Serves him right. Too bad they could not have deported his beast of a wife too.
Category Archives: Politics
Poland Talks Alt Left! Polish Left Political Journal Discusses the Alt Left movement with a Focus on My and Rabbit’s Writing
RACIAL REALISM, WHICH LEFT CENTRIST IN CULTURAL MATTERS
Columnist “Respublica Nowa”.
Social Philosophy and Innovation.
March 13, 2017
Two marginal racist bloggers from the US received Laurka in the the pages of a leftwing magazine.
Beautifully we differ on the left. Each of the left-wing circles reaches a different audience and offers a slightly different overview of the situation. So let’s rise above not very transparent for outsiders divisions, often rooted in long-standing conflicts personnel, and track the full range of left-wing press – from the liberal center-left to the environment very radical. Niezgoda is natural, and sometimes creative ferment. Sometimes, however, there is disappointment over a hard move to the agenda.
Niezgoda is natural, and sometimes creative ferment. Sometimes, however, there is disappointment over a hard move to the agenda.
It got off to an interesting start:
Homegrown Leftists Criticize the Vistula Backwater for Failing to See the Latest Leftwing Trends from the Homeland of the World’s Creative Class
begins an article about the “Alt Left” written by Dr. Hab. Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz which appeared in New Citizen, a Polish leftwing social justice magazine. I regard foreign influences as inevitable and often useful, so naturally I was interested in this new leftwing movement outside the mainstream which has so far escaped my attention.
After today often encountered failure characteristics “Hipster-Left”, focused on easy wojenkach culture, the author writes about the new collective actor on the political scene, “The Alt Right – a rebirth of the “Old Hard Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in a new postmodern form. A sort of return to the roots. And the Alt Right managed to overcome the Mainstream Left on its own home turf: to win the support or the workers by emphasizing economics and de-emphasizing cultural issues. Think a somewhat obsolete Thomas Frank.
A flashing red light at this point heralds a warning. Did Donald Trump really gain the support of part of the White working class through the efforts of the teenage racist trolls under the leadership of Richard Spencer – the elegant (at least when not performing a Seig Heil), erudite, and informal leader of the Alt Right?
You are probably thinking of the Centrist Democrats so disliked by Tomasiewicz. It seems however that the notion that the anti-elitist mood of working class Trump voters (many of whom supported Obama in the past) was powered by the notions of the Alt Right leader Spencer is not only factually questionable but also overly bleak in that it elides the appeal of Trump to a section of the electorate steeped in US nationalism. Or perhaps this is just a problem of the Old Left?
Some believe that the challenge posed by the Alt Right requires a symmetrical response: the creation of an alternative to the Mainstream Left emphasizing the forgotten foundations of Leftism, such as the primacy of economics over culture, the relationship of the base to the superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that ‘existence shapes consciousness.’
Next there is a quote from a manifesto from “Alternative Left” writer Robert Lindsay proclaiming,
We will be leftwing on economic matters […] but rather Centrist in the sphere of culture.
Tomasiewicz later cites another vague point in Lindsay’s manifesto of the Alternative Left. This vision paints a picture of the Social Democratic movement distanced from the alleged excesses of Cultural Left, materialistic in the old style, although “small and diverse” – which, although it should not be imitated in the dark (we as Poles have common sense), nevertheless deserves our at least with fingers crossed.
So what’s wrong with this picture? More than you’d expect. The author refers to two online sources for information about the Alt Left, and clicking on either of them reveals some rather disturbing content. The Altleft.com site notes at the top of the page that it is The Left Wing of the Alt Right. Nothing dziwnegi therefore that it is enough time to go through the lengthy scraps to find the few real gems. In the text quoted by Tomasiewicz, we find this passage:
Though I disagree with him on some ideological points…It just so happens that I support Richard Spencer and repeatedly defended him when some oversensitive (and often sanctimonious) factions or some prominent individuals of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to sacrifice him to improve the image of the movement.
In another text by the author of the site (who goes by the pseudonym “Rabbit”) in response to an appeal to downplay the racial aspect of the Alternative Left brand, he said:
The Alt Left always been about race realism and gender realism. This is the whole fucking nail on the head!
