Category Archives: Political Science

Teen Sex Mass Hysteria: Anatomy of an American Moral Panic

At the moment, American fanatical puritanism is focused on teen sex.

I guess they’re just not supposed to do it! It’s out and out illegal in many states. The mere mention of the subject causes lynch mobs to rage at you and call you “pedophile.” I have been supposedly reported to the police many times as a “pedophile” simply for discussing the subject of teen sex! Jesus. Even the Victorians had nothing on us. Lots of teenagers were having sex back then and no one gave a damn.

Let’s call it Teen Sex Mass Hysteria because that’s exactly what it is. For some insane reason, puritanical Americans can’t seem to get it through their heads that teenagers are fully sexually mature beings, typically by age 13. The boys have a full blown adult sex drive (male sex drive peaks at age 16-23) and anecdotal evidence implies that even girls age 13-15 have full blown adult female sex drives nowadays.

Americans refuse to believe this. Instead they infantalize the young men and women known as teenagers, calling them kids, children, etc. The truth is that teens are not little kids. They’re not adults either, but they’re not little tiny children like you see running around in the park or the schoolyard. The difference between teenagers and little kids is so stark that it is almost like they are people from two different planets. It’s insipid and insane to conflate little children with the young men and young women called teenagers. It’s sheer idiocy.

Can someone please tell me how it is progressive to infantalize our teenage young men and young women? How is it liberal to treat 17 year olds like kindergartners? How is it feminist to support laws that imprison teenagers for having consensual sex with each other? How is it feminist, progressive or liberal to call the photos teens take of themselves and each other naked in having sex with each other “child porn?” How is it feminist to put teenage girls in jail and on the sex offender list for life for taking nude pics and sharing them with some boy? How is it progressive to imprison a teenage boy for “distributing child porn” for taking a nude photo of himself and sending it to the girl?

If this is how insane and puritanical the US Left is about sex, you can imagine how batshit nuts the US Right about the subject.

It’s time to chill on this Teen Sex Mass Hysteria bullshit. It’s profoundly backwards, reactionary and barbaric. No self-respecting liberal or progressive person should have anything to do with this insipid moral panic. Shame on us as a nation for falling victim to an obviously irrational mass hysteria.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Conservatism, Culture, Law, Left, Liberalism, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Political Science

Something Conservatives Will Never Understand: Armed Leftwing Revolutions Only Happen in Horrible Countries

I will grant that Colombia is more rightwing than the US, but at least they have a great Left. Hell, the Left down there is actually armed for Chrissake! They have guns, bombs, RPG’s full battle uniforms, you name it, and they use their weapons all the time to kill the conservative police and army, who very much deserve it.

This shows what happens when your society goes too rightwing or when your rightwing goes too rightwing. Not only do you get a monstrous, fascist, usually murderous Right, but, just as sure as night follows day, you end up with a very radical Left that in many cases arms itself against the murderous Right.

Extremes beget extremes. Do you really need to read Marx to figure that out? Hell, I bet I could explain that to a 5th grader and they would nod their head in agreement.

But show me an American conservative anywhere who agrees with that statement. Nope, according to the US Establishment, the radical Left rises out of ether for no apparent reason at all other than sheer fanatical evil to overthrow the capitalism that their ideology orders them to blindly hate.

While the USSR was still around, it was a convenient White Whale for any stirrings of the radical Left.

Why is the Left armed to the teeth down there, killing people left and right? Well, Number One is just because they are evil. Idiots, but evil idiots.

Are they taking up arms for any reason? Of course not, there is never an indigenous reason for any Left revolution. Well, what’s the cause of it? Cuba! And the USSR! The Cubans and the Russians put them up to it! Oh God, what crap this is. But this is the ideology of the entire US political establishment and the entire US media for decades now. And it is the lunatic ideology of the vast majority of the American people since 1946.

We lie like this because the truth is hard to swallow.

The Communists were not stupid. The individual CP’s in various countries generally felt that only when the capitalist conditions in the country approached a truly horrorshow of a Hell would there be reason for revolution. Otherwise they would always try to take power by peaceful means. Many a CP ruled many, many times that the country was not in a revolutionary situation and hence taking up arms was not justified. I can’t tell you how many documents I have read that said X country was not in a revolutionary situation right now so taking up arms was illegitimate.

Taking up arms was always an extreme last resort for any CP in any country. And when people did take up arms in what was seen as a non-revolutionary situation, as with the Shining Path in Peru, the vast majority of the Left lined up with the state against the Marxist rebels. Nevertheless, even in those cases there were variables. Towards the end the situation in Peru had gotten so horrific with the war and the monstrous turn of the state into a murderous charnelhouse that a number of parties around 1992 declared that the country was now in a revolutionary situation and it was acceptable to take up arms. That is why a number of other groups took up arms in 1992 at the peak of the war.

In many cases, CP’s even cruelly denied help to local CP’s on the grounds that they were not in a revolutionary situation.

Every American hates North Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, but he was a rational man and North Vietnam was a reasonable state.

After the cancelled elections of 1954 which were ruined by the US (the UN ordered elections in the country, and the US ordered South Vietnam not to participate), the South Vietnamese Communist Party (really the Viet Cong) tried to obtain power by peaceful means. They were not armed with a single bullet. Nevertheless, with strong US support, the South Vietnamese government murdered 80,000 unarmed South Vietnamese Communist civilians between 1954-1960.

