Category Archives: Conservatism

Alt Left: It’s a Lie That Feminists Turned Feminist Because They Are Fat and Ugly and Couldn’t Get a Man

Jason Y: Feminists are always saying that – but also it’s true that alt-right types are saying the same!

They’re saying feminists are fat, tomboys etc. who cannot get men and who are bitter about it !!

That’s not really true. A lot of feminists nowadays are goodlooking young women. Most of the feminists I have known were attractive women or at least not fuglies.

It is true that a lot of feminists are manhaters and feminist sentiment and identification in general are heavily correlated with anger, resentment towards and contempt for men, jealousy and a desire for paybacks. It is also correlated with a resentful chauvinist attitude that females are superior and we men are literally inferior. Many feminists are female chauvinist pigs.

On the other hand the worst manhaters, for the record, have seemed to have gone through a lot of bad experiences with we men which drove them to this sorry state. But I know many wildly heterosexual women who adore men who have been through many  terrible experiences with men also. But it’s quite clear that bad experiences with men have driven a lot of feminists to man hatred. I doubt if there are any serious manhating feminists who have had relatively little bad experience with men.

I doubt if fat, ugly women really turn feminist, but they might.

I’ve seen a continent full of fat, ugly women in my life, and I never noticed any tendency to be a feminist. In fact, most of them were not feminists. Fat and or homely women are usually working class women, and women like that could care less about feminism and the rest of the SJW retardation.

A lot of feminists have deliberately made themselves ugly, though. They often make themselves fat, cut off all their hair, start wearing boys or men’s clothes, and start acting tough, hard and masculine, all in a deliberate effort to be as ugly as possible, which they succeed at quite well because many of the worst manhating feminists are quite hideous, possibly of their own doing. Feminists hate makeup, dressing up, heels, dresses, and any feminine clothing. Many refuse to wear pink. I’ve seen a lot of feminists cheering when women shave their heads bald. Quite a few were tomboys when they were girls.

Feminist retards say “beauty is oppression,” so these silly women respond to that by trying to look as ugly as possible. That’s really stupid.

5 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Political Science, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex, Women

Alt Left: Some of My Positions on Conservative and Liberal US Foreign Policy

Is it ok for me to believe in Leftist economics yet still agree on many points with the neocons when it comes (rhyme, hah) to foreign policy?

Conservative opinions I like:

  • Occupation of Palestine.
  • bombing of Yemen.
  • Invasion of Iraq.
  • Invasion of Lybia.
  • Anti Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment.
  • Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now).
  • France´s colonization of Algeria.

Now these things aren’t perfect, but optimal compared to the other alternatives.

  • Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, I’d prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European Commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-White subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!.
    https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/more-than-half-of-ukrainians-want-to-join-eu-poll-shows-32735

The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:

-Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin america).

-Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama s negotiations about the nuke thing.).

-Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to EU membership of Ukraine,

Sure, the fact you like my economics is amazing enough to keep you around.

My positions:

Conservative opinions I like:

– Occupation of Palestine. NOPE

– Bombing of Yemen. NOPE

– Invasion of Iraq. NOPE

– Invasion of Libya. NOPE

– Anti-Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment. NO on Hezbollah because I love Hezbollah. I don’t like Hamas too much, but the Hamas-haters are worse, and anyway they are pragmatic for Islamists.

– Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now). NOPE. Rails?

– France´s colonization of Algeria. NOPE.

Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, id prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-white subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!

NOPE. Not sure if I want Ukraine in the EU. Anyway, I hate the EU. Mostly I don’t want them in NATO, Hell no. Also I do not want more North American Terrorist Organization troops in Eastern Europe. Not sure about cutting the safety net either, especially racially like that.

See? Look above. Conservatives are always wrong on foreign policy. Period.

The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:

– Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin America). OF COURSE.

– Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama’s negotiations about the nuke thing.). SURE.

– Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to membership of Ukraine.

ABSOLUTELY, I support the annexation of Crimea and I support the Donbass fighters. I wish Russia would just annex the Donbass. It would solve so many problems. Not sure about Ukraine and EU membershit. Anyway, I hate the EU too. EU is the economic arm of the North American Terrorist Organization.

See? Liberal foreign policy is always right.

7 Comments

Filed under Africa, Algeria, Asia, Colonialism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Intoxicants, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Law, Left, Liberalism, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Obama, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Settler-Colonialism, Turkey, Ukraine, US Politics, War, Yemen

Alt Left: SJW Politics Is All Based on Black and White Thinking

Thomas K.: What my comment was getting at is that, at least among the younger generations, there is a feeling that Feminism is an un-serious ideology and that those promoting it are a little bit “out there.” At least, that’s what I gather from observation of internet-discourse.

But perhaps I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on the Left. On the right, Feminism has come to be seen as a bad joke. The Left obviously sees that differently. The reason is clear:

The Left holds Egalitarianism as a sacred value, and Feminism claims (falsely, but that’s not really the issue) to be an Egalitarian ideology; therefore, Leftists find it much harder to dispose of it than Rightists do.

