Category Archives: Radical Feminists

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: “A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program”

From Lord Keynes’ page. This is Lord Keynes’ own proposal for an Alternative Left. He first lists his proposal and then lists Ryan England’s proposal. He critiques Ryan’s proposal somewhat but not too much.

He also discusses yours truly here:

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

As you can see, he doesn’t think that The Left Wing of the Alt Right or Rabbit’s wing (Alt Left White Nationalism), really one of the original wings, should be seen as Alt Left at all. Instead he says it should be on the Alt Right. Rabbit agrees with me that his wing is the left wing of the Alt Right and says that he started out on the Alt Right, and he may just go back there.

LZ is correct that I am pretty hostile to the Cultural Left. I believe he was shocked at how hostile I am to them because he implied that I am even more hostile to them than he is, and he’s a bit of a Conservative Leftist in that regard also. I definitely hate these people and they are my enemies. I didn’t choose this. They decided to make me their enemy. I hate the Cultural Left even more than the Alt Right people mostly because the Alt Right folks pretty much leave me alone and have done so for quite some time now. In fact, it was from comments on The Right Stuff (Spencer’s site) that I first saw people saying, “The Alternative Left is Robert Lindsay.” So the Nazis pretty much came up with this term Alternative Left but they invented it for me not for themselves.

Oh well. They also invented the Volkswagen. Few things are all bad in this world.

Anyway I would like to thank these folks for coming up with this great term Alternative Left and giving me the idea for this movement in the first place. Thanks Nazis!

LK is also correct that I have some controversial views, though I might be interested in knowing what exactly those are. It’s been a given that I am controversial as Hell since I showed up. The motto of the site used to be “If I’m Not Making You Mad, I’m Not Doing My Job.” Just your basic provocateur out to make the world safe for demogogueracy.

And of course he is quite correct that I am not motivated for race hatred or White Supremacy. This is right, or at least this is how I feel. Every time I read White Supremacist stuff, I want to hit the screen because it makes me so angry. How is it that I am the same as me? If I’m one of them, why do I hate them so much?

I don’t like nasty racism too much either, though sometimes those guys can be pretty funny. VNN is a hilarious site, and even Anglin’s site is a barrel of ticks if you can don’t mind Nazis and handle the humor. I even used to like Chimpout and Niggermania not because they were racist (the people writing there are the most horrible people) but once again, they were so damn funny.

I don’t go there anymore because Alpha keeps spanking me and making me feel guilty every time I go there, and I need to obey my other Mom on this site here. God bless you, Alpha. You keep this boy away from some pretty nasty temptations and help to cleanse his soul.

A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program

The Alternative Left Facebook group seems to be growing quickly, and I am very glad to see this.

So I have some suggestions for them to create a coherent political program.

First, the Alt Left needs to get a coherent economic theory. This is extremely important. I urge them to read up on why Classical Marxism is a flawed economic theory here and why Marxism is based on the mystical labor theory of value.

At the same time, practically all other economic schools of thought from neoclassical economics (in all its forms) and Austrian economics are also charlatanry and pseudo-science.

The only real and proper economic science for a capitalist economy is Post-Keynesian economics. The Alt Left should adopt this as its economic theory, quite simply because it *is*the only legitimate economic science for market economies.

There are various subschools of Post-Keynesian economics including Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as can be seen  here.

Post-Keynesianism is a radical development of the theories of John Maynard Keynes but also takes important insights from Classical Economics and the theories of the idiosyncratic Marxian Michał Kalecki.

There are all sorts of other ideas and policies that should be combined with Post Keynesian economics to produce a revitalized, rational, humane, and effective Left for the 21st century, as follows:

Economics

(1) The objectives of economic policy are full employment, high wages, a tendency for real wages to rise with productivity growth, strong aggregate demand, and ideally, a dynamic economy based on manufacturing.

(2) As in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the Alt Left should reject the myth that taxes are required to finance government spending (see the discussions here and here). Governments with their own central banks and fiat currencies are always solvent in their own currency, and there is even a case for limited Overt Monetary Financing (OMF) (or what is commonly called central bank “money printing” to finance some government spending).