All this time, the South Vietnamese Communists were asking for permission from North Vietnam to take up arms. The North consistently refused armed support, so 80,000 Communists died. This shows you how grave most CP’s thought the decision to take up arms was. Finally in 1960, the North gave the South permission to take up arms, and the war was on. As you can see, South Vietnam started the Vietnam War by killing 80,000 unarmed civilians with the enthusiastic help of the US. The Viet Cong actually took up arms in self-defense. They simply got tired of sitting in their villages and waiting for the government to come murder them. They decided that if the state was going to try to kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves against the killers.

If you study most Communist revolutions in the 20th Century, this was the case in almost every single one of them. The decision to take up arms was only a last resort when conditions in the country deteriorated drastically and in particular when all peaceful methods of change were blocked. In the 20th Century, Communists almost always took up arms grudgingly, as a last resort and typically in self defense.

If you had a decent country, you never had to worry about an armed Left rebellion. If you had a shithole, well, a Left revolution was definitely something to worry about. The conclusion here is that every country that had an armed Left revolution in the 20th Century basically asked for it and got what they deserved. It was the fault of the leaders of every one of those countries for making conditions so horrible that the Left took up arms in the first place.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, Cold War, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Fascism, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, South America, US, US Politics, USSR, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Liberals Lie Like Rugs Too

Well, of course they do. And they especially lie about the people they hate the most – conservatives – for good reason I would argue, as American conservatives are easily some of the worst conservatives on Earth. I  mean my God, we have the worst leftwingers on Earth (the infectious pustules known as liberal Democrats). So it would figure that our conservatives would be orders of magnitude worse than even our awful liberals. Our whole politics is slanted to the extreme Right. In many ways, this is nearly the most rightwing country on Earth, and that’s mostly why the US sucks so bad these days.

And the Left lies like rugs just like the conservatives. The latest is an article by this poor conservative fellow named Jerrold Laber, who penned an unfortunately titled piece for the execrable Federalist called Your Refusal To Date Conservatives Is One Reason We Have Donald Trump. I will discuss the content of the piece in a bit. As soon as this article appeared, liberal jerks all over the Liberal Jerkosphere started piling on this poor guy, saying that he had written an article complaining that women would not date him because he was a conservative.

This guy claims women don’t want to have sex with him because he’s conservative. No, its because he’s a creepy racist bigot.

The comments that followed all said that the poor guy could not get laid because he was a disgusting conservative and also that he, get this, looked creepy. I looked at his photo very hard. He’s actually a very nice-looking man. He’s some egghead at a think tank. He looks about as creepy as an egghead at a think tank looks, which is not at all.

Then these liberals proceeded to call him a loser because he could not get laid. This is the last thing we on the Left should be doing. We don’t care whether you guys get laid or not. Saying we hate men who don’t get any means we are acting like Republicans. The guys who get some are winners and the guys who can’t get any are losers. We love the winners and hate the losers. That’s how Republicans think.

It’s so shameful to see liberals talk this way. Another thing you often see is liberals slamming some conservative saying he works for minimum wage! Wow! So now we liberals hate the poor! And the only decent people are the rich! And we judge humans as good to bad based on how much money they make! I can’t tell you how many liberal Democrats I have met who talk exactly like this.

If you’re going talk that way, why don’t you just get the Hell out of the Democratic Party and especially, why don’t you quit saying you are on the Left. I mentioned above that we have the most horrific and despicable Left on Earth (liberal Democrats). Well, I just gave you a couple of examples of why the US Left blows so much. I could go on but you get the point.

The thing is, the guy who wrote the piece never said he couldn’t get laid. He discussed OKCupid, but he never said he was a member. He only said that OKCupid now let’s users put Planned Parenthood badges on their profiles if they support abortion. He never says he is a member of OKCupid or not, or even if he is single or married. Even if he is a member, he never says how successful he was on the site.

In short, there is no reason at all to see this article as a guy complaining he can’t get laid on a dating site (actually an extremely common problem for men, take it from me, and I am good with women).

Instead, he uses this anecdote to discuss assortative mating, that is the tendency of like-minded people to mate with each other. Like mates with like. Similarities, not opposites, attract. This is well-studied in social science. The author warns about this and notes that we are getting increasingly polarized on our political views. Whereas 23 years ago, only 15% of Republicans and Democrats hated each other, now it’s up 38-48%. I still think only 38% of us hating the other side is way too low, but then I am Mr. Polarized. Polarization? Bring it on! More, more, faster, faster! And no, I am not (((Michael Ledeen))).

He opines that the fact that Republicans and Democrats are not bonding together nearly as much as they used to (apparently inferred by polarization numbers) means that the parties split more and more and polarization increases even more. It’s a feedback loop. We start hating each other more and more, so we start bonding with the other side less and less. The fact that we are mating with each other less and less means increasing polarization, which leads to more mating avoidance which leads to…OK you get it. It’s a dog chasing its tail here, like so many things in life.

