Category Archives: Conservatism

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

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

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.

13 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: Gay Men’s and SJW Views on Statutory Rape: Shocking Revelations and Outrageous Bias

Gay culture even today is extremely protective of older man – teenage boy relationships. Forums for gay teenage boys are full of comments from the adults running the site saying, “We know a lot of you are in relationships with older men, and that’s just fine. Don’t worry. We won’t turn your boyfriend in.”

Part of the long-term gay agenda has been to lower the age of consent precisely for this reason – because so many gay men love those teenage boys. That is what is insidious about their devious Gay Agenda. Adult man – teenage boy relationships and sex go on all the time in the gay community. No one cares, and no one turns them in.

This is one more type of SJW hypocrisy. SJW’s hate straight men and are on a jihad against male heterosexual sexuality. This jihad is led by feminism. If you are a heterosexual adult man, and you say that 17 year old girls turn you on (all heterosexual men are maximally aroused by 17 year old girls in the lab), every SJW for miles around will bash you accusing you of being a pedophile and demanding you be arrested.

They will even call the police on you claiming you are a pedophile and try to convince the police to raid your home or investigate you. Apparently dozens of people have called the police on me to try to get me arrested for “pedophilia” because I write that it is normal for adult men to be turned on by teenage girls. Nothing came of it, but it is still scary.

The people doing this are feminists and “femiservatives.” Femiservatives are conservatives who are to all intents and purposes radical feminists in the way that they persecute and prosecute normal male heterosexual behavior. They are actually more dangerous than feminists because there are so many of them.

However, if you bring up gay men and teenage boys to these same feminists and SJW’s? Crickets! Silence. At the very least. That’s if they do not come right out and support it, which I am not sure of. All I know is they never mention it even one time.

100% of the “pedophiles” that SJW’s are hollering about are adult heterosexual men having consensual sex with 13-17 yr old teenage girls.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Law, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Civil War in the Democratic Party

Tulio: I hope this isn’t a disappointment. They called Reagan “the Teflon president” but Trump is Teflon coated with axle grease. I’m desperate to see the Trump admin taken down but this guy has more fucking lives than a cat. The Republican base has gone batshit insane and will defend him to the death.

I’m not sure I believe in the devil, but if one does exist, I’m convinced Trump has made a Faustian pact.

Traditional Republicans willing to challenge Trump risk the ire of the base and being primaried by Bannon-sponsored fascist. The sad thing is even if Trump is gone tomorrow, we’re still left with his base. 80% of Republican voters approve of the president…80%!!!! My worry is that now that the Bannonite strategy worked, the next GOP candidate may be another Trumpian, but perhaps one with more acumen and deft and an ability to do with damage without constantly tripping over his feet.

Crazy times.

Robert, what do you think the Democratic strategy should be going forward? Should the Democrats run hard left in an attempt to energize the base but possibly alienate moderates and frustrated swing voters? Or should they find another Obama type centrist candidate that will appeal to mainstream liberals but also to some heartland swing voters in key states? Just like the GOP, it seems the left is at war with itself and are separating into the Obama/Clinton camp and the Sanders/Warren camp. Where do you stand with regards to the direction we should take from here?

The unique thing about Obama is that he was so broadly appealing. At least at during the first election anyway, he unified both the progressive wing and moderate wings as well as got some moderate swing voters(some of which went for Trump). I see Kamala Harris as possibly being a figure that could unite both wings of the left the way Obama did. I’m not sure how well she would do with heartland swing voters though.

All-out Civil War in the Democratic Party

Yes, I am deep into this war myself. Your average liberal Democrat is a pretty lousy person politically speaking. They aren’t even very liberal! They suck as far as I am concerned. I actually hate most of them. They’re crap.