Am I correct?

These very young kids nowadays, Generation Z, are the craziest and most feministed, SJW’d kooks you have ever met.

Of course I support equal rights for women, even to this day. I have my whole life. I support equal legal rights for women, and I don’t have a high opinion of outright misogyny or chauvinism.

I actually support a whole long list of feminist ideas and goals. But I stop at some point, and therefore I am evil scum who must be killed, I am not a feminist, and I am a diabolical misogynist with deep, extreme hatred for women. This last is a new one to me, perhaps it is unconscious?

If you don’t go along with 100% of their crazy project (and different feminist trends have different party lines, and each will bash you for not going along with theirs), follow the party line in entirety with no exceptions, and support the democratic centralism, etc. then you are not a feminist, and instead you are one of the Satanic MRA demons who needs to be lynched on the spot.

So I am not opposed to the the cause of equal rights for women, but feminists went way beyond that a long time ago, and every year they get crazier and crazier and stand making more and more extreme demands. At some point, some of us on the Left got off the Crazy Train. I got off the Cultural Left crazy train in the mid 1990’s.

The problem is that the Right always attacks equal rights and egalitarianism as a concept whenever they attack SJWism because conservatives on the basis of their very philosophy oppose equal rights. So the feminists and the rest of the SJW loons are all idiots, but on the other hand, their critics on the Right are reactionary scumbags. If you disagree with whatever Kook Camp, Left or Right, they shove you out of the camp and throw you over in the other one. You have to be with either one group of kooks and idiots or the other one. There’s no ground in between to stand on.

SJW’s black and white everything.

Let’s face it. Misogyny is probably scalar like almost everything else in life. There’s probably a Misogyny Scale of 0-100, with the ultimate male radfem cucked fag at 0 and Ted Bundy at 100. Few men will be complete misogynists, and few men will be completely free of angry or dismissive feelings towards women. But for every feminist, all males must be 0’s, no exception. And if you’re not a 0, you’re a 100. You’re Ted Fucking Bundy, a walking rapist killer waiting to strike.

There’s no grey area with feminists. There never has been. It’s been nothing but “you’re with us or against us” from the very start. You can’t be a little bit of a feminist. You’re either whole hog or you need to go to prison.

All of the rest of the SJW bullshit is exactly the same. Modern anti-racism is complete crap. I mean they got away from John Brown, CLR James, MLK and even late Malcolm a long time ago. They might even be beyond the Panthers for Chrissake. They’re not even attacking real racism anymore because there’s not much left, so they are looking around for things to get mad about. Every year they ban more words, thoughts and behaviors you’ve been saying, thinking and doing your whole life, every year they make a number of new humiliating demands of Whites which we must grovel abjectly at the feet of the smiling Blacks to agree to.

And we don’t go along,  we are exactly the same as David Duke. Honestly racism is probably scalar too, say 0-100, with few at the low end and not a whole lot a the high end. Non-Whites are just as racist as Whites, and in fact, they are typically more so. It’s been proven that Blacks are actually more racist than White people.

So by the standards of modern lunatic anti-racism, most people are somewhere from 1-99 on the scale. I mean their rules are so crazy now. You say, “Boy, Black people sure commit a lot of crime,” and you immediately go to 100 on the damn scale, you get fired from your job, you career is ruined, and your life is shot. All for one sentence that is 100% true and even proven by science. But no matter. The truth is racist. The truth is sexist. The truth is homophobic and transphobic and all the other crazy prejudices they can dream up. No modern anti-racists believe in grey areas.

It’s all “you’re with us or you’re against us,” and as a White, you get treated like the enemy anyway even if you go completely submissive and cave in to all the increasingly nutty demands of your Black masters. If you veer off the party line, sorry, you’re Richard Spencer, and you need a punch in the face.

We on the anti-SJW Left say, “I signed up for liberation and equal rights, not insanity.” But you can’t say that anymore. If you say that, you are an evil bigot scum who needs to be hung.

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Lunatics, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-Woman, Scum, Sex, Sociology, Whites

Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.

He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.

So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.

Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!

None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!

But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.

Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.

As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.

But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.

Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.

But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?

The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.

Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.

Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!

This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.

So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.

So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?

Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Science, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Sorry for the Hiatus

I hardly wrote a thing all August. I am still trying to figure out why I did that. Every time I thought about writing, I would think “Meh” and decide not to. I kept asking myself why I didn’t want to write, but my mind wouldn’t tell me. It was very hot all month. Was that it? Was I depressed? No idea. Maybe I was just blocked. Most writers, especially the better ones, get blocked sometimes. For some it’s a big burden. But lousy writers never get blocked. They scribble away. The better the writer is, the more blocked they get. Does it make sense?

So what did I do? As you have probably figured out by now, I am not an ideologue. In fact, I am probably an anti-ideologue. If there’s an ideology out there, I usually want to tear through it like a rampaging elephant and smash every party line I see. That’s probably because I am scientific-minded, and most political ideologies are irrational in some way or another.

