What Will Be the Future Post-Coronavirus?

Rishi Ji: This blog has been my companion and a source of intellectual nourishment since 2012. I go around posting links on India and Hinduism all over YouTube, and I bet Robert gets a lot of hits through that alone (rabid Indians coming over). I demand, in these tough times that Robert pay me a small amount of money (Just kidding hehe).

On a serious note what do you guys think the future is gonna be like? Can Robert create a topic on this subject? This virus has had a traumatic effect on us as a species the likes of which I doubt have ever been seen. Bigger than 9/11 or even WW2 in my opinion.

What will be the future once (hoping) things resume? Will there be a renewed kindling of all people or we will revert back to the same baloney we were used to? Will China be held accountable in any way?

Surely globalization as a concept will take a hit. I would love a topic- a philosophical one on this subject here. Last month this time I was chilling with my joint pondering which game to play on my PS4, and now it looks like the apocalypse. Robert- you fear death? You are above 60, does the thought enter your mind?

Great comment from Rishi Ja here.

I will let the rest of you all use the comments section to comment about the important questions that Rishi is bringing up.

Thing about aging is you start to think about death a lot. I think about it all the time, pretty much every day and even quite a few times throughout the day. It’s not a terrifying thought like it used to be, so I suppose I have come to some peace about it. It’s not really depressing either. It’s hard to say what I think about it. I just do is all. It’s hard to explain.

It really is good to frame your mortality in your mind as you go about your life. Ideally, it should enable you to try to get as much out of life as possible.

Of course I am very worried about this virus. But I’m a bastard and a rebel, and I pretty much rebel against everything, in part because I’m sort of an asshole, and nobody tells me to do anything. As a matter of fact, I have a date tomorrow and a hot young 22 year old cutie says she’s driving up here to visit me. She’s 40 years younger than me! She explicitly stated that she wants to fuck when she gets here.

We are all supposed to be quarantining, but I will make an exception for dating. I don’t think dating is a big deal. Dating is one on one and that’s not a huge risk. The real risk is crowds. Not only that but close contact with infected people. Close contact has been defined as 10+ minutes within 6 feet or closer to an infected person.

85% of cases in China were spread within the family inside of the house. So prolonged close contact with an infected person seems to be the way it is going. Obviously some people get it outside the house and bring it back, very close prolonged contact follows, and that’s what really spreads it bigtime.

I don’t have any symptoms. Well I do, but they are due to allergies (cough) and asthma (shortness of breath). I know these symptoms very well, and I am certain that the COVID-19 symptoms are quite different.

I am keeping my fingers crossed. People are social distancing in lines at the grocery store. Workers all wear gloves. At the local clinic, workers wore masks and sometimes gloves too. They were shuttling all patients out of the waiting room to individual rooms or out to their cars to wait to be called. Grocery stores are only letting in 50 people at a time. A gas station has a plastic window up between customers and the cashier. Gas stations are deserted.

I was out on Sunday morning, and the town was dead. Most of the people on the streets were homeless, and they were quite prominent. Never realized we had so many in this city. The freeway is almost deserted.

So far this county of 100,000 people has 6 cases, five (or up to 7-8) of them connected to one man, a police officer who works in a nearby county, who probably got it on the job and gave it to his father who lives with him. They then gave it to three more people. In addition, 2-3 more of their contacts have symptoms. All cases are in this city of 60,000 where I live.

The first case in the county, an elderly man in the foothills, has recovered. Five of the six active cases are hospitalized, no doubt in the local hospital where I have elective surgery coming up with pre-op on Thursday. I am wondering whether to cancel it.

One thing I have noticed is how very friendly everyone is when you go out. Cashiers and other workers, fellow shoppers, even just people walking about. Everyone is so nice and kind, even people who are not normally like that. Not sure if I get it except that maybe disasters tend to bring people together, as we finally realize that we are all in this shit together and how much we all depend on solidarity with each other to stay alive and function.

It’s a great time for socialist consciousness, and it’s really exposing how utterly bankrupt neoliberal capitalism really is and how it is literally an out and out death cult.

My phone company is forgoing all bills and late fees for two months, but I think I will pay anyway, as we will probably owe more at the end. Utility company is doing the same, and all cut-offs will be stopped for two months time. Credit card companies don’t seem to be giving breaks. Might be nice if the landlord would blow off the rent, but that’s probably asking too much. I hope to pay my Internet and utility bills anyway this month.