The Daily Kos is the base of the Democratic Party, and they just gave me a lifetime ban. They are tone deaf and completely brainwashed. I tried discussing the Alt Left with them, but it was like talking to a wall. They kept to their lines about “Alt Left was invented by evil Republicans to smear the Left.” They also talked about how “Alt Left was invented by Hillaryites to smear the Sanders wing of the party.” These are the two “party lines” in the Democratic Party, and Kossacks are not allowed to think outside of their scripted brainwashed lines, so they never do. The brainwash of the base of the Democratic Party is profound and extreme.

However, if you get outside of that bubble and go over to Nation of Change and Alternet, there are some very interesting things going on on the Left. But these people are typically so disgusted with the Democratic Party that they are not part of the party base. They typically say that they hate both parties and won’t vote, but they often vote Democrat anyway. The real Left of the US does not have much of a presence in the Democratic Party,  despite the lies of the Democrats. Yes, there are some of them, but they are not the majority and their presence in the party, even at the base, is rather small.

Most of the base are what might be called liberal Democrats, and they are largely split into Hillaryites and Sandersites. There is a large group of DNC Centrists in the Hillary wing. These people are supporters of Bill Clinton, Obama and later Hillary. However, there has been a shakeup in the DNC, and the DNC organization itself is now in a state of virtual civil war. So far the Hillaryites seem to be winning but not by much. The DNC is now close to 50-50 Sandersites and Hillaryites, with a probable lean towards the Centrists. A Centrist named Perez won the race for the DNC Chair, but his co-chair, Keith Ellison, a Black Muslim from Minnesota, is a Sandersite.

The civil war in the party is extreme. Kos is in a state of all out civil war. Mods have to keep wading into threads to keep the Sandersites and the Hillaryites from murdering each other. The hate is severe and palpable. The Sanders wing hates the Hillary wing, while and the Hillary wing is more resentful than hateful towards the Sanders wing.

The Hillaryites blame the Sandersites for Hillary’s loss in the last election, but that’s not true. They also say that Sanders is not a Democrat, which is true, so they see him as basically a traitor.

The Centrists calling the left wing of the party Alt Left was a clumsy smear to make the Party Left look like leftwing Alt Right types. The Left was also called racist, sexist, fascist, etc. Sanders supporters were called brocialists and accused of being misogynistic. This is an extreme bum rap. None of it is true, but the Hillary wing are SJW’s who hallucinate sexism and racism under every bed they see. Now I think these terms are grossly abused, but I will always defend nonsexists and nonracists against such charges. You cannot possibly make a case of Sandersites being sexist and racist.

For a long time, Sanders was anti-Identity Politics, and he has long been been an Economic Reductionist who has wanted to tone down a lot of the Cultural Left Freakshow. I guess that makes him racist and sexist or something. At any rate, Sanders caved very badly to the SJW’s early on, went full SJW himself and stayed that way for the rest of the campaign.

The Sandersites say that the party has been losing because it has been running too many Centrists, and the Centrists say that anyone running to the Left is doomed to lose, and the party has to go more towards the Center if it wants to win.

 

I believe that the Party Left has a point. It seems when we run these Centrists against conservatives, we lose. These Centrists usually run as, “Hey, vote for me! I’m kind of a conservative too! Just not as crazy as this guy! But I’m no liberal, I’ll tell you that!”

I have no idea exactly what happens, but it seems like the party base stays home in disgust at the Centrist who just insulted them taking their votes for granted. The conservatives say, “He’s still a liberal. He’s just pretending to be conservative. I’d never vote for him anyway” and go ahead and vote for the real conservative.

The moderates look at the race and say, “Hmmm, a fake conservative and a real conservative, what a choice! I think I will pick the real conservative then!”

What Is To Be Done?

Bottom line, I would say we just need to win. If we have to elect these disgusting Centrists to win, so be it. A Hillary Administration and a Hillaryite Democratic Congress would be horrible in many ways, but it would be so much better than a Republican Congress and Trump that there’s no comparison.