(3) A fundamentally important policy to attain full employment is an MMT Job Guarantee. This is a program in which the government will offer employment to anyone ready and willing to work (but unable to find a private sector job) at a socially-acceptable minimum wage to ensure real full employment at all times.

(4) Governments should generally pursue sensible protectionism and industrial policy not only to protect their manufacturing sectors from the disaster of free trade under absolute advantage but as the best strategy to ensure future economic growth and economic independence.

(5) Governments should reject privatization of social services and infrastructure. Instead, these sectors should be nationalized or run as public utilities and maintained by high government investment, e.g., in health care, education, scientific and technological R&D, infrastructure, etc. There is now even a case for limited nationalization of certain key industries as an industrial policy.

(6) Foreign ownership of public assets, infrastructure, key industries and large-scale foreign ownership of real estate should also be strongly rejected, and instead these sectors should be owned by private domestic citizens, and things like infrastructure should be owned by governments.

(7) The banking and financial sector should be subject to severe regulation and prevented from destabilizing the economy given its tendency to create asset bubbles and inflating the level of private debt to catastrophic levels. There is now a case for nationalization of the commercial banking sector. For many nations, there is a case for discretionary capital controls (see here).

(8) The taxation system should be progressive but particularly concerned with taxing parasitic rent seeking and destabilizing speculative activity.

Social and Cultural Issues

(1) The Alt Left should support reasonable and sensible civil and equity,  women’s rights and gay rights, but strongly reject French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJW cults, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology from Identity Politics. The combination of all these ideas has created a toxic wing of the modern Left called the “Regressive Left,” which needs to be totally rejected.

The Alt Left should also reject extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings because this is not supported by science.

(2) The Alt Left should strongly defend free speech and freedom of expression from its enemies on the Right, the Regressive Left, and from religious conservatives.

(3) The Alt Left should support a secular state and separation of church and state but not alienate liberal religious people.

(4) The Alt Left should continue the anti-imperialist tradition of the Left and be largely non-interventionist on foreign policy, but not isolationist.

(5) The Alt Left should oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and religious fundamentalism and promote the assimilation of immigrants in the West.

(6) The Alt Left needs a sane and pragmatic policy on immigration. It needs to reject mass immigration and open borders on economic, social and cultural grounds and support sensible limits on immigration. It also needs to recognize that promoting “diversity” is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself and that multiculturalism has serious problems (see here).

(7) The Alt Left should consider the importance of the nuclear family, promote pro-nuclear family policies and – at the very least – be open to serious and rational discussion of the breakdown of the nuclear family in the Western world and what harm this may have done to our societies but with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

As a further point of interest, there is an interesting post over at the Samizdat blog on the various subgroups of the Alt Left here.

He divides the Alt Left or the people who are receptive to it into these categories (I have added numbers for clarity):

(1) “The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still. Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

(2) “Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics though they are usually not that far Left. Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory. Remember kids, SJW and social liberalism are not the same things. Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

(3) “Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism, and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically-minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

(4) “True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJWs’ lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the Alt-Left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

(5) “Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support. Used as a pejorative by the ‘Lorettas’ of the present day Left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

(6) “Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

(7) “The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left, you’d find leftypol on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol. A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the Alt Left. I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd Positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

https://samizdatchronicles.blogspot.com/2016/09/sub-types-on-alternative-left.html

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

The big-name Gamergate Leftists seem to have a strange tendency to morph into cultural libertarians or even outright Libertarians, and I have noticed the same tendency amongst “True Liberals.” Both Sargon of Akkad and Dave Rubin, though I doubt either are aware of the Alt Left, seem to be morphing into Classical Liberals.