Really this quarantine bullshit is not so different from my day to day life sadly, so this is really nothing new for me.

Coronavirus Has an Affinity for Cold Weather

SHI: Many Asian cities are very urbanized, and there is also a lot of air travel. We will have to watch out before concluding more about patterns. Who would have thought a month ago that Wuhan, the origin of this virus, would now be returning to normalcy. Even as we speak, the number of cases in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. is rising very fast. I still don’t think it will get as bad as Italy in these parts.

It’s rising a lot faster in colder parts of the world than in hotter. Even in China, Southern China is not much affected. Nor is Taiwan, SE Asia, Philippines, Indonesia, or even India for that matter.

In Italy, it mostly hit the mountainous north. The south has hardly been affected.

In Austria, most cases were in the Alps in the west.

In France and Germany, most cases were in the Alps SW Germany and SE France.

Switzerland was hit bad.

Netherlands and Belgium were hit hard.

In Iran, it is hitting mostly in the mountainous north of the country.

In the US, it has hit Washington State and the Northeast very hard. In California, it has hit the Bay Area and Sacramento for the most part.

The Southern Hemisphere is being spared.

Africa and the Middle East are little effected outside of Iran, which is a cold country.

Central and South America and the Caribbean are scarcely effected.

There are 25 countries in the Southern Hemisphere. If it hit the South as easily as the North, there would be 12 countries in the South in the above average sphere and 12 in the below average sphere.

Instead, 3 nations in the South are in the above average sphere and 22 are in the below average sphere.

An easy explanation is that the South is experiencing summer right now, or late summer anyway whereas we are in winter or late winter anyway.

SHI: By the way, anti-malarial drugs such as chloroquinine have been found to be effective cures for Coronavirus although not laboratory-tested fully. What do you make of that?

By the time you are going to the hospital, you pretty much can’t breathe. At that point, drugs will do fuck all. You’re going on that ventilator, unless you are in Italy where they will decide if your life is worth saving or not. If you are being placed on that ventilator prone as you see in some of those videos out of Italy, you are in pretty bad shape, I guarantee.

There are lots of drugs that are being found effective for this illness. What all of that boils down to right now, I don’t know because here in the US, they tell you it’s viral pneumonia, and there are no drugs to treat it because it’s a virus. Also US rates are very low because many, many people are being refused tests due to a test shortage.

Locations of Madera And Fresno County Coronavirus Carriers Revealed for the First Time

There is presently two persons infected with coronavirus in Madera and Fresno Counties, one in each. Both are elderly men who caught it on the Princess Cruise Line. People are wondering who and where these people are because authorities are not releasing information about the person’s location. Both carriers are elderly men who are self-quarantining.

I pinned the Madera County man’s location down to Oakhust, a Madera County community in the Sierra foothills. I tracked the single Fresno County infection to the Sierras too, possibly near Shaver Lake. I used the coronavirus case map of the US to pinpoint these locations. The Oakhust and Fresno County dots denoting a disease patient were located right at those two locations.

The virus is presently not spreading via community transmission in Fresno or Madera Counties that we know of. Certainly it is not spreading anywhere in the Valley in those two counties, nor is there a single case in the Valley yet. Or at least it’s not known to be spreading there. Perhaps it is and we don’t know. Also, perhaps it will spread in Fresno and Madera Counties in the future.

I did some research on this virus, and it is one ugly virus all right. It is extremely contagious and quite virulent in terms of disease. 15% get hospitalized and half of those go on ventilation. ~30% of those on ventilation die. It’s not just the flu. It is 23X more deadly than the flu. Italian hospitals are completely overwhelmed. If and when we in the US get to 50,000 cases, we will also be totally overwhelmed.

People below 60 have a less than average death rate, and the 18-20 death rate is about the same as the overall normal flu death rate. More people have underlying conditions than you think. I am 62 years old and I have asthma. I have a 10% of dying if I get it. This thing is scarier than people realize.

Alt Left: Social Democracy Only Works in Homogeneous Societies Is Often but Not Completely True

RL:

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it.

A commenter responds:

Mithridates: Yeah, I suspect much of this attitude stems from the ethnic divisions within the US that no one is ever allowed to talk about in any sort of frank or intellectually honest manner. Of course the Pluto/Mammon-worship inherent in the American mythos is a influential factor as well.