He then quotes Charles Murray about how the wealthier and poorer Americans are growing further apart to the point where they almost seem like people from two different countries, if not two different planets. Murray thinks this is not a good thing. And since the author quotes Murray that means he is a racist. Why is Murray a racist? Because he wrote the Bell Curve (a book I love by the way). So if you quote Murray about anything, even when Murray is not discussing race at all, that makes you a racist because Murray is a racist and hence anyone who quotes him is a racist.

People wonder why people have had it up to here with the Cultural Left, PC and SJW’s and are voting Republican in protest? It’s because of crap like this. This man did not mention race at all anywhere in his piece, yet we on the Left smear him as a racist. Murray writes a completely nonracist book full of 100% pure and proper science at least in terms of hypothesis, and he’s a racist for the rest of his life. We may be on the right side, but we are just as ugly as Republicans. Even if they are on the other side, we must be fair to them. If we cheat and lie and fight dirty about and towards them, what right do we have to complain when they do it?

I so wish we on the liberal-Left would knock this crap off. And the fact that the Left acts this way is a huge reason why the Alternative Left even got formed in the first place.

An honorable man is judged by his behavior in war and peacetime. It’s not enough to be a gentleman in peacetime. An honorable man also fights fair. He doesn’t fight dirty. If he does, he is no longer an honorable man. He’s a lousy person along with the hundreds of millions of others out there.

10 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left

Robert Stark Interview: Alt Left Chaos Magic with Brandon Adamson

Here.

You all should know who he is by now. He blogs under Rabbit at altleft.com and he is one of the very first early Alt Leftists. Although he is controversial due to racial views and his association with the Left Wing of the Alt Net, I still think he is one of our most important thinkers.

Furthermore, his racial views are exaggerated. I would say that the difference between the Alt Right AR and the Left Wing of the Alt Right (LWAR) is that the real AR types are real hardcore racists who are open about their views, have extreme views and are not afraid  to talk about them, often use slurs and and hostile language about non-Whites, and pose drastic solutions, usually some form of White Separatism which would not be completely nonviolent. They also use a lot of White Supremacist and Nazi imagery.

The LWAR, on the other hand, usually does not use slurs and hostile language towards non-Whites, and in fact they often do not discuss race much at all. I think Rabbit would mostly like to be writing about other things, and race is only a small part of his Alt Left project. The LWAR types have much less extreme views and propose relatively innocuous solutions to the racial question.

For instance, Rabbit says he does not with to harm any non-Whites in the US in any way and he doesn’t want to carve out a White state in the US, which would obviously require some type of ethnic cleansing. Instead, Rabbit takes a very long view and is much more of a dreamer. Sure he would rather not live around non-Whites, but he wants to establish his White State in places like Patagonia, Antarctica or even outer space. He sometimes describes himself as a “space Communist.” 

Given that the LWAR views on race are more polite and their solutions are fairly innocuous, I have a hard time understanding why Rabbit has become such a persona non grata in much of the Alt Left, especially considering that he was one of the founders.

I still believe that Rabbit is one of our finest and most important thinkers, and he is an excellent writer. In fact, he has a book of poems out called Beatnik Fascism. I imagine it’s pretty good. His views on nonracial matters are intelligent, important and deserve an audience. I get the feeling that Rabbit is uncomfortable writing about his racial views. I figure that is because he is basically a liberal or Leftist, let’s face it. And when Lefties go racist, they often don’t go too far down the line because there is always that liberal antiracist guilt nagging away at you causing you to tone down and attenuate your racial views. And it is for this reason that the LWAR will always be a lot more toned down and reasonable on race than the AR. Racists with a guilt complex usually can’t real far down that road they’re on. The guilt keeps pulling them back.

Alt Left Chaos Magic With Brandon Adamson

Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Brandon Adamson. Brandon blogs at AltLeft.com, is the author of Beatnik Fascism, and has a Youtube channel Self Checkout.

Topics:

Brandon’s Official Response to Trump’s Remarks on the Alt Left.
The context of Trump using the term “Alt-Left” to describe the antifa as opposed to the original Alt Left.
The media’s references to Brandon’s Alt Left site and how the only semi accurate one was The Week’s article.
Confusing political hacks with esoteric outlandish cultural references.
The “Orange Pill.”
How the less aggro elements of the Left and the Alt Right should combine forces for single payer health care, student debt relief, and the dismantling the College Football Industrial Complex.
How massive online censorship forces people to build alternative tech universes.
Corporations enforcing a uniform culture of consensus among workers.
Companies policing employees behavior outside of work.
Why a 6 hour work day would be more efficient.
People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do.
New Suburbanism.

 

8 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Health, Higher Education, Journalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Sports, US Politics, White Racism

Where Have All the Catholics Gone?

In recent years, the US Catholic Church is undergoing a crisis. Fully 1/3 of its members have left the Church, even with all the Hispanic immigration. For the Church, this is a looming catastrophe. This is happening at the same time as Evangelical Protestants are increasing somewhat (8% increase) and mainline Protestants are declining somewhat (4%). There has been collapse in the membership of the mainline churches and the Evangelical churches are not undergoing explosive growth. Both of these are common tropes believed by many people nowadays.