What is race realism? It’s the familiar old and frightening idea that believes in biological differences between “races” of people, eg. in terms of IQ, which it stipulates as very important for races to gain social or political significance. AltLeft.com openly promotes White Nationalism, and at the same time is quite honest, which clearly shows in the title of one of his posts talking about the “unreality” of nonracist “race realism”. The post notes the hypocrisy of the supposedly nonracist race realists and asks a rhetorical question:
“What’s wrong with hatred anyway?”
What of the second author of the Alternative Left manifesto commented on by Tomasiewicz? Robert Lindsay is a prolific blogger who refers to himself as a “liberal race realist” (the title of his previous ideological project), who rejects Political Correctness and “Cultural Marxism” and in their stead proposes “positive White identity” and masculinity for men (to fight Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism).
Once again though – it is not difficult to see where Lindsay is really coming from. Although in the manifesto quoted by Tomasiewicz, Lindsay rejects “racist fascism”, it begins with an attack on the Black Lives Matter movement and ridicules people who talk about White privilege or have an “obsession about structural racism.”
According to Lindsay, to belong to Alt Left, one should accept “racial realism”, which is the three pillars of Alt Left ideology – the other two are leftwing views on economics, to which Lindsay moreover dedicates little space, and a special form of moral libertinism who boils down to formally supporting the basic rights of minorities combined with a gut hatred against the movements that are fighting for those very rights.
Lindsay seems to be less directly hateful – and more eccentric – than Rabbit, but his journalism nevertheless includes discussions about the abominations of gay sexual practices, alleged reasons why women cannot lead Western civilization, and complaints about aggressive and obnoxious “Jewy Jews” who are themselves responsible for anti-Semitism.
As for the Alt Left, this is all we need to know about it right here. Tomasiewicz refers only to Lindsay and the author of a blog about the “Left Wing of Alt Right” because that’s all there is to the “Alternative Left.” Otherwise, the concept still appears occasionally as a rhetorical device in journalism, primarily as an insult. So the entirety of this new and noteworthy movement is a small group of readers of two marginal blogs that are attempting to enrich the standard White Nationalism of the AltRight with an aversion to neoliberalism and a promotion of anti-feminist libertarianism (the latter being merely a rejecting the traditionally conservative views of women).
LEFT PRIEST JOHN
The detailed reasons why this leftwing website published a fictitious Laurka for a couple of some marginal racists in the chronicle New Citizen are not something that should concern readers. Suffice to say that it is difficult to believe in the sincerity of the author, who was after all the one who first discovered the quoted texts of these bloggers. Why did he go out of his way to ferret out these marginal bloggers? Nevertheless, I do not think however that one could accuse the editor-in-chief of tolerance for “race realism,” nor is the readership enthusiastic about this concept.
The case recalls to me deeper concerns regularly buzzing discussing some Polish Left intellectuals dislike for the “Left of manners.” Often it is not so much about the same demands as to their alleged incompatibility of the conservative expectations of the people, of the people, by which after all had left in this whole walk. These charges are often simply unfair – when Manifa passed under the banner of radical równościowymi also in the economic sphere, this did not prevent duplication of repeated years of lies about the concentration of the whole feminist movement solely on the alleged “obyczajówce.”
For this often based on fantasies – Maciej Gdula in Political Critique accurately dismantling the idea of conservatism of the people, shared by anti-elitist liberals as well as a current anti-elitist Left. A plea to leave the Left only about the workers and to reject helping different minorities seems particularly unfair when he turns attention to the development in recent years of leftwing movements and characters (like Total in Poland or Bernie Sanders in the US), fully and harmoniously integrating “cultural issues” and “economics”.
The spectacular defeat as a positive reception of the text of the “Alternative Left” brings to light another problem. This article published in the New Citizen is the modern equivalent of the medieval legend about the state ruled by Father John, a Christian enclave which was kept somewhere in the distant Orient.
This is reflected in anecdotes written by various intellectuals, otherwise as different as Remigiusz Okraska, Stephen Twardoch and David Wildstein, that the notion of the good old people who do not care about newfangled oddities is every year moving further from reality.