Also they are always changing. In order to be a liberal nowadays you have to jump through all sorts of crazy hoops that you didn’t have to back in the 70’s and 80’s. And if you don’t get on board with all of the tested and approved continuous changes in liberal ideology, it turns out…you’re not a liberal! You’re not a Leftist! You’re not on the Left at all. You’re a conservative, a reactionary, a Republican, a fascist, a Nazi. I get called all those things constantly, always by my fellow lefties. Except I am none of those things. I am actually a Leftist. A really, really weird Leftist, but a Leftist nevertheless.

It’s not enough to say, “Hey I want to go back and be a 1970’s or 1980’s liberal. I don’t want to get on board the latest liberal crazy train that left the station.” But you can’t do that. To be a 70’s or 80’s liberal nowadays is somehow to be a conservative, reactionary, Republican, fascist or Nazi. Except it isn’t of course.

New Theories

Anyway, one thing I like to do, unlike most human ovines, is expose myself to new political philosophies that I’ve never dipped into before. So I am always looking around for weird new movements to analyze and check out. Lately I have checked out incels, MGTOW’s, Redpillers, and MRA’s. That’s the Manosphere. The MRA’s in particular were very interesting.

I even checked out Men’s Liberation, the completely cucked, pro-feminist, hen-picked, pussy-whipped left wing of the Men’s Movement.

I used to think they were ok, but I only lasted a few days on their board before they threw me out for being a “sexual predator.” Except in my world that’s a compliment. I was also told that I was a rapist and had been one my whole life and that I was only a few steps away from being the guy in the bushes with the ski mask, mace, and knife. Which is odd because I don’t believe I have ever actually really raped a female in my life. I’m talking real rape, not bullshit feminist rape. I mean you look at a feminist or ask her for her number, and you just raped her, you’re Ted Bundy, and she’s calling the police right now.

Anyway, the only sane definition of rape is the one that has always been in place before lunatic feminist definition creep was, as my Mom always sternly warned me (as in “Don’t do this!”), the definition of rape was sex via force or the threat of force. I’ve never done that even once. I would also add drugging a woman like slipping her a roofie. Never done that either, thank God. And on top of that I would add sex with a passed out woman. Jesus Christ, of course I’ve never done that. I’m not a necro! Everything other than that boys, and you’re ready to rock and roll. Go forth and seduce those damsels, my brethren!

Feminist Theory

Anyway, I thought I understood feminism, but I never really did. So I have been on feminist forums (well, those that don’t immediately ban me) for most of the past month, analyzing their theories and worldviews and tossing them around objectively in my mind to see if their theories are valid or not while enduring torrential abuse for the feminists on the sites committing a crime called Being a Man. I wasn’t aware that was in the penal code.

I’ve become especially interested in radical feminism, an actual branch of feminism that I had barely heard of before. So anyway, I’ve been tossing feminist theory around in my head for the past month. It’s actually a kick.

Skirt-chasing in Late Middle Age

What else have I been doing? Why, chasing women of course! Wait. Women and girls. Don’t forget the girls! I mean legal girls, like 18 and 19 year old barely legals, not the jailbaits (JB’s), although I do still talk to JB’s at times. And yes, I still date 18 and 19 year old girls sometimes. It’s almost impossible and I have to move heaven and Earth to do it, but somehow I am able to violate the laws of physics and pull off the impossible. I might add that I am 60 years old. Getting a legal teen at my age is such a ridiculous proposition that it is laughable. I mean, sure, maybe if you’re a movie director, right?

I also date women in their late 20’s and early 30’s, late 40’s, and 50’s right around my age. I recently dated two 59 year old women. None of them are really better than any others. There are strong and weak points of both older, young, very young, middle aged and 30’s women. Each group has different strong and weak points. In fact, older women are actually better than younger women on a number of variables.

I also chat up women in various places on the Net, and a number of them have sent me nudes. Yes, there are places on the Net where you can do this if you know what you are doing and have good Game. Actually, I get women sending me nudes on a regular basis. Most are 20-27, but two were in their 40’s. They live too far away to get with, but dirty pics are always fun, especially if you are a sick, fucked up dirty old man like me.

Not only do I still get barely legal women, but JB’s still try to seduce me. I know it sounds insane. But in the past few months, two JB’s, one 14 and the 16 year old, both approached me and chatted me up for a bit. A 60 year old man. Both propositioned me, the 14 year old subtly and the 16 year old blatantly. And they both offered to send me nudes. Thank God I am strong willed, so I turned them down on all offers, though I must say it was hard to do.

Most people who read that last paragraph will insist that I am lying because such things never happen to men my age. Except they actually do. Well, they happen to me anyway. But carry on if you must. Accuse me of lying. Knock yourself out.

And thank you very much for the compliments, boys (in advance).

Bros before ho’s!