But let’s explore the first:

Basically, Ethnos A, the group responsible for most of the country’s productivity, is forced at gunpoint to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Ethnos B (and C in some regions), and a good portion of Ethnos B takes that money, pisses it away on all sorts of stupid instant gratification fuckery and doesn’t add much of anything to the country’s overall productivity; in fact, a sizable minority of Ethnos B behaves in public like zoo animals.

And then A’s gets called horrible bigots if they object to this, and especially if they object to being forced to live within shouting distance of B’s.

Most of the countries with working social democratic economic arrangements tend to have been ethnically homogeneous for most of the period when these systems were in place. And now these countries have tried the mass immigration experiment, and the same sort of shitty results is happening in those places that we here in the US have been experiencing for many decades now.

Natural Law says that humans are extra-clever social primates who are predisposed to be open to sharing among others they consider to be kin. There’s a certain other Ethnos I won’t mention by name or even a single-letter set of punctuation marks that exemplifies this principle very clearly.

Anyway, expecting all members of an Ethnos to consider the entire planet’s population of clever hominids to be a part of their kin group is quite an aberrant expectation; only weird ideologies can invert what to everyone else is a common sense understanding of Natural Law principles. And finally, loving one’s own kin does not necessarily mean hating other kin-groups.

Of course everyone has always known that this is the dirty little secret for Americans’ hostility to socialism. This is why all of the American White Nationalists are also hardline economic Rightists, Republicans and Libertarians despite this being bad for most Whites. Race trumps economics for a lot of folks. Whereas in Europe, most of the nationalist groups, even the White nationalists, are explicitly socialist.

You’d be pissed to, eh?

Actually I am fully aware of this argument, but I’m not pissed at all. For one thing, I have never been part of the wealthy White group, so Whites with money can go pound sand. They are my class enemies. I think in terms of economics. Screw race. Do the rich Whites want to help the poorer Whites? Of course not. So why should I support them. Also I know quite a few low-income Whites who use those redistributive programs that Whites hate so much.

On the other hand, I am not a typical White person. I am very hard to the Left; in fact, I am an out and out socialist.

Many countries have health care for all despite being ethnically diverse. However, in a lot of these countries, public health care and education is simply underfunded, so the dominant group, whoever they may be, simply goes to private hospitals and schools. India is an excellent example of this as is much of Latin America.

All of the Arab World has social democracy under the rubric of Islam, or in the case of Lebanon, ethnic peace, and Lebanon is unstable for ethnic/religious reasons. And some Arab countries with prominent religious of ethnic minorities are very unstable or at war.

All of North Africa has social democracy except Morocco, although minority Berbers are dealt with by denial of their existence and roping them into the main group, Arabs. Ethiopia has tremendous ethnic diversity and some religious diversity, but they have a good working socialist system. Eritrea is the same but the main divide there is religious rather than ethnic.

Zimbabwe has a good working system although it has many tribes. Argentina and formerly Bolivia and Ecuador has or had working social democracies, although all three countries had serious instabilities; in all cases the rich objecting to sharing with the poor and with a racial element in Bolivia. A number of countries in Latin America do have social democracies, but they don’t work very well because the rich don’t want to share with the poor.

In a number of those countries such as Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Haiti,and Mexico also have an ethnic element in that the dominant rich group tends to be Whiter or lighter-skinned though not usually White per who don’t want to share with the poorer, darker, folks who are more mixed with Indian and in some cases Blacks.

A number of countries in Latin America have homogeneous populations, but the rich still don’t want to share with the poor, so that doesn’t solve everything. And historically speaking, most nations were quite homogeneous, nevertheless the rich still shared just about fuck all with everyone else and needed an actual revolution to be convinced to do so.

Russia and China has very good working social democracies although they have many minorities, although China and to some extent Russia has some ethnic warfare. Ukraine has a good system despite minorities and ethnic warfare. Vietnam, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Laos have good systems despite having anywhere to a couple to many ethnic minorities. Malaysia has a working social democracy and it has a large ethnic divide. Japan has minorities with an excellent social democracy.

Most of the former Soviet republics probably still have working systems although most have large minority populations.Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran have social democracies and minority groups. However, in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran are currently embroiled in ethnic separatist wars.