The text Tomasiewicz, in which the role of Father John played the companion Richard Spencer, stands out as an apology for some particularly nasty and in the Polish context completely unacceptable notions (perhaps even ONR does not admit openly to the biological racism). We have only to barely scrape the surface of almost any “morally Centrist” manifesto’s concern for ordinary people to see the usual hatred and disgust for the selected disadvantaged groups – sometimes consciously, often probably not. In this situation, to put on a mask of folk naiveté seems to be at best frivolous and at worst insincere and wicked, which did not approve of even calling yet to openly present their views of Rabbit of AltLeft.com.
This poster on the Republican Women thread quoted below was banned, as I do not allow pro-Republicans to post on this site under any circumstances ever, but his comment is instructive.
Almost every single person I have ever met who is an SJW/PC/Cultural Left hater is pro-Republican/Trumpster/The Right. Even with those on the “Left,” this is a problem. They seem to be rather neutral about the threat of the Right, and they end up defending the Right a lot. That is because for the SJW-haters on the Left, the #1 enemy is the SJW’s.
Usually this means that they hate Democratic Party, not to mention anything further Left. It follows that they dislike the entire anti-Trumpster movement because they see it as being led by those evil SJW’s. There is also a lot of normalizing and equivocating going on by saying that the Democrats are just as bad or worse than Republicans. Almost all of the SJW-haters on the Alt Left are either openly supporting Drumpf, are rather neutral about him or are rather muted in their condemnation of him.
That is because in our lunatic culture, if you hate SJW’s, then that means you are on the Right. So lots of SJW-haters are drifting over to the Right because they have been told that that is what they must be considering how they think. That they can still be on the Left and be SJW-haters never occurs to them. And even on the Alt Left where they ought to know better, we see this same more or less Trumpster phenomenon. Because, you know, Trump is the biggest SJW-hater of them all. The Alt Left is so full of Trumpsters that the whole movement is just about a Trumpster Fire on its very own. Support/equivocating about Trump and the Right is destroying the Alt Left.
The truth is this:
- The SJW’s themselves are creating or at least inflaming millions of Republicans, rightwingers and Trumpsters.
- The SJW-haters, who think they are attacking the thing that is driving everyone to the Right, are themselves creating or inflaming millions of Republicans, rightwingers and Trumpsters.
If you support them, you create Trumpsters.
If you hate them, you create Trumpsters.
A bit of a Catch-22 here, would you not say?
The solution is to neither support nor hate the SJW’s. The solution instead is to ignore the SJW’s as much as possible as you ignore a child throwing a tantrum. You throw the SJW’s in their room and try to ignore their screams as much as possible, as all responsible parents do to immature children.
Personally, the SJW’s are my comrades, but I think they have gone insane. But those are my people because I am a man of the Left. People on the Alt Left need to decide if they are on the Left or on the Right. If you are an Alt Leftie who is a Trumpster or even equivocates about them, you’re not on the Left as far as I am concerned. Leftwingers don’t get to support the Right. They don’t even get to equivocate or go neutral on the Right. If you are on the Left, the Right and especially our class enemies the rich, will always be the #1 enemy far beyond any absurd or silly SJW’s spouting weird and nonsensical things.
In life you get to choose your enemies. It is said you should choose wisely. Indeed. I concur and I’ve been around six decades. Bashing SJW’s is a clear case of picking the wrong enemy. SJW’s are screaming little bratty children who need a timeout in their room with the door locked so they can get their tantrum out. The Right and Trump are a grizzly bear in your living room about ready to eat you and your family. And you guys say the bratty child is the enemy while you ignore the brown bear about ready to tear you apart.
Do these SJW-haters realize that the Right kills? That capitalism kills? That the ultimate expression of pure capitalism taken to its logical conclusion, the Trump Administration, is going to kill lots and lots of people if their policies go down? Aren’t you upset about that?
How many people do SJW’s kill? Name one. You jump up and down about Antifa who beat up fascists who deserve it, but how many people did these Antifa kill? Sure, they hurt a few people. A few fascists!
You don’t think Trump and the Republicans have already hurt some people? They’ve hurt way more than Antifas have, and their victims were far more innocent. Trump and his rightwing allies around the world have not just hurt but have out and out killed millions of people. Capitalism, particularly the warp speed Trump capitalism, kills millions of people every year, mostly of hunger and attendant disease, mostly in South Asia. The last figure I read was 14 million/year. I doubt if it’s gone down.
So let’s do the body count:
The Right (neoliberal capitalism): 14 million/yr.
You SJW-haters sure have some messed up priorities.