If fully 1/3 of Catholics have left the church, this begs the question of where have they gone? I thought, once a Catholic, always a Catholic and in the sense that they take a bite out of you and psychologically, you tend to remain Catholic for good and for bad is a common cliche. I believe that the Church considers lapsed Catholics to still be Catholics, but that is a formality. The Church believes lots of silly things, for instance that we are all naturally born Catholic no matter religion we grow up in. That is why conversion to Catholicism is always called “return” because you are said to be returning to the natural religion you were born into.

In the past, converting out of Catholicism was considered a grave error and even a serious sin. I believed that Catholics were still loathe to convert to Protestantism, other than in the Hispanic community, where a mass exodus of Catholics to Evangelical churches has been going on for a long time in both Hispanic communities in the US and in Latin America itself. The situation is especially grave in Central America. Countries like Honduras now are ~1/3 Evangelical. As lousy as the Catholic Church is (and it is lousy) I would much rather have those Hispanics being Catholic than converting to pie in the sky when you die we love the poor but don’t try to improve your station in life ultra-rightwing anti-Left and anti-progress Protestant Evangelicals, with its various heresies such as Christian Zionism and Wealth Doctrine and other atrocities.

But Evangelical Hispanics are stuck in the worst rut of reaction. One wonders how they c can get out.

I used to think the most Catholics were absolutely loath to convert out to Protestantism, but it’s more common than you think and the Church hardly cares anymore, as they have more pressing concerns. Let’s look at the figures:

Of the 1/3 of Catholics who have left the Church:

50% have simply gone from Catholic to ex-Catholic. They have converted to Protestantism or another religion. Apparently nowadays it is perfectly acceptable to be a former Catholic. That’s news to me.

18% have converted to Protestantism. That is not a large number, but it is not trivial either.

Of those, 12% of leaving Catholics convert to Evangelical Protestantism. I would argue that these are mostly Hispanic Catholics converting out to the exploding Evangelical churches in the Hispanic areas of the US. I’ve never met a White Catholic who converted out to Evangelicalism, but there are probably a few.

Only 6% of leaving Catholics convert to a mainline Protestant Church. That’s a small number, but it’s not trivial.

In fact, more Catholics convert to Buddhism (10%) than convert to mainline Protestant churches. That’s a pretty pathetic statement on how many Catholics leave for mainline P Protestantism.

There’s no good answer on why Catholics leave. Sure, liberals say that they leave because of reactionary Church doctrine on homosexuality, women priests marrying, priestly celibacy, birth control, and abortion. In contrast, conservatives say that Catholics are leaving because they Church has gone way too liberal, especially since Vatican II.

The truth that about equal numbers leave because the Church is too liberal as leave because it is too conservative. There’s no real trends either way. It’s all a wash.

Actually the main reason Catholics left (65%) was that they felt that the Catholic Church was no longer meeting their spiritual needs. This is a serious failure on the part of the Church. I am not sure what they can do about it, but ritual only goes so far. More New Testament Biblical homilies, especially about Jesus’ life, might be an avenue.

2 Comments

Filed under Buddhism, Catholicism, Central America, Christianity, Conservatism, Hispanics, Honduras, Latin America, Liberalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, USA

Okay, So I Don’t Have a Problem with Gays—in Fact, I’m Friends with a Few—but I Think Being Gay Is Unnatural, and I Don’t Support It. After All, Why Would I Support Something That I Am Not? Is This Bad?

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora. Good God, that site is gay. That must be one of the gayest sites on the Net. Full-on SJW on steroids, support for every bit of sexual and gender weirdness, perversions, deviants or weirdness. And then fanatically pro-Israel. That’s liberalism now. Fanatically pro-SJW to the point of insanity and then pro-Israel, ultra-reactionary on foreign policy and support for settler colonialism, imperialism and one of the worst countries on Earth.

The only thing SJW’s are liberal or Left on is their SJW bullshit. They’re not necessarily Left on anything else, especially foreign policy. I sure see a lot of Humanitarian Bomber Liberals among these SJW clowns.

SJW on Culture, neoconservative on foreign policy. Good Lord that is like the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right.

As a straight male, I understand that you are repulsed by male homosexuality. Most straight men experience revulsion at the thought of male homosexual sex. This is a perfectly natural way to feel.

Do you realize that the vast majority of males who openly identify as gay had absolutely no choice in the matter? Do you realize that there is no cure for male homosexuality? We have tried everything in the lab, and it cannot be fixed. We can’t even move men 10% in either direction after age 15. Male sexual orientation is set in stone by age 15 at least.

Look. These guys had no choice when it comes to being gay. They had no more choice than a blue eyed person chooses their blue eyes. And no matter how much they hate being gay, they will never be able to be straight or even bisexual.

I believe most straight men are homophobic at least in the sense of strong revulsion at the idea of gay sex. That’s completely normal. On the other hand, we have to be kind. Even if we are revolted by the idea of gay sex, we straight men must realize that these men did not choose to be gay, and there is nothing on Earth that can make them straight or even bi.

How can you hate someone over something they had no choice over? It’s like hating blond haired people for being blond.

Male homosexuality is indeed unnatural. There are about zero cases of preferential male homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There is no corollary in the animal world to males who are exclusively into males and not into females at all. Occasional homosexual dabbling which occurs in many species is absolutely not the same thing as purely gay human males. No comparison.