Most of the countries with non-working systems are not only rightwing but also quite poor. Hong Kong is an exception. The government is very rightwing, but there are not ethnic problems. It’s all one ethnic group, but the rich ones hate the poor ones, just as it was traditionally.

Some are just poor. Most of Africa has social democracy, but it often doesn’t work well due to poverty. To some extent this is true in Pakistan, Mongolia, Yemen, Moldova, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. It is also true in Ecuador, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean, Chile, and Paraguay. In these places, social democracy doesn’t work more due to poverty than to diversity.

Alt Left: Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight That Must Be Refuted

Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight That Must Be Refuted

The COVID-19 outbreak in China has begun to decline outside Hubei Province; meanwhile in some countries it is on the rise. This shows that the epidemic is a challenge faced by all humanity and needs to be addressed by all countries. China’s experience in combating the outbreak shows that timely, accurate, and authoritative information disclosure is crucial.

However, “negative energy” arguments in the public opinion sphere which undermine the solidarity and cooperation between human beings and even create panic out of nothing will harm the efforts to fight the epidemic and can be called a “tumor” in the public conversation about the epidemic.

Here we summarize eight typical “negative energy” arguments in international public opinion and reveal their absurdities, hoping to provide a mirror to show the other side of these arguments about the epidemic.

1. The Economic Fall of China Argument Ignores the Complete Picture

During the coronavirus epidemic, the streets in Chinese cities were empty for a time, and as a result, there is no doubt the economy will be affected to some extent. However, to claim that the fundamentals of the Chinese economy have changed and that growth will plummet from mid-high speed to zero or negative is an overstatement.

For example, the New York Times published an article on February 11 titled “Like Europe in Medieval Times”: Virus Slows China’s Economy suggesting that the epidemic has put the Chinese  economy into low gear.

This coronavirus epidemic has been widespread, and many industries such as catering, tourism, and film and television have been severely impacted. However, it should be noted that the impact of the epidemic on China’s economy is mainly reflected in the restriction of the demand side resulting in a short-term structural imbalance between supply and demand.

In the long run, the means of production are still there, and production equipment and technology have not been affected by the outbreak. So the outbreak will not dent the internal dynamics of the Chinese economy. International Monetary Fund (IMF) spokesman Gerry Rice stated at a press conference on February 13 that “over the medium to long term, we remain confident that China’s economy is resilient.”

The IMF expects a V-shaped recovery for the Chinese economy in which a sharp decline in economic activities would be followed by a rapid recovery. With improvements in containing the epidemic, the supply side will gradually return to normal, while at the same time the potential demand suppressed during the epidemic will be released, and there will be a large rebound in future economic growth.

Structural transformation has given China a strong and resilient economy. First, consumption has become the primary driver of growth. In 2019, consumer spending contributed 57.8 percent to economic growth. Second, the proportion contributed by the service industry keeps rising, and the proportion of value added by tertiary industry to GDP in 2019 is 53.9 percent.

The third is a shift from an excess of savings to an absorption of savings which has led to a continuous increase in disposable household consumption. Fourth, via a huge wave of innovation, the current digitization and intelligent transformation of various industries has led to the rapid development of online business.

Although the epidemic outbreak has increased short-term downward pressure on the economy, the long-term positive trend of the Chinese economy has not changed.

2. The China-US Decoupling Prediction Is Farfetched

During the coronavirus epidemic, the resumption of work in many factories in China has been delayed, which has affected the global supply chain. But it may be delusional to talk about international companies fleeing China and to think that the US and Chinese economies will decouple as a result of the outbreak.

For example, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross told Fox Business Channel on January 31 that the novel coronavirus epidemic helps “accelerate the return of jobs to North America, some to US and probably some to Mexico as well,” adding that factors such as this will prompt US companies to reevaluate risks such as the supply chain of China-related businesses.

It should be noted that in the face of the epidemic, the Chinese government has demonstrated its firm belief in winning the battle. It is believed that the outbreak will not last long nor will it cause lasting damage to the economy. Business confidence in the future has not disappeared. The experience of the SARS epidemic in 2003 also shows that after the epidemic, people’s desire for consumption will erupt and the economy will see rapid growth.

Compared with the US, where the tertiary industry accounts for 85 percent of the total economy, China’s tertiary industry only accounts for just over 50 percent. There is still more room for development. Naturally, companies will not lose sight of this and abandon huge development space to go to a place where competition is fierce.