At least she probably knows how many biological genders there are. The number of crazy, angry, stupid Conservatives is minuscule compared to the amount of crazy, angry, stupid Liberals. Liberals so hypocritical, idiotic, sensitive, and mad at life that it’s almost funny. People like the lady in the picture are very few and far apart, especially when compared to the thousands of SJW snowflakes running around yelling their insane opinions at anyone around them.
Also if you are basing your choice of women off of politics, as you seem to be above, you should undoubtedly stick with Republican women… that is unless you have a fetish for beached whales with excessive hair dye, no common sense, and a complete lack of general direction in life.
Thankfully for those who have common sense and want America to get better, the snowflakes won’t have any children to pass their insanity on to. The women will flip out if a guy wants to date them (which is an unlikely scenario in the first place due to their appearance and personality) and she will probably scream rape. As for the male snowflakes… they are mostly in their twenties, still unemployed, and are still waiting for their balls to drop. In conclusion, I think we are safe from the worry of the SJW fruitcakes reproducing and further polluting everything with their lack of decency and reason.
What’s up with Banjo Barbie here? Get a load of this stupid inbred skank. So did she go to school? Did illeagals ruin her school? Is that why she can’t spell?
Why do so many Trump supporters seem like they’re mentally retarded?
Calling the SJW Cultural Left Freakshow “regressive” is absolutely senseless. Originally it meant Leftists who supported reaction such as Political Islam. Political Islam or Islam in general is backwards, conservative if not reactionary, and a throwback to an older era that progressives have moved far beyond in the West. Full-throated Left support for reactionary Islam is indeed regressive.
But the Cultural Left Freakshow is anything but regressive. Really it is progressivism run amok.
Radical gay rights is regressive because it harkens back to the golden era of gay rights in the 1800’s when gays had far more rights than they even do now, right?
Radical feminism is regressive because back in the old days when my Mom was growing up, most women were ultra-radical man-hating dykes who pushed far beyond equal rights, correct?
Anti-racism is regressive because it recalls the the 1700’s when Blacks and Indians ruled society and the White man was a downtrodden minority, no?
Transsexual rights is regressive because back in the Ancien Regime in France, 1/200 men and women were transsexuals, there was a transsexual on every block, and French society cheered for genderbenders and called for gender to be abolished, n’est-ce pas?
The Regressive Left is a preposterous and idiotic slur that the Alt Left has made up for the SJW Cultural Left. It makes sense only in that the Cultural Left voices full support for radical Islam. Otherwise it utterly irrational.
The Cultural Left in general isn’t regressive at all. It’s not even reactionary, conservative or even rightwing. It’s not even Centrist, and it gave up liberalism long ago. No, the Cultural Left is nuts because this is an example of leftwing politics going completely off the deep end. Regressive means backwards, reactionary, conservative, primitive, a throwback to an older, ignorant era before modern progress and progressive politics. The Cultural Left is the opposite of regressive.
We just call them that because it sounds insulting, and it is. But it’s also a lie. I don’t see why the Alt Left should stoop to lying and sliming the opposition with sleazy and false slurs like all the rest of the dirty politics out there. We are beyond that; we are too good for that. We can do better. Let’s do it.
Get rid of the slogan “Regressive Left” once and for all. Resign it to the dustbin of recent history.
I guess Chile has their version of the mighty keyboard warrior like the US. No shortage of white shit for brains running around say they’re going get rid of all the Jews and blacks.. then you have a fair number of blacks running around saying they’re going to get rid of their white oppressors.. etc. Totally delusional twats. Maybe rightists are a serious problem in Chile but I don’t consider YouTube comments a proper gauge of sentiment and support.
I have been engaged off and on in deep study of this region since 1989. 28 years.
You don’t understand Chile. You don’t understand Latin America.
Really the entire rightwing down there is exactly like this. The rich, elite Whites’ basic attitude in almost every country down there is “All Communists must be killed.” And Communist means anyone even slightly left of center. A huge % of the population in Chile is still pro-Pinochet, and this is precisely how they think.
The Left stages marches and protests all the time, often is support of Allende. Rightists, of whom there are many supporters still meet them and there is wild street fighting. Rightists then stage marches often in support of Pinochet. The Left shows up and there is wild street fighting.