People on the Left like me always feel like we are being asked to choose between two shit sandwiches, a Republican one and a Democratic one. The Republican shit sandwich smells so bad you can’t even be in the same room with it. Sure, the Democratic one is gourmet sandwich with the finest ingredients, but at the end of the day it is still a damned shit sandwich no matter how much they fancy it up.

Kamala Harris is not as leftwing as you think. She is not exactly a Sandersite, and she has sucked up to Wall Street terribly and taken so much money from them.

The whole system is sickening, and it makes me want to vomit. I really don’t know what to do. Maybe just say the Hell with all of it and open another beer.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Government, Left, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

That’s What We Get for Electing a Nigger

There has been much talk about why the Democrats have lost so many seats all across the land. There are a variety of reasons for it, but the main reason is right up there in that ugly title of the post. We Democrats had the temerity and nerve to elect a Black man to  President of the US. Can you imagine that? We actually elected a Black man! How outrageous.

The rest of the country looked at the  Democrats in disgust and said, “I can’t believe you Democrats just elected a nigger President of the US! Just for that, I am voting Republican at the federal, state and local level! The nerve of you Democrats – electing a nigger! You thought you could do that and we would just sit here taking it sitting down – I don’t think so!”

There really is no other explanation for the Democrats’ loss of over 1,000 political positions countrywide since the election of Obama.

Part of the losses can be explained by increased voter fraud and rapidly declining democracy in the US, but even without those problems, we still would have lost seats due to real changes in opinion since 2008.

Fraud and the War on Democracy

I am not sure exactly why we lost all those seats but part of it has to do with the death of democracy in America.

The whole country is gerrymandered to Hell, and this right there has led to huge Republican gains. Once Republicans get into a state government, they start gerrymandering the state like maniacs.

The vote-stealing by computerized election machines that started in 2000 has continued and increased every year. They don’t just steal Presidencies. There is good evidence that they are stealing Senate seats as well and they stole at least three last year, one each in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and probably Missouri. The last election with Ossoff in Georgia was almost certainly stolen, so they are stealing House seats too. Republicans are doubling down on the election machines by refusing to remove the ones that are most easily hacked.

They have also passed a number of laws making vote recounts after elections difficult or even impossible. You saw how all of the 2016 recounts were shut down by Republican state governments and courts.

In addition, the Republican Supreme Court outrageously overturned the Voting Rights Act in one of the most racist decisions since Plessy v Ferguson. As a result of this wildly racist decision, Republicans all over the land have formulated all sorts of new election laws and rules that have the end effect of making it harder for Black and Brown minorities to vote.

In addition, in several elections this year, Democrats who were voted into office were actually removed from office by state legislatures in a move so profoundly anti-Democratic it is frightening.

The attacks on democracy across the land by Republicans are vicious and ugly. They are some of the worst we have seen since 1964 before which Blacks could hardly even vote in the US.

Given all of these wildly anti-democratic actions, how anyone can say with a straight face that we live in a democracy anymore, I have no idea. The whole idea that this is some kind of a democratic country is some sort of a sick joke.

Actual Moves towards Conservatism in the Population

Nevertheless, polls do show a huge swing towards the Republican Party since 2008 when Obama was elected. As Obama was a mushy Centrist and most of us on the Left think he is just a Republican, it can hardly be because Obama was too liberal.

I assume that the Democratic Party was punished at all levels for the crime of electing a Black President. Basically, “This is what we Democrats get for electing a nigger.” It’s Johnson’s White House comments in 1965 after the Civil Rights Act all over again: “We will lose the South for the next generation.” Just like in 1964, we Democrats are being punished horribly for doing the right thing. We are being made to fall on our swords for the crime of supporting Black people.

The fact that Democrats were crushed all over the land after we elected a Democratic Black President to me shows just how profoundly racist this country still is. And it looks like the Republican Party is becoming the de facto party of resentful White racism, mostly anti-Black racism but to a lesser extent anti-Hispanic racism too.

30 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Discrimination, Government, Hispanics, Law, Local, Midwest, Northeast, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Whites, Wisconsin

Strife/Creation Versus Peace/Stasis

You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

– Orson Welles, The Third Man.