The US government’s push for the return of manufacturing is not new. It began during the Obama administration, but the real results have been poor. This is because China is the world’s largest manufacturing base with a complete upstream and downstream industry chain and a large and diversified consumer market.

Only by being close to the Chinese market can companies accommodate cutting-edge demand, have faster production speed, and ensure more reliable product quality.

Of course, China’s industry is in a period of transformation and upgrading, and some enterprises that can no longer adapt to China’s market will leave. This is the natural law of economic development, and it is by no means the exodus that Ross is talking about.

3. The Collapsing Image of China Meme Is Baseless

Under the coronavirus epidemic, some voices in international public opinion have tarnished the image of China.

For example, on February 6, under the headline “This is Not a Coronavirus, It Is an Official Virus,” a Deutsche Welle report stated China’s governance system is not modern, so it was vulnerable in the face of the epidemic.

On some overseas social media, some people have hyped the argument that China’s national image has collapsed in order to disparage China’s image as a responsible power. They even claimed that China would not be able to build a moderately prosperous society as planned.

It is clear that the above slander is groundless and based on a play of words. The “China threat theory” is a virus in the field of international public opinion.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the Chinese government quickly set up a special team to deal with the problem, deployed team members extensively throughout the country, and assisted relevant countries in evacuating personnel. These things could only be achieved by an excellent governance system with modern capabilities.

Compared to some advanced economies, China has also done a much better job of reducing the risk of the disease spreading globally.

On February 16, in response to the shortcomings and deficiencies exposed in the response to the epidemic, the Chinese government again made a “two-handed” deployment, improving the biosafety law, the national emergency management system, and the distribution of production capacity of key materials.

China’s epidemic prevention measures have been praised by the international community. French President Macron expressed admiration for China’s effective measures and the country’s openness and transparency in fighting the epidemic.

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised China for taking many prevention and containment measures that go far beyond the relevant requirements for responding to emergencies. This has set a new benchmark for epidemic prevention in all countries. The speed, scale, and efficiency of China’s actions reflect the strengths of its system.

4. The Sick Man of Asia Metaphor Rekindles a Century of Discrimination

Amid the outbreak of the COVID-19, governments, enterprises, and people from dozens of countries have donated humanitarian aid to China to support the country’s fight against the epidemic. Meanwhile, some people have maliciously taken the opportunity to spread discrimination against China. For instance, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia” on February 3, hurting Chinese people’s feelings.

We should not only refute such absurdities with a comprehensive victory over the epidemic but also continue increasing China’s public health services and national capabilities, throwing the discriminatory views like the one above into the junk heap of history.

China was once weak due to its seclusion and was taken advantage of by Western powers which derogatorily called China the “sick man of Asia.” Such contemptuous words have been a scar on Chinese people’s  psyche. With unremitting efforts of more than 100 years, China is much stronger than it was, and people’s general health status has reached a new high.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the country has been improving its public health status, eliminating malignant infectious diseases such as smallpox and cholera and developing a cure for schistosomiasis, which once threatened Chinese people for a long time.

A comprehensive medical system has been established in China, covering all rural areas. China has also sent medical teams to help African countries battle against epidemics such as Ebola. As China is completing the building of a moderately prosperous society, the country is rapidly increasing the budget for medical treatment and public health, assuring residents in cities and towns have basic medical insurance.

Currently, Chinese people’s average life expectancy, which continues to grow, has surpassed that of Americans. Through international medical and health cooperation including the building of a Health Silk Road, China’s experience in medical treatment and public health has been widely recognized and accepted.

5. Yellow Peril Hysteria Is Pure Racism

On February 1, the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel had a cover headline saying the novel coronavirus was made in China. At a crucial time when the world is jointly fighting the epidemic, the German magazine inhumanly spread Yellow Peril hysteria, at the core of which is the West’s fear of the East.

The Western world regards the Eastern world as a threat, fears it will lag behind the latter, and thus refuses to accept the fact that the East has become more developed and much stronger than it once was. The West wants to safeguard its dominance in the world.

Hence some nationalists in the West have taken advantage of the COVID-19 epidemic to spread this particular form of racist hysteria.

In the era of globalization, human civilization should no longer engage in zero-sum games between the East and West and between races but rather in building a community of shared future where people can co-exist and jointly develop. In the face of this public health emergency, no one can really escape and remain isolated. Only cooperation, solidarity, and mutual help can help people win the fight against the virus.