Did some searches.. looks like the bigger demonstrations were over education and state (or lack of it) support. Seem to follow the US model – most of the protests are peaceful but then you have “the hooded ones” raising a ruckus. I couldn’t find anything that indicated there were large counter protests by rightists – not saying that didn’t happen but I just couldn’t find them If you have a link or links I’ll take a look.
Ok, well I think I may have read this some time ago. I do remember reading it, but it could have been a while back. It could well have been years ago, or a decade or more ago. But at one time in recent history, this is how it was.
Perhaps the Left vs. Right riots have quieted down in recent years, but that’s the way it was not long ago.
Protests in Chile have historically been far more riotous and violent than demos in the US. There’s not really any comparison. Anyway, violent riots on the US Left are a relatively new phenomenon. Trump is a corrupt, vicious, evil ultraright dictator ruling in a typical Latin American model. All of the Latin American Right is exactly like Donald Trump. That’s why the Left is so violent down there. Trump has succeeded in finally bringing Latin American ultraright fascism to America. So it follows that we are following the Latin American model in that the Left has grown militant, and Left demos now often turn riotous and violent just as they do in Latin America.
This sort of thing is so predictable that you can write near mathematical laws of political science predicting it. A nation can only go so far to the extreme right and it can only become unequal to a certain level. Once it passes that level, it has crossed some sort of Rubicon and now in most any nation you automatically get a militant, riotous and violent Left. It’s as close to a law as the sort you can get in mathematics and physics.
In Chile, the Indians are treated horribly and engage in continuous demonstrations which usually turn into riots.
I was following Latin American politics a lot on the Net a few years back, and most demos in Chile seemed to turn into the typical Latin American demonstration -> riot progression. Most demos in Latin America turn riotous from my observation, at least in Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and even Mexico. The conditions are so insanely unequal down there that any working class demo quickly turns into a riot.
Violence, riots, coups, extremes of Left and Right politics, lack of democracy and extreme instability are typical of the entire region and now we are importing precisely this model to the US.
I am leaving out Argentina, but the Argentine Right was recently calling for a military coup against Kirchner.
In Paraguay, a legislative coup threw out the leftwinger.
A legislative coup just threw out Rouseff, the left president of Brazil.
There have been many coup and quasi-coup attempts in Venezuela. You could well say there has been a continuous coup since 2002.
In Colombia, yes, left demos usually turn violent or riotous. On the other hand, if you are on the Left down there, you can be murdered by the government at any time.
There was a military coup in Honduras, and now anyone on the Left can be killed at any time. Death squads have killed over 1,000 people.
A US coup removed Aristide in Haiti. The new US installed government quickly murdered 3,000 people.
Why the commenter is trying to polish this Latin American turd is beyond me.
I am getting creamed over and over by Queera (Quora) moderation. It’s all on questions about homosexuality. I guess gay men are reporting my answers all over the place.
The following post violated a Queera rule called Be Nice, Be Respectful. I looked up the rule and tried to figure out how I violated it. Apparently I said things that were not 100% positive about homosexuals. You can’t do that on Queera. Any and all criticism of fags on Queera gets you a violation and a threat to get thrown off their website.
I wrote the below post when I was trying very hard to be nice to gay men.
I made the following statements which were “homophobic.”
- All straight men are homophobes in the sense that they are averse to male homosexual behavior. This aversion is so extreme it has to be seen to be believed. FACT.
- Gay men are not much liked in straight society. FACT.
- Straight male society only works when 100% of the men are straight or at least fake it. FACT.
- Any hint of bisexuality among straight men is a turd in the punchbowl that destroys any gathering of straight men. FACT.
- I have met a number of straight men who told me they would rather eat a bullet than have gay sex. FACT.
- The main reason straight men are uncomfortable around gay men is because they won’t stop trying to have sex with us. FACT.
- Even if they don’t try to have sex with you, having another men look at you like you’re dinner is upsetting to most straight men. FACT.
- An incredible % of homophobia among straight men is caused by gay men incessantly hitting on us. We are not just being bigoted. We are sick and tired of them trying to have sex with us! FACT.
- After being hit on by gay men about 10,000 times, I decided I want a divorce from them. I just don’t want to be around them anymore. This is bad how?
- I just want gay men to stay a bit away from me. This is bad how?