I am placed in the “The New Old Left” category, but the description is not right: I constantly stress the need to understand differences of culture and to reject cultural relativism as Postmodernist irrationalism. I also strongly think the Alt Left should adopt a pragmatic view that mass immigration and open borders are actually provoking a nationalist backlash in many countries. The Left should channel this into a healthy, sensible nationalism, and recognize open borders are wrong on perfectly good economic, social and cultural grounds.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Masculinism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Science, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics

Alt Left Support of Men’s Liberation – the Left Wing of the Men’s Movement

Men’s Liberation was the left wing of the MRA movement that actually came out of the various cultural revolutions of the 1960’s. Warren Farrell was a Men’s Lib type or at least he was before he went crazy. Men’s Libbers and feminists started fighting pretty quickly because the feminists were so insane and also because a lot of Men’s Libbers realized that feminism was a war against men. Men’s Libbers who wanted to go to women’s groups’ meetings and ally with them were banned, as the feminists pushed “women-only fora” and “only a woman can comment on the problems of women.”

In particular, gay men were some of the first to break off from Men’s Liberation. Men’s Lib had a reputation for being a bunch of faggots, but that while there was some truth to this because there were more gay men as a percentage of the movement than there were in society at large, that was not really true, as most Men’s Libbers were straight, although their position on male homosexuality was very stupid. The early feminists attacked gay men a lot (Isn’t that incredible?), accusing them of being the ultimate woman-haters for bailing out on women altogether. At the same time, feminist idiots were cheering on lesbianism like they always have from Day One. So lesbians were ok, but gay men were not. Screw that.

I will say though that gay men were some of the best of the early Men’s Libbers, and even today, gay men play a surprisingly important role in the left wing of the MRA’s such as the Good Men Project. Straight men have to suck up to women to get laid, so these leads to a lot of pedestalization, reality distortion and failing to see the down side of women. Gay men are estranged from women completely, so they can sit back at a distance and judge them fairly. That said, there is a faction of gay men who are very ugly misogynists, and this gay “type” has always been around.

However, most gay men do not hate women at all. They just don’t want to have sex with them. Ever known a straight women who was not some sort of a fag hag? Neither have I. Straight women always love their gay pets.

So you see the feminists have been insane for a long time. Simone Beauvoir was an extreme man-hater, and the genocidal SCUM Manifesto (a classic treatise in the feminist canon) was written in the heat of the 1960’s. The Redstockings out of Boston were one of the first hardline feminist groups. Ellen Willis was a member. They were insane, and this was 1969. Feminism didn’t go nuts, it was crazy from the beginning. That said there are some equity feminists we can ally with, and to the extent that women are still treated unfairly, we will support their causes.

There is not much left of the Men’s Libbers, but there are some leftwing men calling themselves masculisits or even masculinists. Generally, most such men are fairly sane, and most masculists also identify as feminists in a way. These are leftwing MRA’s who are also sympathetic to the problems of women. In other words, these men say that both sexes are oppressed nowadays, and furthermore, both sexes oppress each other. They argue that there are many injustices against men now too that women have turned the tables and predictably turned from oppressed to oppressors by enacting laws that oppress men. Humans can’t seem to do equality. The oppressed never want equality. They only want to turn the tables and lord it over those oppressing them and turn into oppressors themselves. Humans are rather lousy.

Men’s Lib  barely exists anymore if at all, and it should be revived. A lot of progressive men need to get on the ball. The women have turned the tables on us and are now oppressing us with a lot of new “Female Rule” type laws they put in to privilege women and attack us unfairly. They did this because feminism now is mostly just paybacks and revenge. I assume that all leftwing men are not masochists, but sometimes I wonder. If leftwing men are willing to sit back and let women abuse and oppress them, they are beyond hope. It will be hard to rouse these men though because most leftwingen are badly brainwashed by feminism.

17 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Sane Pro-Woman, Scum, Sex

Glaciers Are Sexist

Glaciers, Gender, and Science

A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research

  1. Mark Carey
  2. M Jackson
  3. Alessandro Antonello
  4. Jaclyn Rushing

Mark Carey, Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. Email: carey{at}uoregon.edu

Abstract

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers.

feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology, feminist postcolonial science studies, folk glaciology, glacier impacts, glaciers and society

No, seriously, this is not a joke. See here.