It sounds terrible ,but it is true. All creation stems from destruction, all birth from death, all renewal from degradation.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, but it helps.

Nature knows no extinction. Nature knows only transformation.

– Werner von Braun

So in a sense there is no death. Energy cannot be destroyed. It can only be transformed into some new form of energy. Hence, the energy structures of live things decay, break down and disintegrate, but they do not disappear. Instead they are simply transformed or recreated, Phoenix-like, into rebirthed forms of new living energy. Old forms create new forms and vice versa.

It sounds cruel, but all of the best theories of creation show that it stems from destruction. The neocons even subscribed to the theory of creative destruction albeit in a a cynical cover for their reactionary Zionism, imperialism and drive for US world hegemony.

After all, how can we create something new? First we must get rid of something old. We swap out the old, retire it, round file it, resign it to the trash heap, or at best consign it to the footnotes and the archives of history. In its place rises creation from the wreckage of the old forms.

We destroy to create. We create to destroy.

I have long felt that the Jews did better in the Diaspora, though conditions were not always optimal. The glorious creativity and genius that sprung from the Jews was incubated, I always felt, in the hothouse of Diasporan strife.

Strife creates energy and action, restless action. Creativity is restless action, a stir-crazy mind with cabin fever working in frenzy to escape from or change some shut-in unpleasantness.

Creativity is nervous energy.

In one of my graduate classes, we discussed anxiety a bit. I suggested to the professor that a bit of anxiety was a good thing. He thought a bit and concurred. A bit of anxiety stirs us to change an unpleasantness or discomfort that we experience. If we are always stoned-happy with everything, we will never change a thing in our lives. Positive change occurs in our lives due to dissatisfaction with something in our present condition.

The always-satisfied are fat and lazy. Stasis sets in, and soon we are glued to our couch, bong in hand. In culture, economics and many other things, this correlates with stagnation. If you’re not busy growing, you’re busy dying.

Why does anything new get created at all? Dissatisfaction, restless anxiety, a feeling that the present is not ok and needs to be bettered. Why do political movements get formed? Restless action. What is the impetus behind nearly all art of all types? Restless action, the notion that things need to be stirred up a bit. Even capitalist economics is grounded in restless action and of course creative destruction.

In strife we grow. Hardship builds character. Human growth occurs as we learn to tolerate and overcome new problems and anxieties that life throws at us a mile a minute. We bear with the new pains and even terrors and horrors, after a bit extinction occurs, and the things that once upset us and drove us crazy no longer bother us. This process is called adaptation, and in its method, it is downright Darwinian. Think about it. Yes, life is an IQ test, but Life is also a Darwinian fitness test. How can it not be?

Through the forge of strife arises bright and shining change, hardened by flames, tempered by heat, ready to weather the storms of a new day.

2 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Imperialism, Jews, Neoconservatism, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, The Jewish Question, Zionism

Clearing up a Lot of Nonsense about Antifa, the Alt Right and the First Amendment

This Drexel University professor has been removed from his post due to an onslaught of threats, including many death threats, that have been issued against him. Furthermore and appallingly, the university has launched an investigation into the “appropriateness” of Ciccriarello-Maher’s comments.

The Intercept, a liberal magazine associated with the Democratic Party, has a new article out bashing this professor. This article is starting to remind me of why I can’t stand liberals, especially liberal Democrats. They’re horrible. I’m not a liberal. I’m a radical. I’m a Leftist. I’m Hard Left! We don’t like liberals!

It says that this professor opposes free speech, and indeed he does.

George Ciccariello-Maher, a Drexel University associate professor of politics and global studies, is no fan of free speech.

He uses his Twitter account to rail against the American Civil Liberties Union and defenders of speech rights even for the most noxious of speakers. He has called for other individuals to be fired from their jobs for offensive speech. And he has blocked critics on Twitter — such as this reporter — who say his approach goes too far. (The blocking, in fact, is mutual.)