Male homosexuality is probably caused by hormonal fluctuations in utero. Sure it’s unnatural, but so are similar things like abnormal fingerprints, left-handedness, etc. We can handle it if ~3% of men are gay. The sky won’t fall.

Even though it is unnatural, these men did not choose this orientation. Therefore, even if it is unnatural, we straights have to accept these men fully and wish for them as happy and healthy of lives that we wish for ourselves. We don’t have to associate with gay men, make friends with them, or even talk to them. But complete rejection and blatant animus seem immoral for most any perspective of moral philosophy and from the doctrine of many religions. How many religions say you should hate people for things they cannot control? We must support them, even if from a distance.

You don’t have to jump up and down and cheer for gay men. But I think you ought to grant gay men full rights, all of the rights that you wish for yourself.

Here’s hoping you read this.

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Colonialism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Ethics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Imperialism, Israel, Liberalism, Man World, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Scum, Settler-Colonialism, Sex

Have Hispanics Ever Voted for a Republican President?

For some crazy reason, a lot of people insist that a majority of Hispanics voted for George Bush in 2004. It’s fake news, absolutely not true. Bush did get 41% that year, but Kerry got 59%. This is the best that any Republican Presidential candidate has ever done with Hispanics. I do not believe a majority of Hispanics will ever vote for a Republican President in my lifetime. And it’s probably getting worse, not better. Republicans were crowing that Donald Trump got a whole 28% of the Hispanic to Hillary’s 72%. Hispanics vote Republican! There are headlines like that all over the Net. I am sure these rightwing media clowns wish that was true. Since when is losing an election by 44 points something to crow about? What universe do these people live in?

I have studied Presidential elections all the way back to Richard Nixon in 1972. Hispanics were only tracked well in recent elections and 1972 was the earliest tracking I could find for Hispanic voters. No doubt there were Hispanic voters before 1972, but they were such a tiny percentage that they may not have been tracked. I am completely certain that no Hispanic majority ever voted for a Republican President prior to 1972 either. Hispanics just don’t vote Republican. They’re not as hardcore of Democrats as Blacks, but they are about next up.

Next to Bush Jr.’s record, Nixon comes in second for Hispanic votes. He got fully 40% of the Hispanic vote in 1972, but George McGovern, parodied as the ultimate hard loser in US politics, got a full 60% of the Hispanic vote in a year that was a legendary massacre for him. The fact that 60% of Hispanics voted for one of the most unpopular Democratic candidates in recent history really tells you something about how these people vote.

Hispanics voted for McGovern, Carter twice, Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, Obama twice and Hillary.

The fact that so many media accolades were showered on George Bush Jr. after losing the Hispanic vote by 18 full points just shows you how pathetic the fools who think Hispanics will ever vote Hispanic in the next 20-25 years are.

7 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Hispanics, Journalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, US Politics

Polish Political Scientist on the Alt Left

This is a very important article, the first review of the Alt Left ever written by an actual expert on politics, in this case a Political Science professor. The only problem is that he lives in Poland and he wrote this article in Polish! He seems to support the Alt Left. He discusses both me and Rabbit, but most of the focus is on me. And why not? I am the one who started this whole mess after all.

Here it is translated in the best translation I could do.

Alt-Left

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz

02-10-2017

For a decade I have criticized the Polish Left for intellectual impotence expressed in the mindless import of foreign designs. CTRL + C, CRTL + V. It is such a vicious circle: the peculiar combination of geopolitical, historical, socioeconomic and cultural factors has left the Left in Poland (aside from some historical exceptions) a lone minority.

The feeling of isolation meant that the Left waited for outside help (“Moscow yesterday, today Brussels”); elevating “brotherly international solidarity” instead of concentrating on the workers at home deepened the alienation of the Left. Where, a hundred years ago, the Left flourished intellectually (Brzozowski, Abramowski, Luxembourg, Kelles-Krauz, Machajski, Hempel – and many, many others), nowadays, after decades of importing foreign ideas and attempting to implant them in Polish culture, the Polish Left has become intellectually sterile. Bringing the Polish Left to the role of translator of external trends, I see not only me – a “very strange figure” as one of the leftwing editors once called me – but also the Left-leaning generals.

But there is no need to repeat myself as my position on this is well-known. On the contrary – I will criticize the Native Left of the Vistula Backwater for remaining unaware of the latest cutting edge Left political programs from our brethren born in the homeland of the World Creative Class, that is, America.

This latest development followed this pattern:

In recent years, the Hipster Left, now pretending to be a Radical Left, has sunk in the warm sun of a Liberal Mainstream now dominated by the geopolitical system. It was safe to fight for progress behind the back of the liberal state – obviously not to seek any pure utopia ostensibly criticized for “errors and distortions”, but it was still considered less evil than the menace of populism.

The Left was kept in check by the “enlightened absolutism” of the European Union and America reasserting itself as as the keystone of the global order under the leadership of  the benign Uncle Barack. In this way, a phenomenon characteristic of the final days of empires emerged.

First, the Imperialist Left who finance social reforms in the metropolis of the First World profited from the Developed World’s hegemonic oppression of the periphery – the people in the Third World – and therefore was interested in maintaining the existing oppressive geopolitical order This situation was described well by Bernard Semmel.