Apparently, according to science, glaciers are sexist. Who knew?

I would say they are also racist. I mean come on, they are lily White! Ever seen a Black glacier? Ever seen a MexicanT glacier? Me either. So glaciers exist in a de facto Jim Crow/apartheid segregated environment in which Black and Mexicant glaciers are excluded from existing via pure glacier racism.

Future strategies to combat this injustice may include busing (busing glaciers from one place to the other via glacier buses to relive glacier-caused inequity, forced integration by the creation of alternate forms of glaciers such as Black glaciers and Mexicant glaciers in order to increase much needed glacier diversity, and affirmative action by promoting more diverse glaciers in the literature which is dominated by boring and oppressive descriptions of “dead White glaciers.”

The Cultural Left has been bordering on self parody for some time now but recently they have gone so full retard that you literally cannot tell the difference between actual Cultural Left stuff and their enemies sarcastic attempts to make fun of them.

4 Comments

Filed under Environmentalism, Geography, Global Warming, Humor, Radical Feminists, Ridiculousness, Scholarship, Science

Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.

I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.

I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.

I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.

It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.

I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.

As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.

Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.

So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.

An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.

An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.

(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.

(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.

Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.

In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”

(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.

(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.

(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.

(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.

(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.

However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.

(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.

(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.

8 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Islam, Law, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Traitors

The Cultural Left’s Main Hangup: Normal Male Heterosexuality

The Cultural Left is pretty weird. Normative male heterosexuality is attacked as pedophilia, rape, sexual harassment and all sorts of insane nonsense.

This is due to the feminist influence influence in the Cultural Left. Modern feminism is quite clear. Modern feminism is based on rage and hatred towards men, which most women harbor in some degree. Most feminist icons were lesbians, most hated heterosexual sex and many said that heterosexual sex was evil and it was all rape. Many to most feminist icons were mentally ill lesbians whose hatred for men was so extreme that it could logically be considered a mental illness as much as an Alt Righter’s anti-Semitism could be.

Via sexual harassment, bullshit rape culture, insane consent decrees mandating explicit verbalized consent for each physical sexual act and the pathologization and criminalization of normal heterosexual male attraction for teenage girls, it’s clear what modern feminism is all about: it’s a war on heterosexual men. It’s war on normative male heterosexuality. We fuck women, and that really pisses them off because they say every time we fuck a woman, it is rape. We look at women, and that infuriates them as every time we do that it is objectification. We ask women for their numbers and out on dates, and this enrages them because every time we do this, we are sexually harassing them.

What is odd is that if you think about it, gay men and lesbians are given carte blanche by feminists to do whatever they want sexually! Have you ever noticed this? Want to go to bathhouses and get fucked up the ass by AIDS-infested cocks 1,000 times a year? Knock yourself out. But please know that the feminists will cheer you on every step of the way because feminists have never criticized even 1% of gay male sexuality. It’s all groovy and wonderful and cool because they are gay and there is no one feminists love more than gay people. Feminists hate straight men, not gay men. Really the only men that feminists love are gay men for reasons that you need to inform me about as I am mystified.

Feminists love lesbians! Feminists love dykes! Feminism is not the movement for the liberation of women because otherwise it would not be so dyke-infested. If feminism was a normal liberation movement for women, no more than 2% of feminists would be dykes. No more than 2% of feminist speech and tracts would be about lesbianism. As you well know, it is far more than that.

One of my mother’s best friends, who is sadly dying as I write this, was one of the founders of California NOW or National Organization of Women. She attended the founding meetings in Laguna Beach. She told us often that she was the only straight woman there and that the lesbian would not quit hitting on her. So you can see that right from the starts, California NOW at least was dyked to the hilt.