- Gay men and straight men cannot be friends. FACT.
- Why do gay men even want to be friends with straight men anyway? GOOD QUESTION.
Gay politics is really starting to make me angry. I am about ready to join on the homophobic bandwagon and oppose gays. Give me one reason why I shouldn’t.
Here is the evil homophobic post.
All, I mean all straight men are homophobes in the sense of having a mild to extreme aversion to the thought of male homosexual behavior. They seriously hate it, and the aversion is so extreme that it has to be seen to believed.
Gay men are not much liked in straight society, but they generally have their own crowd to hang out in, so it’s not a problem.
Straight male society only works when the men are all 100% straight or at least act like it. Any hint of bisexuality among straight-leaning men is the turd in the punchbowl that ruins any party or gathering.
Straight male society only works because most of the men have agreed not to: a) kill each other b) beat each other up and c) fuck each other. Even preserving a and b is a tall order in straight male society, and tremendous energy is expended to simply keep straight males from murdering each other. Even fights are bad because such fighting can get serious and even deadly very quickly. Straight female society seems to be far more aggressive than straight male society, as verbal and psychological aggression is poorly controlled, while there are extreme controls on this in straight male culture.
Most straight men make exceptions for biologically gay men and support full rights for them. Now these same straight men have told me that if given a choice between death and gay sex, they would gladly eat a bullet. That’s how extreme the aversion is.
Probably the main reason a lot of straight men are also uncomfortable around gay men is because they won’t stop trying to have sex with us. Even when they do not do that, you typically get a strong sexual vibe off most any gay man that says he is sexually attracted to. The vibe is the same you get from a woman who is turned on by you. Having another men right in your face obviously thinking you’re a T-bone steak for dinner tonight is disconcerting for most straight men. On the other hand, gay men cannot be blamed for feeling any more than straight men can be blamed for feeling sexual around women.
But an unbelievable amount of (well-earned) homophobia is created by gay men coming after straight men sexually. It is probably happened to me over 1,000 times. About the 1,001′th time, I decided I had had it and wanted to avoid gay men from now on.
I don’t hate them. I just want them to stay a bit away from me.
I am on the mailing list for gay political causes which I participate in enthusiastically, as I strongly support gay rights. I do have a couple of gay men I am friends with, but this is on a professional or intellectual level. They keep their sexual feelings for me out it, and we get along like peaches and cream.
My general feeling is that gay men and straight men cannot be close friends. The few stories that I am familiar with were catastrophic, and my own experience has been mostly a total disaster. I don’t see how it works. Perhaps in the future we can become so relaxed and open that gay-straight male friendships are possible, but we are ages away from that.
Why do gay men even want to be friends with us anyway? They can hang around their gay and bi male friends and their straight women fag hag friends, which are legion. Most every straight women has a few fantastic gay male friends. They’ve got our women and their own kind for friendships, so what the Hell they want to hang around us for? I don’t get it.
I have some folks in the field of Linguistics who are apparently my out and out enemies. Why they want to play like this is not known. I don’t want to fight with them. I’m not sure I want to be friends with them either since they are such total pricks and anonymous cowards, but jerks are better than enemies. They started it.
Here they profess to take this paper apart, but they do no such thing which is as usual for these pitiful jokers. Even the title is false. I’m not a STEMLord you boneheads. I’m terrible at physical sciences. I got my degree in the same hokey social science that they did.
I am simply a social sciences dissident like Steven Pinker. Many of our fields are mired in all sorts of unproven or out and out false politically correct nonsense which passes as dogma simply because it is a political proper belief. This is because they believe what they want to believe. On the other hand, they get social science nihilistic on other things and insist that this or that is not proven, endlessly moving goalposts so it can never be proven. Or they state that many things are unprovable and unmeasurable. I can’t even begin to list the number of things in this field that are apparently unmeasurable. It’s hard to imagine that there is any question in science that is unprovable or unmeasurable. It just sounds like more goalposts-moving.
Historical Linguistics is one of the more brutal subfields in Linguistics, probably because you can hardly prove much of anything.