Next, the toothless Mainstream Right, centered on maximizing corporate profits, could still attempt to launch a Cultural War but was instead generally pushed into a deeply defensive position due to the increasing domination of culture by the Cultural Left.

Finally, the Far Right was more interested in their hysterical, sensationalist, and conspiratorial media than in the real world .

Until one day a Demon returned from the the past.

An “Alt Right” appeared on the scene. “The Alternative Right”: alternative to the Mainstream Right. The phenomenon is otherwise uneven. This is not a reactionary neoliberal/neoconservative New Right whose last expression was the Tea Party. Alt Right is the rebirth of the hard-core “Old Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in new postmodernist forms. A unique return to the roots. And it was the Alt Rightists who managed to beat the mainstream left in its own field: to win the support of the workers using non-cultural terms (Thomas Frank was a bit outdated) and economics. Workers from the Core Belt backed protectionism against globalism.

For the Left, who has already forgotten the anti-imperialism that once characterized it, this is a geopolitical earthquake like a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles. Suddenly there was no point of support, no reference point. The Left must find himself given the reality of this new situation. We need self-criticism, reorientation, and re-evaluation. Answer the question: What is to be done? The most popular answer is: What we have always done, only moreso. Purge the ranks, dig in their positions.

This is a bourgeois reaction frightened by the status quo. The bureaucracies of the safe zones become the universities and the liberal self-governments of the big cities. Rolling Stone Magazine describes the formation of the anti-Trump coalition . There will be pro-immigrant groups, environmentalists, feminists, sexual minorities, gun control advocates, and  interestingly, “true conservatives” (the neoconservatives) who are reluctant to support Trump. Did I miss anyone? Did you notice? One group I failed to mention is the unions. It seems that the Left has insulted the workers. Instead of Democrats meeting with union leaders, Trump meets with them.

However, not all American Leftists are carnal cult members, confident that the repetition of certain rituals will provide them with prosperity. Some believe that the challenge of Alt-Right requires a symmetrical response: to create an alternative to the Left mainstream harkening back to the forgotten foundations of the left. Opponents see the emergence of the Alt-Left phenomenon as a new embodiment of the alliance of extremes, “the place where Pat Buchanan meets Ralph Nader, ” although Alt-Leftists reject any form of cooperation with actual fascists, hardcore racists, and obsessive and conspiratorial anti-Semites. Proponents argue that this is a de facto return to the tradition of the Old Left – “the Left as it was from the Second World War to the counter-culture of the 1960’s.”

This implies first and foremost, the primacy of economics over culture, the primordial basis of superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that “being forms consciousness.” Contempt for the poor and losers in capitalist society is condemned as one of the worst sins of all.

“We will be Left on economic matters [but] more Centrist on culture,” wrote Robert Lindsay, a leading Alt Left thinker.

This approach puts the Alt Left in opposition to both technocratic social democrats that have long since taken up neoliberalism while abandoning the working class on the Right and the “Cultural Left” on the other side of the political spectrum. The Alt-Left sees the Right as simply “traitors to the working class – our class enemies,” according to Lindsay. But it is towards the second group, which the Alt-Left sees as “rootless cosmopolitans,” that the Alt-Left devotes most of its polemical fervor.

Alt Left tolerates the Cultural Left as long as they are relatively quiet about their antagonizing views. The Cultural Left is criticized not for the legitimacy or direction of cultural change but rather for its extremism.

Lindsay writes:

Gay Rights – yes! Gay politics – no! Support and tolerance for biological homosexuals to live their lives as they wish in freedom and happiness. On the other hand, homosexuality should not be exalted or promoted […].

Women’s rights – yes! Women’s politics – no! The Alternative Left supports equity feminism while rejecting  the gender feminism of radical feminists who hate men.

According to Alt-Leftists, the “Identity Politics” promoted by the Cultural Left led to the replacement of class struggle with racial and/or sexual conflict. In this view, White people were evil…and anyone who was not White was automatically a saint. This meant not only that all Whites were part of a racist class but that they also all shared collective responsibility and guilt. Let us note that while class membership can be changed relatively easily, race or gender cannot, which makes any antagonism engendered by race or gender insurmountable.

Another aspect of the Alternative Left is internationalism, but here it is understood as anti-imperialism instead of cosmopolitanism. Lindsay emphasizes that the desire of people to have a national, ethnic or religious identity should be seen as a right that can not be interfered with. The result is an acceptance of  the multiculturalism of immigrants in the first generation but the promotion of assimilation in the next. On the one hand, extreme patriotism and Western imperialism are also criticized –  the Alt Left even singles out Bernie Sanders, as as a “Cold War liberal”. On the other hand, the view that “the West is pure evil” is rejected. The Alt Left detaches itself from both anti-Semitism and Radical Zionism, accepting anti-Zionists but also moderate Zionists.

The American Alt Left has been around for only little over one year (the site Altleft.com appeared in November 2015), and is a small movement made up of a number of different strands or wings.

One of Lindsay’s followers wrote:

Unfortunately, Alt Left attracts a wide variety of weird people, and each one has their own clichéd ideas for what Alt Left should be.

Well, beginnings are always difficult.

Should Poles mimic the Alt Left? No. It is enough to return to our native traditions, a matter-of-fact, homegrown analysis of reality – simply common sense. Swallows can be seen.