One wonders why feminism is so dyke-infested. It all becomes clear when one realizes that feminism is a hate movement against men, just as the Alt Right is a hate movement against non-Whites and Jews. It’s all about hating men. Many women are attracted to it because although they are not man-haters, many normal women do harbor some anger and rage at men, just as many normal men harbor some anger and rage towards women.

It is normal to feel this way, but this opposite sex hatred should not be cultivated, which is exactly what the Feminist Cancer does. Any woman is a feminist to the degree that she hates and harbors anger and rage towards men. I have observed this in my life. The more obviously pissed off a woman is at men, the more feminist she is. The more a woman likes or loves me, the more she hates feminists and says they need to go to Hell.

Lesbianism is very highly correlated with hatred towards men. Lesbians and hating men go together like peanut butter and jelly. Many lesbians are lesbian feminists, who are women who hate men so much that they have deliberately turned into lesbians as an expression of their profound Nazi-like hatred of us men. So once we factor in the hypothesis that feminism is a Hate Movement against men like the Alt Right is a hate movement against non-Whites and Jews, it all starts to make sense. The only logical reason that feminism is so insanely dyke-infested is due to the man-hating ideology which attracts man-haters, many of whom are lesbians.

It goes to say that lesbos can do whatever they want sexually before lesbian bed death sets in which is about two months after the moving vans leave I assume. Lesbians, like their gay male pets, can do know wrong. Gay men fuck boys like rednecks flock to NASCAR races? Not a problem. Feminism is silent on the gay male boyfucking epidemic because it is so heavily approved of in gay male culture. I guess gay men can fuck all the boys they want to, right feminists?

Gay men cannot be criticized for this or for anything really because in the Feminist Pantheon, gay men are icons, Gods to be worshiped at the Feminist Altar. After all, what more glorious act for a man to do than renounce pussy-fucking (rape of women de facto) and just fuck men for life. Also dyke-infested feminism needs to support gay men in order to be consistent. This is not lost on them.

11 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Bikinis Are Evil, Niqabs Are Good

Bikinis are indecent, a sexist affront or battery on precious womanhood. But niqabs? Not a problem.

Or was it those hundred dollar bills tucked into her bikini, showing her to be a stripper or, more accurately, a whore. A lot of wimmin got triggered bad by seeing Hillary as a whore. It’s an insult to fair maidenhood! But wait a minute…Hillary…is…a…whore! She is a whore, dammit. “I am woman, hear me whore!”, she hollers at the DNC while her followers chant USA! USA! like Young Republicans and Lindsay puts his fingers in his ears. Saying Hillary is a whore is like saying the sky is blue.

One thing I always hated about feminists is their prudery. And here we have them lining up with the religious police in Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabis and the feminists deserve each other. Let’s put them all in one place, put a fence around it, let them slaughter each other or get married or whatever it is they do with each other, and the rest of us will bring the popcorn.

Get that? The PC Cultural Left SJW city government made them take down the bikini mural because some women saw it, got triggered and couldn’t get to safe place where there’s no men, like the YWCA, fast enough. Afterwards there was a lot of mini PTSD and therapy enough for everyone and then some.

Oh poor babies!

The leftwing city council removed a bikini mural because it was indecent! Wow. I didn’t sign up for this bullshit. I signed up for fucking in the streets, not sexual harassment manuals. Let me off the train now, dammit.

20 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Left, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, US Politics

Idiotic Cultural Left Insanity of the Day

Here.

Even a lot of lesbians hate this sort of nonsense, especially the more militant ones.

Now the truth is that I despise lesbian-feminists.

However, I will give these lesbian feminist bitches one thing. They say two thumbs down on the idea of lesbians marrying men. Why? Because they say it’s nuts, that’s why. They say the definition of lesbian means exclusively or predominately attracted to other women for romance and sex. That doesn’t necessarily preclude sex with men on occasion, but surely that is not what a lesbian prefers. And of course a lesbian would never marry a man. Why the Hell would she do that?