Ciccariello-Maher is explicit. “We don’t have to stand up for the free speech of eugenicists, racists, and bigots to speak and certainly not the privilege to have access to a platform on campus to spout their kind of hatred,” he said about his campaign to stop Charles Murray from speaking at a nearby campus, during a conversation on free speech on the It’s Going Down Podcast in May.

Fair enough. But this argument is flowing around a completely false view of the Constitution. Sadly the free speech nuts and radical libertarians have no understanding of what the First Amendment even says.

Now first of all, I am a free speech nut myself, and I am also a Ultra-radical Social Libertarian. Get the cops out of our lives! Cops butt out! Go catch the rapists and murderers and leave the rest of us alone!

I am also an almost complete free speech absolutist, although I am not opposed to blocking some speech, especially some forms of pornography.

The thing is, all of these arguments claiming that Antifa or SJW’s don’t believe in the First Amendment are flat out wrong. Antifa and the SJW’s do not have to abide by the First  Amendment! You know why? The First Amendment doesn’t apply to them!

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech only in the sense that the government may not infringe on freedom of speech. That is the government cannot shut down speech it does not like or imprison people for saying things that the government doesn’t like. The First Amendment doesn’t even apply to all the rest of us! We are free to try to shut down any speech we don’t like anytime we want to! We are not in violation of the First Amendment or even anti-First Amendment because the First doesn’t even apply to us in the first place! Now, if we start arguing that the state itself should ban certain expressions of speech or imprison those saying things we do not like, yes, we are now anti-First Amendment.

Really the Antifa are simply expressing their own freedom of speech. They see the people they are attacking as fascists, and their attitude is “no platform for fascists” – in other words, they are going to try to shut down fascist speech anywhere it rears its head. Yes, the Rightists may attempt to speak as the state gives them the right to do, but the Antifa or anyone else can use their freedom of speech to try to shout down the Rightists and use their freedom of assembly to try to shut down the Rightists’ speech in the first place and keep it from happening.

 

11 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Discrimination, Fascism, Government, Higher Education, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Politics, US Politics

Just Got a Lifetime Ban from Daily Kos

Daily Kos is Ground Zero for the Base of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party’s Base is more leftwing than the party itself in the same way that the Republican Base is more rightwing than the party itself. Party Bases tend to be like that. The Base of the Democratic Party would best be called the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Now granted, there are some decent people on there. There are actually a fair number of Marxists and socialists hanging out in the Democratic Party Base.  After all, they have nowhere else to go. But this is a quite small percentage of the Base.

I have been banned for life from Daily Kos, and honestly it is a blessing because I absolutely despise most Democratic Party liberal types. The problem with them is that there’s nothing liberal about them. In any sane system, they would be something like what used to be called a Liberal Republican. They just flat out suck!

Their foreign policy is horrific. Almost all liberal Democrats are ((neocon)) fanatics. The whole left wing of the Democratic Party is completely overrun with a ((certain type of people)). As usual, they destroy that wing of the party as a result. They love Israel! The Democratic Party can’t get enough of wonderful Israel. Wonderful Israel is the greatest country on Earth.

Almost 100% of them support the war against the Syrian people we are waging with our Al Qaeda and ISIS allies. They hate Russia! They love the Ukrainian Nazis! Yeah, I know, makes no sense. They love Israel and they also love Al Qaeda, ISIS and real actual Nazis in the Ukraine. But that’s the exact geopolitics of (((certain people))) in the US, and as (((these people))) control this wing of the party, (((their))) values become everyone’s values. The love NATO! They hate North Korea, and some of them want to attack North Korea! They love US imperialism! They love the Pentagon! They love the CIA! They love the FBI!

Everyone on Kos loved this maniac named “Mad Dog” Maddis, the new general heading  up the Pentagon under Trump. Personally, I think he’s psycho, and he’s just another War Pig. Actually he’s worse than your ordinary War Pig. He’s a particularly belligerent type of militarist War Pig. A very frightening man.

And of course that whole wing of the party has been taken over by some time now by the most insane of the SJW’s.

They love free trade agreements! I would say 85% of Kossacks love the TPP, all because their hero Hitlery was pushing it. Kossacks suck! They love globalization!

They are all for Open Borders and Amnesty! As a matter of fact, I believe it has been a bannable offense on there for some time now to oppose illegal immigration.

I will say though that there are now some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist types on there. There are a few who support Syria and even some who support Russia. These might be 20% of Kossacks. However, Israel has become such a divisive hot button issue that I believe all discussion of the Israel-Palestinian Question has been banned. It’s nice to see that the Israel-Palestine Question has become incendiary at all in the Democratic Base though. Things are slowly changing.

There was actually a huge Bernie Sanders movement on Daily Kos, and there was a near civil war between Killary and Sanders supporters on there. Mods were continually having to wade in and sort out wild shouting matches and near virtual fistfights on the site. I did enjoy seeing the emergence of a Bernie wing. The one redeeming feature of the Base right now is this Bernie wing. Hope springs eternal!

On most economic type issues, Kossacks are generally very good. Of course they’re correct that this current crop of Republicans is worse than cancer. I agree. In fact, these Kossacks are the closest thing to “my people” anywhere on the Web. Which is partly why the ban was so painful.

OK, now for the ban story.

A Kossack wrote a typical article on there about one of the many false flags the (((US))) and Al Qaeda have been staging in Syria. This one was one of the many fake chemical weapons false flags. Unbelievably, there have been ~40-50 chemical weapons false flag attacks in Syria so far. The (((US government))) helped to propagandize every single one of them, and we were apparently directly involved in others.

I know that the DIA was directly involved in the famous Fake Sarin Gas Attack in Ghouta in the Damascus suburbs a few years ago. As has been the case in a number of these attacks, not only did Assad not shoot any Sarin or any other chemical weapons that day, even more bizarrely than that is the fact there was no Sarin of chemical weapons attack by anyone, Syria or the rebels, in Ghouta that day. The Fake Sarin Attack was like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and all sorts of staged false flag bullshit the US engages in.

This was an attack that, incredibly, never even happened! We are talking about an event that never even occurred! Isn’t that incredible? The recent “Sarin” attack in Khan Sheikoun was similar. Once again, not only did Assad not shoot Sarin or any other chemical weapons (he has none to shoot), but the rebels didn’t either. Once again we are talking about an attack that never even happened. What happened instead, as in Ghouta, was a fake staged phony attack which was meant to portray the real one.

Anyway, this (((good goy))) on ((Kos)) was going on about the evil Assad, how he launches chemical weapons on his people and how we need to send our close allies ISIS and Al Qaeda in to finish him off. The usual Zionist jerkoff on (((Kos))). The place is swarming with Zionists. They are practically crawling all of the walls and even up on the ceiling of the place.

So I posted a comment where I said something like:

“What’s the name of your hometown? Tel Aviv?”

Basically questioning his loyalty to America and suggesting that he was guilty of dual loyalty.

Well, the other (((Kossacks))) absolutely flipped out and called in some (((moderators))). I was immediately labeled a Republican Trump-supporting troll. The (((commenters))) were beside themselves about my “outrageous, bizarre and appallingly anti-Semitic remark.” On the contrary, I was quite proud of that remark. Hey, if you are running interference for Israel, we have a right to check you out to make sure you do not have dual loyalty as so many of those types do.

So now I have a lifetime ban at ((Daily Kos)) for “anti-Semitism.”

Fuck ((Daily Kos)). Fuck the ((Democratic Party)). Fuck ((liberal Democrats)).

11 Comments

Filed under Anti-Zionism, Asia, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Illegal, Immigration, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Middle East, NE Asia, Neoconservatism, North Korea, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, Syria, Traitors, Ukraine, US Politics, War, Zionism