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Jailbait, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Women, Writing

The Success of America’s Longstanding Propaganda War Against the Concept of Socialism

Socialism, the very concept, especially in its social democratic and democratic socialist varieties, is the ho-hum status quo on most of the planet.

The war on the very concept of socialism has probably been worse in the US than anywhere else in the West. It has a 3rd World death squad tinpot dictatorship feel about it. I keep wondering when the rightwing death squads are going to show up in the US. They show up everywhere else in states with a US-style reactionary and Left-hating culture.

The difference between the US war on socialism and the war on socialism waged in various death squad democracies is that the war on socialism has been more successful in the US than anywhere else on Earth other than Colombia, but the Left is armed to the teeth there. The war on socialism was just as bad if not worse due to the death squads and all of the imprisonments, beatings, tortures, murders and genocides all over Latin America and in the Philippines and Indonesia.

These countries differ from the US however in that all those Latin American countries and SE Asian countries have gone Left in recent years.

Even in the Philippines, Duterte calls himself a socialist and had friendly relations with the Maoist NPA  guerrillas when he held office in Mindanao.

In Indonesia, the female elected President recently ran on a socialist ticket.

To the south, Mexico has been officially socialist since the Revolution. The Left in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia, Peru, and Argentina was armed to teeth and fought vicious wars against reactionary regimes. That has to count for something.

In El Salvador, the former Left guerrillas are now running the country.

In Honduras, a leftwinger was recently elected President only to be ousted in a coup sponsored by the CIA and Hillary Clinton.

Nicaragua of course had a successful Leftist revolution, and those revolutionaries have been holding office now there for quite some time.

Haiti elected a Leftist in Jean Bertrande Aristide, only to be ousted by Bush Administration officials via a contra death squad army from the Dominican Republic. Aristide himself was arrested at gunpoint in his mansion by armed Blackwater mercenaries acting under the command of the Pentagon.

A number of the island states in the Caribbean have gone Left in recent years and most were members of the Chavista Bolivarian Movement. Most political parties in the Caribbean have words like Left, Socialist, Workers, Progressive, etc. in their party names regardless of their ideology because any party that wants to get anywhere in the Caribbean has to at least dress  itself up in Left garb.

Grenada had a successful Leftist revolution that was subsequently overthrown on illegal grounds by Reagan.

Venezuela of course has been voting Leftist since 1999 when the Chavistas took power. They have never left.

In Ecuador, a Leftist, Rafael Correa, ruled for many years. Recently a man named Lenin Moreno ran on a Leftist ticket of continuing Correa’s Left reforms, but as soon as he got into office, he immediately shifted gears and went hard Right.

Right-wing parties run as fake Leftists all the time in Latin America because generally rightwingers running on a rightwing agenda cannot get elected down there because most Latin Americans hate rightwingers and don’t want them in power. Hence the Right obtains power by contra wars and fascist mob violence in the streets, waging wars on economies and currencies, judicial, legislative, and military coups, and even open fraud.

The definition of conservatism is aristocratic rule. It is the antithesis of rule by the people or democratic rule.

The definition of liberalism is democratic rule by the people, not the aristocrats.

Not many Latin Americans want to be ruled by aristocrats, so the Right down there has to seize power by extra-democratic means.

The Opposition in Venezuela recently ran on an openly social democratic platform, but most people thought it was fake they would turn Right as soon as they got in.

In Brazil, the Left has been running the country for some time under the PT or Worker’s Party until it was removed by a rightwing legislature in an outrageous legislative coup. They even imprisoned a former president, Lula, on fake corruption charges. A female president was recently elected who was an armed urban guerrilla in the 1960’s.

In Paraguay, a Leftist former priest was elected President, only to be removed in an outrageous legislative coup.

In Chile, not only was Leftist Allende elected in the 70’s, the Left was not only armed  all through Pinochet’s rule and once came close to assassinating him. In recent years, a socialist named Michele Bachelet has won a number of elections.

In Bolivia, Leftist Evo Morales has been in power for a long time.

Uruguay recently elected a Leftist, a former armed urban guerrilla in the 1970’s.

Argentina recently elected two Leftist presidents, the Kirchner, a husband and wife. A rightwiger was recently elected after a rightwing Jewish billionaire named Singer obtained a court judgement against Argentina in a US court. That judgement bankrupted the economy, so you could say that the Right destroyed the economy in order to get elected.

So with the exception of Peru, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Guyanas, all other countries have since gone full Left at one time or another recently. Costa Rica’s already a social democracy, and Peru had an ultra-radical murderous Left for a very long time. Panama’s been reactionary since the CIA murdered Omar Torrijos by sabotaging his helicopter and killing him via a fake copter crash. The Dominican Republic and Jamaica have not gone Left since the 60’s and 70’s.

But the war on socialism has been so much more successful here in the US than even in the above named backwards countries because even the world norm of social democracy was so demonized here in the US that it never even got off the ground.

In some ways, the US is one of the most rightwing countries on Earth at least in terms of political economy.