And what sort of a feminist man pussified idiot would marry a dyke anyway? I have heard of a few of these insane relationships. The men are often rad fem men. Yes, there is such a thing. These are men who hate other men, hate masculinity and think men are just evil in the way they treat women. They’re traitors to their brothers off consorting with the enemy, their sisters.

These pussies boy-men never learned one of the first rules of Man World that a boy learns in life: Bros before hos. Rad fem men are often very sissy and effeminate. Quite a few of them are gay men. They’re down with their sisters because these sissies identify with femininity. There are actually some very sissy straight men who are radfems. These are heterosexual men, but a lot of other males think they are gay, and they have been getting gay-baited and gay-bashed since school. There was one fellow that was writing on the web a while back who I actually enjoyed.

The radfem argument against these moronic “married lesbians” is quite simple If you are a “lesbian” who falls in love with men and marries men, guess what? That means you’re not a lesbian!

Duh!

The Gay Politics crowd has always been one of the nuttier wings of the Cultural Left because, well, let’s get real here for a moment. Although healthy homosexuals (especially biologically gay men) definitely exist, any sane person who has studied the gay community for any length of time has to realize that a lot of gay people are crazy, weird, and bizarre.

24 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Politics, Radical Feminists, Sex, Weirdness

Stanford Victim Impact Statement from Brock Turner’s Victim

Here.

This is a victim impact statement from the victim in the Brock Turner sexual assault case. If you want a good backgrounder on the case, see Wikipedia here.

Turner of course is the Stanford star swimmer who assaulted a passed out female student behind a trash dumpster outside a dorm. When two men on bicycles, Swedish foreign grad students, stopped to intervene, Turner ran away. The Swedes ran after him, tackled him and then notified police.

Turner had been at the same party as the victim, and the victim had drunk so much that she was completely blacked out at the time and later remembered nothing of the incident. However, at the time he was assaulting her in the pine needle-covered dirt, she was passed out unconscious. You cannot have sex with a passed out unconscious female. It is illegal, and it’s correct to be considered that way. I never understood guys who do this, as it almost seems like necrophilia.

The case went to trial and Turner, age 19, was convicted of a number of charges. The DA and the Probation Office had different recommendations about what sort of sentence he should serve. He was sentenced to six months in jail. However, this sort of sentence is normal in cases such as this (having sex with a passed out drunk woman). The judge and the supporters of Turner talked a lot about how a promising athletic swimming career of a great athlete had been destroyed by this incident. But the victim’s life was also ruined.

The judge’s light sentence caused a huge outcry in feminist circles and in the media and went on to be a classic cause celebre in the fake Rape Culture nonsense that the feminuts keep propagandizing about. In fact, the US is among the countries on Earth that have the least rapey cultures of them all. Or to put it another way, the US is one of the last countries around that could be considered to have a Rape Culture at this point in time.

All of this crap is coming from radical feminism. Radical feminism or gender feminism is characterized by a hysterical form of rape paranoia. They are stark raving batshit nuts about rape. All they talk about is rape, rape, rape, rape, rape. All of us men are supposed to be fighting against rape all the time, even though I believe I have never committed an actual rape in my life (though I may have committed some of the fake rape bullshit that the femicunts call rape). Gender feminism is characterized by a hatred of men and especially a hatred of heterosexual men, masculinity and normative male heterosexuality.

At any rate, this is one of the most shockingly eloquent, powerful and moving victim impact statements I have ever read.

12 Comments

Filed under California, Crime, Heterosexuality, Law, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sex, USA, West

They’re Not Children, and They’re Not Adults Either

Oneaboveall writes:

I basically made a point that if I’m dealing with a 15 yr old with enormous tits and/or a bubble ass, WHICH I WOULD NOT BE, that it’s really stretching things to say that I’m a sexual predator who’s attracted to children.

A child is “someone who appears to be a child” – basically, someone 12-under. Teenagers are in an in-between category. They certainly are not children anymore, but in general, they are not really adults either.

Teenage boys are what I call “boy-men.”

I call teenage girls “girl-women.”