It involves looking at languages and arranging them into families and then arranging them in the families in a proper fashion. So an essential aspect of Historical Linguistics is the discovery of new language families and the elaboration of existing ones. The former is pretty much over in this field because this silly discipline has decided that there will be no more large or old language families discovered. Nonsensically, this has resulted in an utterly idiotic proliferation of insipid “isolates” which are languages that cannot be proven to be related to others. But actually, long-rangers have already stacked most all of the world’s languages into decent families and in their view there are no isolates left.
In addition, there are all sorts of idiotic small families with a couple to separate members, and said family is not related to anything else. I guess nothing’s related to anything then! The bizarre fact is that this preposterous fake science takes great pride in this silly nihilism. Obviously every language is related to every other language ultimately because surely language arose only once in mankind’s history.
Nevertheless, Linguistics insists that this obvious fact is not proven, so I guess it’s not even a fact. Instead the dead solid truth is that somehow there scores of isolates and silly small language families that have no relations. Surely that is a false conclusion. The only way it could be true is if language arose scores of times all the way down to a few thousand years ago.
There were scores of bands of humans who had no language whatsoever except grunts and sign language, and they all independently developed language scores of times in the last ~50,000 years. It was an incredible case of parallel development, the most amazing the world has ever seen. Because this is the only way that Linguistics’ crazy conclusion could be true. So Linguistics is now stating essentially is that this is what happened – language being independently developed all over the world down to the last several thousand years. Dumb, huh?
Historical Linguistics also involves the reconstruction of dead languages or earlier aspects of existing languages. The dead languages have left no record and are often 7-10,000 years old. The earlier phases of existing tongues also have often left no record.
So it is unprovable guesswork guessing at what ancient languages looked like, with no real way to prove if anyone is right or wrong because the languages no longer exist.
On top of that, the field has become mired in stick in the mud conservatism such that I doubt if any new ancient language families are going to proven in my lifetime. The conservatives keep moving the goalposts, and no evidence is ever good enough. Linguistics is ecstatic about this because endlessly moving the goalposts so you can never prove anything anymore means that Linguistics is now really groovy and scientific and this cures their physics envy.
Really it’s just another fake science in the social sciences, although a lot of the more basic work is indeed factually and empirically based. So the field encompasses a lot of excellent empirical based work. In addition, there are a number of preposterous leftwing shibboleths that everyone in the field has agreed are settled truth. Linguistics has adopted these silly ideas because they are leftwing and PC, and the field is at the heart of SJW Central Command. Mixed in with these silly politically based agreed upon facts (for which there is typically no evidence whatsoever) there is this prideful stubbornness and ultra-conservative attitude in Historical Linguistics because the way to be all sciency is to deny forever more any new language families. Because that cures our physics envy and makes us feel all sciency.
Actually many of the long-rangers have gathered excellent evidence for their work, all of which is rejected. For instance, Altaic now has a 1,000 page etymological dictionary of all things and there are many reconstructed forms and a great deal of commonality in basic morphology, core vocabulary, pronouns and language structure. We also have quite a few actual paradigms which are impossible to derive in unrelated languages. The long-rangers churn out many papers and here is where the real science is. They are doing dramatic work and proving a lot of new things.
On the other hand, the fake science folks on the other end chant over and over in Gregorian fashion, “You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it.” No matter what evidence is assembled and presented, the response is always this autistic nihilism of “You didn’t prove it.” The arguments of many of the deniers have been destroyed already. The deniers now take the preposterous position that there has been mass borrowing of personal pronouns in Asia and the Americas in particular. Such mass borrowing of personal pronouns would have had to have taken place on a scale almost never seen on Earth. In fact, personal pronouns are borrowed only very rarely. In Altaic we have pronoun paradigms cascading down through person and number, all lined up like the Marines in perfect formation.
This is waved away with “You didn’t prove it.” In fact, the standard line in Linguistics as voiced with complete seriousness by one of the top linguists in the field is that the stunning pronoun paradigms in Altaic were all borrowings. That statement is insipid on its face. It doesn’t even qualify as theory because it’s not even possible. They might as well say, “Bats flew out my butt” as there was mass borrowing of entire pronoun paradigms.
In addition, Altaic has a huge amount of core vocabulary in common including forms that match in say Turkish and say Evenki. Apparently the Evenki and the Ottomans borrowed from each other. How? Bats flew out my butt.