 

2 Comments

Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Bolivarianism, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Costa Rica, Culture, Democrats, Dominican Republic, Economics, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Liberalism, Maoism, Marxism, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, Uruguay, US Politics, USA, Venezuela

Alt Left: Liberal Feminism: The De Facto Position of Most Women in the West

Most women in the West are de facto liberal feminists or equity feminists, even if they say they are not feminists.

They say that but they are not anti-feminists either because strictly speaking, the anti-feminist position is to roll it all back to the suffragettes if not before. Antifeminists simply do not believe in equal rights for women or don’t believe that the government should mandate them. Many openly state that men are superior and women are inferior.

Almost all modern Western women believe in equal legal rights and equal opportunity for women. This is the “a woman can be anything she wants to be” line. It is in fact a feminist position as compared to the antifeminist one above. Most of these women also do not wish to ban porn, and many of them watch it themselves.

Most support the trans ideology more or less or are dubious but shrug-shoulders accepting of it in a “whatever” fashion. They are definitely not anti-trans.

Many of the ones I know favor some sort of decrim or legalization of prostitution, and some of the ones I have known even worked in the sex industry. A good friend of mine worked as a cam model (stripper). People associate liberal feminism with Third Wave Intersectional Feminism, but actually it long predates that.

Betty Friedan was one of the original libfems. She was even opposed to lesbianism, and she warned about the lure of the “lavender menace” of lesbianism to feminists. In her latest book she sounds even more conservative.

The suffragettes are often thought to be the first libfems.

Before that you can go all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft and A Plea for the Rights of Women 300 years ago. Wollstonecraft was definitely a libfem. Strictly speaking, libfems are not 2nd or 3rd wavers. They are First Wave Feminists!

It is true that a lot of modern libfems have gone over to more or less 3rd wave stuff, but those positions – pro-porn, pro-prostitution and pro-trans – are quite new. All decent humans should support the humanitarian liberation movement called First Wave liberal feminism.

I’m a First Waver myself. Most feminists hate my guts and act like they want to kill me, but I am actually a mild feminist. This shows how insane modern feminism has become that it attacks even feminist men for the crime of not being feminist enough. They also engage in definition creep, so not feminist enough means you aren’t even a feminist at all, as they keep moving the goalposts of the purity tests one must pass to be a feminist every year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Pornography, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics, Women

The Roots of the Modern Conservative Movement, or What Happened in 1992?

Most people date the beginning of the modern conservative or actually reactionary movement. Eisenhower and Nixon were conservatives – the Reaganites+ have been reactionaries or now even fascists. While it is true that Reagan kicked the ball first, it had already been ready for the kicker for a good 15-20 years.

The seeds of Reagan were planted in the Hostage Crisis in 1979 where Democrats came to represent weakness, spinelessness, wimpiness, and lack of masculinity. So Reagan was in part a toxic masculinity backlash.

The movement was truly birthed, as a birth defect, by Goldwater and the Birchers back in the early 60’s, but it never got much off the ground.

It rose again after the two Israeli wars, especially the 67 War, where American Jews, who had been lackadaisical about Israel, suddenly felt that all Jewry was in danger. They’ve been rallying wildly around Israel ever since. The 73 War was even scarier, as Israel was nearly overrun. Many US Jews went rightwing on the military and Israel and turned hard against the counterculture, especially the antiwar movement, as traitors.

In the early to mid 70’s, a large heavily-Jewish group of these newly-minted Jewish conservatives coalesced around Democrat Henry Jackson (the senator from Boeing), one of the worst militarists we have ever had. However, this movement was very small and had little to no power through the 70’s, and most Jews remained liberal as always.

It was in this swamp that the neoconservatives were born and fostered through Reagan’s various anti-Left contra adventures in various countries. Remember General Haig and Jeanne Kirkpatrick? The neocons then grabbed the country after 911 to install their neo-imperial project. Nevertheless, most US Jews remained liberal, and neocons only represent the 20% of Jewish conservatives who vote Republican. But the Bolsheviks proved how powerful a small and determined minority could be.

If you look at the Congress, Congress has been democratic since World War 2 all the way up until the early 90’s. People say Reagan changed everything, but Congress stayed democratic under him. From 1992-2018, a period of ~25 years, Republicans have often been in control of Congress. So the last 25 years have been more reactionary than the previous half-century 1945-1992. They’ve been on a rampage ever since, and it seems like every year they get even more insane and reactionary and move the Overton Window a bit further to the Right to create endless crazy New Normals that aren’t normal at all.

So I am wondering what happened in 1992 that made the country lurch to the Right and stay there ever since? Bill Clinton was elected and the Culture Wars of the 1960’s were reignited, with Hillary and Bill representing the 60’s Left and concurrent Liberation movements, and the conservatives representing the very large portion of the Boomers who hated and rejected the Counterculture. Most people don’t realize that about 50% of Boomers hated the Counterculture and sat it out, seething. War was declared as much on Hillary than on Bill, which leads me to think that the Billary thing was attack on the gains of the feminist movement as reflected by Hillary.

Anyone else have any other theories?

3 Comments

Filed under American, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Fascism, Government, History, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Left, Liberalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, US, US Politics, War

Male Homosexuality Is Compatible with Conservatism and Religious Fundamentalism

Male homosexuality is certainly compatible with fundamentalism.

There is a lot of male homosexuality in Pakistan, but it’s all undercover and hidden. This is especially true in the very fundamentalist western part where the Al Qaeda / fundamentalist types exist.

Of course Afghanistan is one of the gayest countries on Earth in addition to being one of the most reactionary, so homosexuality is compatible with Reaction. Nazism was full of gay men, and Sparta was essentially a reactionary fascist state, while being one of the gayest societies known to man.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Asia, Conservatism, Fascism, Gender Studies, History, Homosexuality, Islam, Man World, National Socialism, Nazism, Pakistan, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Sex, Sociology, South Asia

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

An absolutely essential piece by Ernest Everhard from the Alternative Left website sums up perfectly an Alt Left position on SJWism, Intersectionality or Intersectional Feminism. It’s a bit hard to read, but I understood 90%+ of it, so maybe you can understand a lot of it too. This is us. This is really us. This is an immaculate summary of exactly what the Alternative Left is all about. Please feel free to comment on this: this is a very important topic in this great movement we are trying to build here.

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

Intersectionality is itself a system of power. It upholds the status quo and protects the powerful and privileged.

Recognizing this is the key difference between the alternative left and other current forms of political thought.

A fan of the Alternative Left Facebook page recently posed this question to me:

Have you considered that you might be postmodernist? The actual meaning of the term, not Peterson’s ridiculous conflation and confusion of it. It seems as if a lot of your philosophy relies on the rejections of meta-narratives.

At a glance, this seems an absurd question. Isn’t rejection of postmodernism integral to the alt-left? Doesn’t all that deconstruction and bafflegab distract from the hard and real work of class struggle? Isn’t a return to some semblance of economic realism, if not historical materialism, what we’re all about at the end of the day?

Not so fast. While I don’t think postmodernism is a tenable philosophy long term, it does make some good points. It’s like nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism. They’re nice places to visit, and doing so is a sign of intellectual growth, but you wouldn’t want to live there.

My quarrel with postmodernism is how it tends to be cherry picked by the intersectional left, the feminist theorists in particular. They’re quite good at using deconstruction to pick apart the texts of their opponents, and will exploit other postmodernist concepts such as “the death of the author” – the idea that textual interpretation by authorial intent is flawed – to license their tendency to simply read their own narrative into ideas that threaten them.

They use such notions as science being a western, patriarchal “way of knowing” as a legitimizing excuse to handwave otherwise proven claims of some biological basis in gender differences, for example.

Deconstruction, cognitive framing and other advanced linguistic concepts are devastating ideological weapons against those who are not aware of them. Intersectional theorists get a unique education in these concepts in the academic institutions wherein their views dominate. Institutions that are not cheap to attend and require significant baseline intelligence to be successful in. They’re therefore able to win debates against their less privileged opponents simply through framing and linguistic and cognitive gimmicks of this nature.

Ultimately, however, feminist theory’s apparent embrace of postmodernism is self serving pretense. Notice how their own theories are presented as if they were eternal truths, universally binding on all people under all circumstances. Cultural relativism is fine when it’s used to impose multiculturalism and diversity upon western cultural spaces, but has a funny way of disappearing when similar demands of tolerance are made of feminist theorists in turn.

Fixed and objective meaning of text based on authorial intent is not authoritative, since the author no doubt lives in a network of socially constructed systems of which he is barely aware. But not so the feminist critic.

Her views, and her views alone apparently, somehow transcend the context of the society that gave rise to them, and so are above questions of this nature and constitute an ultimate authority on par with divine revelation. No one is faster to declare epistemic superiority for their own points of view – standpoint theories so called – than college feminists who’ve studied the poststructuralists closer than anyone. If feminist theory is not a metanarrative, you tell me what is.

Who deconstructs feminist theory, one must ask?

Yeah, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.

Herein lies a very central tenet of alternative leftism: that the brands of postmodern critical theory so prevalent on college campuses and that are the underlying ideologies of the SJW’s are actually conservative, not radical. They are in fact themselves systems of power, like the very notions of patriarchy and colonialism they so love to deconstruct.

This is quite naturally a counter intuitive concept when first exposed to it. Feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and so on – Intersectionality serving as a kind of one ring to rule them all and thus a useful term for referring to them collectively – is interpreted either as official party line and not to be questioned, in the case of the mainstream left.

Or else condemned as “Cultural Marxism” and taken at face value as advocacy for an artificial egalitarianism, in the case of the right. Neoreaction comes quite strangely closest to the truth in its denouncing of progressive ideology as “the Cathedral” – a vast Matrix like social construct comparable to the Christian church in the middle ages – the state religion to which everyone must pay homage, hence the term.

The Cathedral: It doesn’t challenge the aristocracy.
It is the aristocracy.

Neoreaction’s flaw, however, lies in the irony of its denunciation of progressivism in those terms. Isn’t a medieval form of social organization exactly what they want? The Church of the middle ages, far from being an institution for egalitarian social leveling, had a long history of supporting the aristocracy and running interference on behalf of the status quo, despite a good portion of what Christ actually taught, which may be where the confusion arises.

So it is with intersectionality. Despite its pretenses, and despite what were likely genuinely radical critiques at one time, current year intersectionality does not challenge privilege. It upholds privilege.

Do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I do not condone racism towards minorities, misogyny and homophobia. The left spearheaded the fight against those things for all the right reasons. And not merely because prejudice undermines working class solidarity, thought that is reason enough. To be left is to value equality, to some degree or another, and fair treatment regardless of what one is by accident of birth. Intersectionality itself was intended to be a manner of looking at how various different forms of oppression reinforce one another. This is not in itself a bad idea.

The problem is that intersectionality has evolved into something does not actually promote real social justice. Its lack of tolerance for dissent made it vulnerable to abuse on part of the unscrupulous, who were thereby attracted to intersectional feminist spaces.

They’ve co-opted social justice movements, and used them as tools to oppress people. It’s like Marxist Leninism 2.0 – a popular movement is appropriated and exploited by an elite vanguard professing to represent the interests of marginalized people, and using that to consolidate their own power. Cultural rather than political power this time, but the underlying mechanisms are quite a bit alike.

It’s also quite different from Marxism in one key aspect, and this is often overlooked by those on the right who equate intersectional ideas with Marxian leftism: intersectionality’s lack of emphasis on political economy. It is not merely that they simply don’t care about or are ignorant of the internal workings of the international economy or the political machines of the G7 nations.

Intersectionalists are rewarded by capital for framing privilege in terms of racial and sexual identity rather than in terms of wealth and political power. These rewards include expansion in academia, access to agenda setting mass media and favorable policy service. Ideological systems that truly threaten the status quo do not enjoy universally favorable media bias, moderator bias on major corporate social media platforms and an exalted status in academic institutions.

The state religion does not advocate for the truly marginalized within the polity.

It’s important that you divest yourself of the notion that intersectionalists truly represent the underclasses, including most women and people of color. They occupy a very different world than that of working single mothers or unemployed minority youths in the ghetto, or on their way to prison.

They occasionally will use real oppressions suffered by women and minorities while making the case for an increase in their own influence, but that is the only reason for which they ever seem to do so. If one takes their standpoint theories at all seriously, the plush halls of the academy and major media outlets are not the places we should be seeing credible voices of the oppressed and marginalized. Those voices are kept quite intentionally silent, because their demands will be for redressment of their economic hardships and lack of political representation.

Women who are turned off of men and family as a result of feminism, and men who are turned off of religion, community and nationalism as a result of anti western critical theory find themselves completely atomized and without an identity. This is central to the alt-right’s critique of modern liberalism and the abolition of borders.

But the real question is: who is the real beneficiary of all this? The far right will tell you that this is “cultural Marxism” and is necessary in order to groom the populace for the embrace of socialism.

That’s not what happened. If you do not believe that, observe how neoliberalism increased apace just as this so called cultural Marxism did. The emergence of political correctness coincided with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. If the idea was for feminism and multiculturalism to precede socialism, they could not have failed more miserably.

Atomized individuals turn to careerism and consumerism to fill the void, and they’re more easily replaced when cheaper cogs for the machine are found. So they’re more obedient and easily used in the workforce and more responsive to consumer trends. When other vectors of identity are removed, do the brands we work for and consume become the way we identify ourselves?

This seems to me to be the triumph of capitalism, and quite in line with the manner in which Marx believed capitalism would progress, abolishing relations based on kinship and reducing all human interaction to commodity exchange, rather than the triumph of Marxism itself that it’s so often described as by reactionaries.

Hard Fact: Social liberalism is the handmaiden of capital, not of revolution. And so capital became socially liberal when national economies became fully saturated and capital had to go global in order to keep up its expansion. The alt-right is hated in the capitalist press because capital must always seek new markets, and it was therefore in capital’s interest to globalize and promote diversity.

Observe one of the methods whereby Intersectionality preserves its hegemony: by seeking to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs. Often with no recourse or due process whatsoever. In what world does leveraging the power of capital over labor so flagrantly and directly constitute anything that could be at all called left wing?

This is what was done to socialists and trade unionists back in the bad old days of blacklisting. This isn’t to say that removal of an offensive or hateful person from a workplace isn’t sometimes appropriate or necessary, but to use the threat of employment loss as a means of enforcing ideological conformity more broadly is something the left should not be supporting. We can question the rationality of workers supporting conservatism all we want. It won’t seem quite so irrational now that this ugly tactic has been normalized.

Another hard fact: Intersectionality relies on the absolute power that capital has over labor and consumers in order to successfully impose its will on the population, as it’s doing in geek culture, for instance. The capacity for populations to resist cultural and moral relativism imposed from above would be greatly increased if cultural and economic as well as political institutions were democratized and under some or another kind of social ownership.

Intersectionalists are a safe and nerfed form of “leftism.” One that attacks white male “neckbeards” and “dudebros” in places like 4chan while leaving the State Department, the military industrial complex and Wall Street lobbyists unscrutinized.

Activists and even radicals who truly want to challenge the status quo find their anger and vigor channeled into safe outlets that do not truly threaten the powers that be. Offensive statements by white male celebrities are made front page news by an intersectionalist movement that’s presented in the headlines as being radical and subversive – the resistance, so called. Offensives launched by the US military on the other side of the world in defense of petrodollar interests are kept more safely out of the public eye.

Intersectionality is a tool used by an educated elite to police the culture of the underclass, and to undermine the solidarity of that underclass by dividing it along racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this done time and again now: with Occupy Wall Street, with Bernie Sander’s campaign for the White House, now with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most leftist spaces on social media are completely overrun by intersectional dominance, even ones that profess to be Marxist or anarchist.

Intersectional activists have a curious way of coming to dominate leftist spaces, and maintain their power through dividing the left against itself and redirecting popular anger towards other segments of the left. Sometimes the target is white male leftists – brocialists, so called. Sometimes it’s white feminism, or TERF’s or straight feminism. Sometimes straight black males are called the white people of black people.

Sometimes cisgender gay males are driven out of LGBT spaces. Some or another activist has run afoul of the intersectionalist overlords and is publicly shamed, like in a Maoist struggle session or the young kids being banished from polygamous fundamentalist communities for the most trivial reasons.

But the real reasons aren’t so trivial: to maintain the power of the leadership over the flock. Ceaseless purity spiraling destroys the cohesiveness of the left. J. Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO could not have done a better job if they tried. Perhaps the FBI still is, and that’s what all this really is.

Like a puritanical religion, intersectionality promotes a guilt based morality that ceaselessly berates its followers for their ideological and lifestyle shortcomings. Theories of inherited privilege based on what people are by accident of birth become a moral burden comparable to original sin. People with a lot of internalized guilt do not take action to challenge their leaders. They punch down, not up.

Nearly any action a person may commit or even a thought they might think can be construed as oppressive in some way or anther. That combined with intersectionality’s taboo on questioning claims of oppression made by its activist leadership – who are above any kind of ethical or moral standards due to their supposed “marginalization” – results in a near cult like atmosphere in intersectional spaces. Not surprisingly, most people want nothing to do with this and thus nothing to do with the left overall. Who does that benefit, in the long run?

As mentioned previously, considerable education is needed to really understand their theories, and the intersectionalists themselves conveniently have a near hegemony within the academy itself. Hence, the relative absence of working class people in these self styled radical movements.

Which in turn makes the whole of the left easy for the right to denounce as “limousine liberals”, “champagne socialists” or the like. No more effective means of turning the working class off of the political left could be contrived. This makes McCarthyism look clumsy and amateurish. People who are rightly put off by intersectionality then defect quite willingly to conservatism as a protest against it. One almost wonders if this wasn’t the intent all along.

The problem is not with education itself, which is perfectly fine and good. But rather with the co-optation of education to serve elite interests. Something that the left was much more willing and able to call out prior to the capture of the humanities and social sciences by intersectionalists.

The ideology of intersectionality itself is constructed to be a closed system of thought, wherein disagreement with it is likened to actual oppressive behavior against a marginalized person. Allegations of racism or sexism – made with the backing of powerful media outlets – against lone individuals without recourse and no due process are effective and currently socially legitimate ways of marginalizing people. It’s a good way of removing someone who’s bringing up facts and ideas that the truly powerful don’t want publicly legitimized.

Far from emboldening the resistance, intersectionality keeps protest culture in line and ensures its continuity as a controlled opposition. One that allows the powers that be to claim that they allow and legitimize dissent – so long as it doesn’t really threaten them. One oligarch or another might get thrown under the bus due to his alleged racism or sexism here and there.

The oligarchy itself is thus made safer, for it submits itself to the appearance that it really is held to scrutiny and made accountable for its abuses. Surely the absurdity of a racist or sexist comment ruining a CEO while his abuse of his workers, defrauding of his shareholders and pollution of the environment as a matter of course going completely unnoticed highlights the absurd nature of intersectionality as a form of radicalism.

With leftism like intersectionality, who needs conservatism? It’s the ultimate metanarrative, and if the postmodernist techniques of deconstruction can be turned against it, that can only be a good thing. An essential thing, as a matter of fact.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Capitalism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Homosexuality, Journalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Military Doctrine, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Pollution, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Religion, Revolution, Sex, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Whites