Because that’s exactly what they are. It’s not a man, and it’s not a boy. It’s not a girl, and it’s not a woman. Teenagers are neither children nor adults. They are in some sort of transitioning category between children and adults, some sort of murky neverland that is hard to define and get a grip on.

Oneaboveall writes:

There is a big difference between children and adolescents, but people love to throw words around.

That’s because people are idiots. Especially feminists. I believe feminism causes actual loss of IQ points, and if I were betting, I would bet that feminism causes actual loss of brain matter. It’s probably progressive too. The longer a woman is a feminist, the greater the brain shrinkage is. It’s a serious problem, almost as bad as drugs.

This is your brain on feminism. Any questions?

1 Comment

Filed under Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

The Alt Left Position on Feminism

On the woman question, Rabbit (Altleft.com) does not seem to care much about feminism, while I believe that Gender Feminism is nothing but a man-hating movement, and most women involved in it are there to nurture feelings of anger, rage and mostly resentment towards men. As a man, I do not see why I should support a movement of people who hate me.

I think we should support Equity Feminism though, the movement for women’s equal rights. We should support the Equity Feminist movements in much of the world where women’s rights are much worse than they are. These women deserve their just and healthy Liberation.

I would like to look into Sex-positive Feminism to see if it fits with the Alt Left. I feel good about the Sex-positive Feminism of the Jezebel website. One beef against gender feminists is that they are very puritanical and seem to hate heterosexual men, normal heterosexual male sexuality and even masculinity itself, which they call toxic.

The Alt Left supports straight men and thinks there is nothing wrong with heterosexual male sexuality. We also are not opposed to masculinity, do not think it is toxic but nevertheless do not believe it should be fetishized in a homophobic way. We feel that straight men ought to choose their own paths to their own particular brand of masculinity, even if that involves some healthy androgyny. Different straight men have different masculine styles, and this ought to be respected.

Nevertheless, effeminate behavior in straight men should be opposed, as it is disgusting, degrading and absurd. Effeminate behavior in gay men is simply normative and getting mad at gay men for being effeminate is like getting mad at your dog for barking. This is simply the way most of these men are, and I assume it is tied somehow in with their biological homosexuality.

The Men’s Rights Movements have made some valid points, but most of them have turned into the mirror of Gender Feminism. MRA’s hate women the same way most gender feminists are hostile to men. Neither movement is any more valid than the other, and neither sex deserves to be hated or even praised more than the other.

The sexes are different, but most of the differences are biological, and men and women probably have little control over their gendered behavior. Getting mad at women for causing drama and chaos (the bad side of the Feminine Character) is like kicking your cat for acting like a cat. This is simply women’s normative behavior, and while it should not be encouraged, neither should women be hated for their bad side. At any rate, the Male Character has an extremely bad side too, which appears to be much worse than bad side of the Female Character.

Bottom line is that the sexes have each a good and bad side to their characters, and neither sex deserves to be hated more than the other one. Misogyny is as irrational as misandry. All forms of hardcore sexism ought to be as proscribed as hardcore racism.

You can see where this is headed. The Alt Left thinks that the Feminist Movement has gone way too far and has verged off into Female Supremacism and hatred of men. That doesn’t sound like Liberation to me, and hence the Alt Left rejects the Gender Feminism of the Cultural Left as a hate movement against men that engages in hate speech towards men.

But the Alt Left, while rejecting Cultural Left Feminism, also rejects the regressive, discriminatory, prejudicial and demeaning anti-feminism of Cultural Conservatism. The movement for Women’s Liberation was to free themselves from the shackles of Cultural Conservatism, and at core, this movement was and still should be at least theoretically a good thing.

So the Alt Left position on feminism and women would be moderate, rejecting both Cultural Left Feminism Cultural Conservative Antifeminism.

I believe that one must not hate men in order to be part of the Alt Left. One of the pillars of the Alt Left is the rejection of the man-hatred of Cultural Left Feminism. If you hate men, you can’t be part of the Alt Left. It’s a dealkiller.

38 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Masculinism, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex