point of view and he is not very friendly to radicals. However, before he started writing, he was arrested for Leftist revolutionary activities and sentenced to prison in Siberia. Most of his colleagues were hanged and Dostoevsky only barely escaped by the tip of his nose. Dostoevsky was not very nice to the rich either. No Russian writer of that time was, not even Turgenev. The rich destroyed 19th Century Russia. Anyone with eyes can see that. It would have been hard for any artistic heart above room temperature to not hate the Russian rich and feel sympathy for the peasantry. Turgenev’s first books were paeans to the Russian peasantry, and he was raised on an estate!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Catholicism, Central America, Christianity, Colombia, Economics, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Greece, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Latin America, Lebanon, Left, Literature, Marxism, Middle East, Nicaragua, Novel, Orthodox, Palestine, Politics, Regional, Religion, Revolution, Russia, Serbia, Socialism, South America, Syria, Turkey, USSR

Liberation Theology: Jesus Christ as Marxist Guerrilla in the Jungle with a Machine Gun

From the Sandinistas of Nicaragua to the URNG of Guatemala to the guerrilla column in Honduras led by the Irish Catholic priest in 1983 to Father Aristide’s Lavalas in Haiti to the ELN in Colombia to the Chavistas in Venezuela, all of these radical leftwing groups had one thing in common: they all came out of Liberation Theology, more or less a “Jesus Christ, Marxist guerrilla in the jungle with a machine gun” type of armed to the teeth Catholicism.

Liberation Theology came out a movement of Professors of Pedagogy in Brazil in 1964, especially an influential book written by a priest named Gutierrez. The argument was that teaching in Latin America was an overtly political act, and teachers should ideally by Leftist revolutionaries. Out of this flowed many documents laying out Liberation Theology or “the preferential option for the poor.” It was most powerful among lay workers, of which there are many in Latin America. In heavily Catholic areas, Catholic lay workers are nearly an army.

The French Communist Party in  France long had Catholic roots as did the PCI in Italy. Near the end of his life, Fidel Castro praised Catholicism and said he was a “cultural Catholic.” Hugo Chavez and the Chavistas were of course a ferocious part of the Catholic Left. Chavez Leftism was heavily infused with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

Even the viciously anti-Christian Sendero Luminoso in Peru had many supporters in the Catholic Church, mostly at the lay and priest level but surprisingly all the way up to the bishop level. Sendero killed many reactionary Protestant missionaries in their war, but they left the priests alone.

The great Edith Lagos, a 19 year old year revolutionary woman who led one of the first Sendero columns, was killed in battle in 1982. Her funeral in Ayacucho at night a bit later attracted 30,000 visitors, nearly the entire population of the town. Everyone was in line for the funeral – the local police, the local government and of course the entire local  Catholic clergy. The line wormed all through the city for hours far into the night. She was treated to an actual Catholic funeral right there in the church led by the local priest. Her casket stood next to the priest as he delivered his sermon. It had a Sendero Communist flag on it.

A communist flag on a coffin in a Catholic church! The crowd then filed out through the town to the graveyard where she was buried in the middle of the night. Her tomb exists to this day, although it has been repeatedly bombed by reactionaries. Local Indians make patronages to the tomb on a regular basis, leaving flowers at it. Rumor has it that she has obtained informal sainthood and is now Saint Edith Lagos in the local Catholic Churches.

FARC called itself officially atheist, although they had the support of many priests in the countryside where the FARC held sway. Nevertheless, most FARC rank and file were Catholics.

In Paraguay, a former guerrilla was elected president. He was also a former Catholic priest.

The armed Marxist Left in Uruguay and Brazil also had deep links to the Catholic Church.

In the US, we have something called Cold War liberals. This is the pathetic Left of the United States,  people who would be rightwingers or center-right anywhere else on Earth.

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Brazil, Caribbean, Catholicism, Central America, Christianity, Colombia, Conservatism, Cuba, Europe, France, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Regional, Religion, South America, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela

The Reactionary Catholic Church Hierarchy and a Link to Secretive Syncretic Religions of the Middle East

The Catholic Church hierarchy nearly everywhere has been reactionary.  The Catholic Church had been in with the ruling classes in Europe forever. This was one of the main reasons why the Bible was never translated into the vernacular and why masses were always held in Latin. The people could neither read not speak Latin, hence there was a huge disconnect between the Church hierarchy and the people.

This is similar to many other religions, especially eclectic religions of the Middle East such as Yezidism, Alawism and Druze. In all of these religions, the secrets of the religion are usually held in secret by a priestly caste of mostly men, though the Druze actually have female priests. For a long time, the secret book of the Yezidis was thought  to not even exist except perhaps only in oral form – this is how secret it was. This ended when an actual copy fell into Western hands around 1900.

In all of these religions, the “real true” religion is in the hands of the priestly caste and they make sure not to tell any outsiders what the religion is about. Hence it has been very hard to get good data on any of these religions. The people are fed some watered down version of the religion that doesn’t mean much of anything and  if you ask the average Alwai, Druze or Yezidi what their religion is about, you will only get some diluted harmless synopsis acceptable for outside ears. Usually what the people say the religion believes and what it really believes are two different things altogether.

The Catholic Church was in with the rich and in Europe especially in the Middle Ages it was very wealthy. It was this extreme wealth that enabled the Church to build those huge architectural masterpieces we see in the form of Medieval churches across the north of Europe, especially in France and England. They sold the peasants pie in the sky when you die like religions always do. It was this anti-people, pro-rich philosophy that made Marx so hostile to religion. He was not so much against it because he was a materialist and he thought it was superstition; he was also against it because he thought it was reactionary.

The hierarchy of the Church remained reactionary all through the  20th Century. Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and the four Catholic priests assassinated in 1989 at the start of the great guerrilla offensive (a crime that was plotted in the US ambassador’s office of the US Embassy two days before) were the exceptions to this rule. The Church hierarchy in Venezuela and Nicaragua remain rightwing and hostile to the Sandinistas and Chavistas to this very day. Same with the church hierarchy in Spain to the best of my knowledge.

1 Comment

Filed under Alawi, Catholicism, Central America, Christian, Christianity, Druze, El Salvador, Europe, History, Islam, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Middle Ages, Nicaragua, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Shiism, South America, Spain, Venezuela, Yezidism

Catholic Communism: The Story of the Catholic Left in Europe

The link between Catholicism and the Left has been ongoing for some time now. In Eastern Europe, especially in Czechoslovakia, Catholic Communists were common enough to form an actual movement. Obviously there were Catholic Communists in Spain and particularly in the Basque Country. The ETA was virtually a Catholic Communist revolutionary movement. The armed Left, especially the Communists, started killing priests in the Spanish Civil War. Although burning churches has been an odd tradition in Spain for a good century now, the actual killing of priests did not go over well. Of course the same could be said of the great IRA in Ireland, most of whom were Catholics.

In Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, unfortunately, the Catholics were virulently anti-Communist for whatever reason. The Communists under Stalin brutally repressed the church, killing many priests and lay workers. In Poland and Ukraine, Catholicism got wrapped up in an anti-Communism in a horrible way. One of the main beefs against Communism particularly in Poland was that the Communists were not only anti-nationalists but mostly that they were anti-Catholic. At any rate, Catholicism and nationalism are so wrapped together in Poland that one can hardly see where one ends and the other begins.

Nevertheless, most of the virulent Polish nationalist Catholic anti-Communist were committed socialists. However, many of these folks who were often also anti-Semites as these Poles linked Communism with Jews. Anti-Semitism in Poland is as old as dirt. Yitzhak Rabin once noted that Poles learn their anti-Semitism at their mother’s breast – it’s that deeply rooted in the culture. There was a nationalist rally in Poland recently that drew a huge crowd of 50,000. One of the things that they demanded was a Judenfrei Poland. The problem is that there are probably no more than 4,000 Jews in Poland to this day. One wonders what evil effects such a tiny community could have on the national body politic, yet this shows you the intensity and paranoia of Polish antisemitism.

In Eastern Europe, there is a big difference between a socialist and a Communist. Almost everyone you meet in Eastern Europe is a socialist or practically one, although Poland is particularly pathetic in this regard, a sorry habit in light of the centuries of abuse the reactionary feudal lords committed against the 95% serf Poles for centuries. The Polish ruling class is still feudal in nature and has changed little since the days of the lords of the land. It also has deep ties to a deeply conservative Polish army, which has always had strong links to the feudal royal ruling classes.

It is a little told story, but when Communism first came to Poland, it was quite popular, particularly among the downtrodden peasants. It was also very popular among the urban proletariat and to some extent among intellectuals. But the brutality of the Polish Communists working in the model of Stalin quickly doomed the project. The Polish Communists were hoist on their own petard. Even Stalin recognized the futility of the project. “Imposing Communism on the Poles,” Stalin said, “Was like trying to put a saddle on a cow.” Basically doomed from Day one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christianity, Czechoslovakia, Economics, Europe, Ireland, Left, Lithuania, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Political Science, Racism, Regional, Religion, Socialism, Spain, Ukraine, USSR

Why There Is No Left in the US: The Pathetic Story of the Cold War Liberals

In Haiti, Father Bertrand Aristide was a Leftist Catholic priest, a follower of Liberation Theology, who ruled the country for years. He won completely free and fair elections with 94% of the vote. He was removed by the Bush Administration which funded an insurgency out of reactionary Dominican Republic to overthrow the state.

Aristide had been reappointed by Bill Clinton after being ousted in a previous coup, but Clinton demanded that Aristide the disband the army and the national police as part of a deal to put him back in power. In this way, Clinton the liberal Democrat assured that Aristide was helpless against the insurgency that invaded from the  Dominican Republic. Now you understand why I hate American liberal Democrats so much. They’re all reactionaries! Yes, they are more Left that the ultra-right Republican Party, but not by much. At best, US Cold War liberals are centrists or the center-right. At worst, they are just another species of conservative.

My own father, a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat and former member of Americans for Democratic Action, one of the most Left parts of the Democratic Party back in the 1950’s, supported both the removal of the Sandinistas and Aristide. My father was a Cold War Liberal. This is as Left as Democrats get in the US, and by world standards, my father was a reactionary!

Bernie Sanders is also a Cold War Liberal. His domestic policies are pretty good, but on foreign affairs, Sanders is a nightmare, just another damned reactionary. In the US, everyone is reactionary on foreign affairs – all of the Republicans and almost all of the Democrats. It’s the bipartisan reactionary consensus – they’re throwing it all down for US imperialism,  come Hell or high water. And this sorry fact makes a good case for the argument that there is no Left in the US –  or none to speak of for that matter.

9 Comments

Filed under Caribbean, Cold War, Conservatism, Democrats, Geopolitics, Haiti, History, Imperialism, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

9 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Alt Left: 100th Anniversary of the October Revolution

Today, November 7, is the actual 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. They call it the October Revolution, but actually occurred in November because the Russians use a different calendar than we do.

I do not have a 100% negative view of the October Revolution. I think there were some good things about it. However, it was a military coup and it certainly was not democratic, but the Leninists never intended to be democrats anyway. The excesses of the Cheka, in particular the executions of 12,000 officials of the Russian Orthodox Church (12,000 priests and 500 bishops) must be condemned. Lenin started executing his political opponents pretty quickly. I don’t necessarily object to putting those folks in prison, but once in prison, they should have been afforded basic rights.

A high ranking member of the Bolsheviks, a Jewish man, was in charge of Legal Affairs. He interviewed an opposition member in prison and then went to talk to Lenin to ask what was to be done with this man. He was expecting Lenin to grant him the typical rights of the accused, but the man was shocked when Lenin was outraged at the suggestion that this man deserved any basic rights at all. To Lenin, he was a counterrevolutionary, and as such he was going to be shot. Lenin failed to understand what was so controversial about that.

I will never support the use of the Cheka, the organization of the firing squad, in killing opponents of the Revolution. Of course I will never support the Whites, but the excesses of the Cheka should not be supported by any fair-minded person.

With that said, I think the Alt Left should not see the October Revolution as 100% negative, and we should not support the Whites. And only 15% of Russians today say they are better off now than they were in the USSR. Anti-Communist propaganda in the US and the West leaves much to be desired. In particular, it is at odds with the testimonies of most people who actually lived under Communism. At the very least, most people think that they had it better under Communism than they do today based on polls taken in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. Communism wasn’t paradise, but whatever replaced it doesn’t seem to have been any better and most people think it is worse.

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Eurasia, Europe, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Orthodox, Regional, Religion, Revolution, Russia, USSR

Alt Left: Happy October Everyone!

This October was the 100th anniversary of one of the greatest moments of the 20th Century – the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October, 1917. I recently rewatched the movie Reds. If you want to know what really happened at this time in Russia, you ought to watch that movie. There had been an election and the Mensheviks or Social Democrats had won. The Bolsheviks also took part, but they did not gain a majority. Despite antisemites ranting about how Jews caused Communism in Russia, in this election in 1917, 70% of Russian Jews voted for a Zionist party that was running at the time. So the vast majority of Russian Jews did not support the Bolsheviks (or even the other socialist parties for that ). So much for “Jewish Communism.”

Yes, Trotsky was a Jew, but he was a secular atheist Jew. He actually refused to identify as Jewish and said instead that his ethnicity was world proletarian. Lenin was 1/4 Jewish, but a lot of  people have a bit of Jew in them and it doesn’t make them Jewish. In Germany they have a saying, “There’s a little bit of Jew in every German.” This was actually such a problem in the Nazi era that they had to make all sorts of strict rules about who was a Jew. Nevertheless, ~150,000 half-Jews (not considered Jewish by the Nazis) not only served in the Wehrmacht but were actually members of the genocidally antisemitic SS!

There were a number of Jews heading the revolution but as you can see they did not even have the support of the majority of Russian Jews, or at least did not have that support in the earlier election. And there were as many Latvians of all people leading the revolution as Jews.

The Bolsheviks actually seized power by force. They had the help of masses of demobbed soldiers, home from the Front where they were running out of food, clothing, ammunition, everything. To say they were disenchanted would be an understatement. Rallies were being held all over Moscow and Saint Petersburg. These rallies were often joined by large numbers of industrial workers who also helped take part in the coup. So it was not a democratic takeover. It was actually a putschist regime. However,  I would say that they had huge and possibly even majority support at least when the Civil War got started. The Reds only won the Civil War because huge numbers of peasants went over to their side.

The Bolshevik Revolution was both good and bad. I agree that there were some bad things about it. I am appalled at how Lenin’s Cheka started murdering people very early on. An early Bolshevik, a Jew at that, was an attorney. After a prominent contra had been arrested, he visited the man in jail and then went to Lenin and asked what his plans were for the man.

The attorney, who worked for the Bolsheviks, thought the man would be granted the protections of the rule of law.  He was shocked when Lenin was outraged that the attorney thought that the man deserved such protections in the first place. Lenin said the man, along with all of the rest of the contras, should be executed. This was a Revolution! It was time for revolutionary justice. There was no time for the niceties of the rule of law and so forth. The attorney was stunned at Lenin’s brutality.

The Cheka executed a number of people in the early days by firing squad. Anti-Communist kooks give very high figures in the hundreds of thousands (including 50,000 Orthodox priests) but that cannot be correct. Instead a better figure may be ~4,000 executions.

While I am not happy at all with the brutal turn of the Revolution, I think there were some good things about the Russian Revolution. It definitely changed the course of history and humanity has not been the same since. It was surely one of the great events of the 20th Century.

I think most Alt Leftists, at least those on the Leftist (not the liberal) wing of the movement, would find at some positive things about the Russian Revolution. It is part of our heritage on the Left, for better or for worse.

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Eurasia, Europe, Germany, History, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Revolution, Russia, Zionism