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz,.born in 1962, is a political scientist and researcher at the Institute of History of the University of Silesia, a journalist, and an author of a number of books in recent years, Terrorism against Political Violence: An Encyclopedic Outline (2000), Between Fascism and Anarchism: New Ideas for a New Era (2000), New National Democratic Party Groups in the Third Republic (2003), Evil in the Name of Good: The Phenomenon of Political Violence (2009) and National Revolution: The Nationalist Ideas of Social Revolution in the Second Republic (2012), as well as many magazine, newspaper and journal articles. He is a regular contributor to The New Citizen.

New Citizen 13
Publisher: Association of Citizens
Website: kooperatywa.org

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Immigration, Imperialism, Internationalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, Vanity, Whites

“Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?” by Eric Walberg

My good friend Eric Walberg sets the record straight on the Ukraine War. Bottom line is every single thing you are being told in the Western media is propaganda of some sort. It’s either a distortion, misleading or out and out false. The number of Western media outlets offering the truth of what is going on over there is zero. This is what I mean by our controlled media and why I say that there is no dissident press in the West.

Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?

Eric Walberg

Putin is either an aggressive schemer, to be opposed and vilified at all costs, or a wise, restrained real-politician, balanced irreconcilable forces next door. Which is it?

The 2014 coup in Ukraine succeeded due to the fierce campaign led by neo-fascists, heirs to the Banderistas of 1940–50’s, now lauded as freedom fighters, but seen at the time as terrorists, murdering Ukrainians and Jews, and sabotaging a Ukraine in shambles after the war. They had almost zero support then, having collaborated with the Nazis to kill tens of thousands, but their hero, Stepan, was honored with a statue in 2011, erected by the godfather of the current anti-Russian coupmakers, the (disastrous) former President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine’s Soviet war veterans were outraged and the statue was torn down in 2013, just months before the coup, bringing the Bandera-lovers back to power.

The eastern Ukrainians, mostly native Russians, centered in Donetsk and Lugansk, saw the coup as a surreal rerun of WWII, this time with Banderistas triumphant. They had no real plan, but panicked at the thought of what was to come, and seized government buildings and declared themselves mini-republics, calling on Russia to come and rescue them, as was happening in Crimea.

A tall order. Putin empathized with his fellow Russians, now being bombed and boycotted by the Ukrainian forces, with a death toll of 10,000 so far. Between 22 and 25 August 2014, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a “humanitarian convoy”, crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.

This state of stalemate led the war to be labelled by some a war of aggression against poor Ukraine, a “frozen conflict”. The area has stayed a war zone, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed each month. Close to 4,000 rebel fighters and the same number of ‘loyalists’ have been killed, along with 3,000 civilians. 1.5 million have been internally displaced; and a million have fled abroad, mostly to Russia.

A deal to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol, was signed on 5 September 2014 but immediately collapsed. It called for reincorporation of the rebel territories under a federal system, with full rights of the Russian-speakers and open relations with the Russian Federation. Russia stands by the principles of the protocol, calling for Ukrainian borders to stay as they are, despite the pleas of the rebels. This restraint pleases neither side. The Russians clearly will not abandon their fellow Russians, but at the same time, refuse to invade and start a war with their unpredictable, basket-case of a neighbor. Russians are surely thinking: Ukrainians — you can’t get along with them or without them.

The Russian position is clear and firm: give Russian Ukrainian their rights, make our borders porous for locals and their relatives, revive shattered economic links among common peoples with a thousand years of common history. Get on with it.

The Ukrainian position is mostly hysterical, calling for NATO and Europe to fight off the Russkies, salvage the bankrupt economy, and ignore the creepy fascists. WWIII if necessary. The coupmakers are unrepentant as Ukraine slides deeper into insolvency, and corruption is getting worse (if that’s possible). Poroshenko is as unpopular as a leader can get, and only the threat of a Ukraine shattered in pieces gives him a life preserver among his citizens.

WWII replay

The West incited the coup and quickly embraced it, ignoring its unsavory origins in nostalgia for fascism. While it feigns shock and anger at Russian actions, it certainly can’t ignore that the Russians really had no choice, that their actions were/are both necessary and measured.

It looks suspiciously like the West is sitting back and enjoying the fisticuffs, reminding one of how the West sat back and let the Russians do the dirty work in WWII, defeating the Nazis, with the ‘Allies’ joining in the last year to warrant their claims (now the official story) that the US won the war — with a little help from its friends and even the nefarious Russians.

A messy conclusion to that war, the ultimate ‘frozen conflict’, the Cold War, that spawned the current many mini-frozen conflicts (Trans-Dniester, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, not to mention ones farther afield, like Taiwan and Somaliland — all legacies of the Cold War).

‘No Pasaran!’

The plan is evolving, depending on what the Russians do. Putin’s red line is that Ukraine cannot – will not — join NATO. The NATO creep eastward, a violation from 1991 on of the implicit understanding with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, will not be tolerated.

The Ukrainian coup created a new scenario. If Russia had moved to support the rebel territories, form a customs union with open borders, aimed at eventual incorporation in the Russian Federation, that would have given the NATOphiles their trump card, and NATO and the EU would be hard pressed not to move in and try to salvage a bankrupt dysfunctional state, with the final coup as its prize: NATO now lined up surrounding Russia, the last real holdout against US world domination.