Typically and for many decades now, all of these cognates in core vocabulary are said to be borrowings. There are specialists who spent most of their careers ferreting out these “borrowings” most of which are actual cognates. These men frittered away a lot of their careers on a theory that is obviously false. For the only way Altaic could not be true is if this vast amount of borrowing actually took place. The level of borrowing of core vocabulary postulated for Altaic is on a scale that is far beyond the language borrowing we have seen anywhere else on Earth. In other words, it didn’t happen. Bats flew out my butt. Once again it fails even the hypothesis stage because hypotheses are supposed to be plausible and anti-Altaic fails that those grounds alone.
Being a Historical Linguistics conservative is the hip and cool thing to be in Linguistics, and the peer pressure in the field is worse than an eighth grade playground. If you take a liberal position that says that some ancient language family like Altaic exists, the peer pressure on you as a fraud, idiot, kook, crank and loser is unbelievable. I am amazed that there are any liberals left promoting daring new ideas on ancient language families.
Boy, the Republicans sure are friends of the working class, aren’t they? Not to mention the middle classes. Honestly, the rich all across time and space have always governed in the interests of the rich and the upper middle class (top 20% income earners), and they almost always screw the middle class, the working class, the low income people, the poor, the old, the disabled and the kids in the worst possible way.
The old, the disabled and the kids are often screwed hardest of all because they can’t fight back and are largely helpless. I remember under Republican governments here in California, year after year, one thing they always cut was state aid to the blind. It was like a ritual, every year: cut aid to the blind people. This is typical Republicanism. They always attacked those blind people because they are the weakest of all, they have no voice or power and they can’t fight back. Screw the weak, the helpless and the powerless. The more weak, helpless and powerless they are, the harder you screw them over.
My heart always sank every time I read that. “There they go again, cutting aid to the blind,” I would think. And after reading that, my faith in the decency of humanity would usually plunge lower than whale shit, and that’s at the bottom of the ocean. Screw the blind. How evil can you get?
If you make less than $75,000/yr and you vote Republican, you need to have your head examined. That’s the top 20% of income earners in the US. Repeated studies have shown the Republican policies only benefit the top 20% of income earners.
Republican policies are always class war policies. They always involve mass transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% to the top 20%. As a matter of fact, this seems to be true of neoliberalism as a whole. During the “lost decades” of Latin American neoliberalism, repeated studies showed that Latin American neoliberalism was only benefiting the top 20% of the population. The entire 80% of the population was getting reamed hard. The project was simply a mass wealth transfer project from the bottom 80% to the top 20%.
Why do you think Latin America went Left in the past 15 years? Because the policies of the Right had been ruining the people for 20 years. The Right failed them, so they put in the Left. How is that hard to understand?
And studies of neoliberalism globewide showed that it always resulted in dramatic loss of health care and education for the population. It was calculated a while back that neoliberalism had already killed millions of people, mostly by depriving them of health care.
It was fairly similar in Chile, the neoliberal poster child that the rightwingers like to wave around.
Chile is one of the most unequal countries on Earth. The rich and the poor don’t just hate each other, they literally want to murder each other. This is what always happens, without fail, as income inequality rises to high levels. It’s so reliable a finding that we could nearly call is a scientific law. You can see why Marxism claimed to be a science with actual scientific laws.
This glorious Chilean Miracle under Pinochet and successors resulted in mass transfer of wealth from the bottom 67% to the top 33%. The Chilean working class was ruined. I have been told that their wonderful social security privatization is not working out very well at all.
Medical care is to this day largely unavailable. I had thought they had some sort of socialized medicine, but a Chilean counseling client of mine, a regular working class guy, told me that Chilean medical care was largely fee for service, and you had to pay in cash at the time of your appointment. He said it was largely unaffordable, at least for him. I asked him what he did about this, and he told you try not to get sick, and even when you are sick, you don’t go to the doctor. He said he almost never went to the doctor. As you can see, Chilean health care is working out just fine.
This man had a very cynical and defeatist attitude towards the government. He said no matter who’s in power in the country, they only help the rich and they screw everyone else. His faith in the state was about zero.
GDP is largely a junk figure if all the money is going to the rich and the upper middle class. If the money never trickles down, what good is economic growth? It’s worthless.
I could go on and on about this stupid country. Chile’s no poster child or success story for much of anything if you ask me. To me, it’s a story of failure, not success, and it’s a nightmare state, not a showcase country.