The Baltic ministates and (almost all) the Balkan ministates are now in the NATO fold. There are a few loose ends for the EU in the Balkans, but EU hegemony economically and US hegemony militarily are the new playing fields. Then there’s Turkey as a key NATO ally.

Whether this is an actual conspiracy or not only Russian hackers can tell, but the logic is there. Putin sees this logic and is not biting the bullet. Better a tolerable federated Ukraine where Russians are left in peace or another frozen conflict than NATO breathing fire on Russia’s borders.

The West played the ‘shock and anger’ card over Crimea, ignoring the fact that Crimea has been a key part of Russia since Catherine the Great incorporated it in 1783, the heart of Russian naval power, thoughtlessly given to Ukraine when Soviet internal borders were meaningless, populated by mostly Russians and Tatars.

As Ukrainian nationalism heated up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still maintained its bases there, paying rent to Ukraine. But dreams by Ukrainian Russophobes to join NATO and the desire of NATO forces to occupy Crimea or that somehow Russia and NATO could share Crimean bases are nonsensical. Russia’s only option was to accede to Crimeans’ pleas.

‘Remember 1856!’

As if to taunt the Russians on Crimea, a British missile destroyer and a Turkish frigate docked at the port of Odessa in July for a joint NATO maritime exercise , several days after the US, Ukraine and 14 other nations deployed warships, combat aircraft and special operations teams for the ‘Sea Breeze 2017’ exercise off the Ukrainian coast.

It looks like a reenactment of western policy following the Crimean War in 1856, when Russia was denied its naval presence in the Black Sea, as Britain and France were preparing to take the Ottoman territories for themselves and keep Russia out in the cold. Combined with the NATO creep in the Baltics and Balkans, it also looks like a replay of the build up to WWII but without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. To Stalin’s (sorry, Putin’s) discomfort, there is no split among the imperialists anymore. Germany et al are postmodern nations, nations without a foreign policy, beholden to the world hegemon, the US. There is only one thousand-year Reich (sorry, Pax Americana) on the table these days. History may repeat itself but in its own ways.

Frozen conflicts have a bad reputation, but peace is always better than war. Tempers cool over time, and past wrongs can be ironed out with reason and compromise. Donetsk and Lugansk will not hoist a white flag to Kiev given the bad blood. They will continue to get electricity and gas from Russia and revive their economies by reviving trade and industry with their real ally. Kiev should be careful in its game of trying to starve the rebels into submission. Russians as a people have never backed down when faced with a hostile enemy.

The longer the freeze continues, the more willy-nilly integration with the Russian economic sphere will proceed. Or rather the Eurasian Customs Union (EACU) that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed in 2010, eliminating obstacles to trade and investment that went up after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Moscow stands to benefit as a natural hub for regional finance and trade, and Ukraine is welcome. Win-win. A free trade pact as an economic strategy elevates the prospects of the entire region where Russia is a natural center of gravity. In 2015 the EACU was enlarged to include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia imports labor from the ‘Stans’ and could well help Ukraine by inviting Ukrainians to work as well.

Sensible realpolitik by the West would take NATO away from Russian borders and push Ukraine to make an acceptable deal on a federal state structure to keep its own Russians and its neighbor happy. Sensible realpolitik by Ukraine would be to join the EACU, bringing ‘Little Russians’, ‘White Russians,’ and plain old Russians back together. This would be welcomed with relief by EU officials who have no military ax to grind and are not happy about the billions it would take to get Ukraine off life support.

More here and here.

24 Comments

Filed under Armenia, Asia, Belarus, Britain, Cold War, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, France, Geopolitics, Germany, History, Imperialism, Journalism, Kazakhstan, Modern, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Political Science, Regional, Russia, South Asia, Turkey, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War, World War 2

Just Got Interviewed by Al Jazeera

Just got interviewed by a writer from Al Jazeera for an upcoming piece on the Alt Left . The real Alt Left, not this fake crap the conservatives refer to as Alt Left, which they mean the Hard Left, PC Left, SJW Left, or Antifa Left. The real Alt Left is opposed to all of those factions in one way or another.

I just counted up members of Alt Left sites on Facebook and there were over 18,000 members of groups that appeared to pushing real Alt Left ideas. On the other hand, I would probably renounce 50% or more of those people. Alt-Leftist Empire is the largest group with over 10,000 members, and I completely renounce them. These entryists have captured the movement and turned it into some sort of Cultural Left Libertarian Nationalism. Or something. Most support Trump and neoliberal capitalism. Supporting either is grounds for expulsion. No Alt Left person should support Trump except in a perverse way (accelerationism) and of course you can never support neoliberalism.

This movement is like a runaway train and it has gotten out of the hands of the people who started it in a very bad way, but a lot of political movements are probably like that.

So an article on me and the Alt Left, including quotes, should run in Al Jazeera fairly soon. Another may appear in Alternet at some point later. The author was not real friendly to the Alt Left, but I would not say he was extremely hostile either. I really don’t care how they portray us. In Hollywood they say all publicity is good publicity and that may well be true in politics also.

43 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Journalism, Left, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, US Politics, Vanity