It is high time to put an end to the farce of Yellow Peril hysteria that encourages people to play a “hunger game.”

6. The Comparison with the Novel 1984 Obscures Reality

To fight against the COVID-19, China has adopted various high-tech measures such as Big Data and artificial intelligence to control population flow and reduce cross-infection risks. However, some Western media outlets seem to be frightened by China’s governance capability. Real Clear Politics published an article on Thursday saying, “China’s Government Is Like Something out of ‘1984.’” There are two reasons such viewpoints echo in the West.

First, people are more likely to believe stories they are familiar with. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is well known, but not many people know the real China. Therefore, Chinese people find it hard to persuade their Western friends that China is not something out of 1984. This is like giving a friend who has never seen a real panda a toy panda, and the next time you mention pandas, this friend will think of the toy rather than the real panda.

Second, the media always caters its subscribers with reports that draw attention, even though their viewpoints are abnormal. For those media outlets, a frightening China is obviously more effective than a normal China at attracting an audience.

Using 1984 as a metaphor, those Western media outlets can spread fear of China among Westerners and thus make more profit. This is why a very ordinary story with an eye-catching headline can be forged into something that is scary and strange about China. As many Western media outlets are driven by business interests, it is not hard to understand Western people’s stereotype of China.

What 1984 describes can happen anywhere people live. The novel was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. George Orwell’s masterpiece is not banned in China. Instead, his books have been among the bestsellers in China since the country’s reform and opening-up. China is moving forward in a broad way using Chinese people’s accumulated experience rather than something out of a novel.

7. The Biochemical Weapon Conspiracy Is Pure Fantasy

Conspiracy theories are a constant reality in the international public opinion field. Once there is a disturbance, they will surface.

On January 31, US senator Tom Cotton tweeted “It’s more urgent than ever to stop travel between China and US,” and “MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS IN CHINA: GET OUT NOW.” He also claimed that the virus might have originated in a super laboratory in Wuhan.

The Ministry of Heath of Russian Federation on January 29 published a guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the novel coronavirus. The handout stated that COVID-19 was recombination of a bat coronavirus and another coronavirus from unknown origin, triggering speculation that the virus had been developed by the US as a biological weapon.

Although such arguments have been common, even in mainstream Western public opinion, there are few experts who agree.

The Washington Post on January 29 published an article entitled “Experts Debunk Fringe Theory Linking China’s Coronavirus to Weapons Research,” with interviews from five experts from prestigious US universities and research institutes. All of them rejected the idea that the virus was man-made.

An expert on chemical weapons said he and other analysts around the world had discussed the possibility that weapons development at the Wuhan lab could have led to the coronavirus outbreak in a private email chain, but none of them had found convincing evidence to support the theory.

A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also pointed out that a good bioweapon in theory has high lethality but low, not communicability, but the opposite is true with the coronavirus. He also described the bioweapon theories as irresponsible misinformation.

The Lancet, the world’s leading general medical journal, released on February 19 a Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19 signed by 27 top public health experts around the world.

The statement strongly condemned conspiracy theories saying that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin and stated that scientists from multiple countries overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife. The statement also called on the World Health Organization (WHO) to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.

8. Questioning WHO’s Impartiality Is Destructive

China’s valiant efforts and achievements in fighting the epidemic are obvious to all. Everyone with a realistic attitude will make a fair evaluation. However, some in the international community have been looking at China through colored spectacles and have even stooped to slander those entities and individuals who have praised China.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ affirmation of China’s performance has been described by certain media outlets as skewed in China’s favor.

Tedros was asked on February 12 whether the Chinese government had approached WHO and asked it to praise China’s efforts in confronting the virus and if there was there pressure put on WHO to make statements along these lines, considering how important the notion of saving face is in China. He responded, “China doesn’t need to ask to be praised…because we have seen these concrete things that should be appreciated.”

He noted that he has observed China’s tremendous efforts to stop the virus from spreading to the rest of the world, including notifying other countries of those confirmed cases with outbound travel history.

State leaders and public health experts of various countries have applauded China’s efforts and transparency. Tedros has also called on the international community to stop stigmatizing China and stand in solidarity with the country in fighting against the common enemy, COVID-19.

Similarly, former WHO Director General Margaret Chan Fung Fu-Chun was also criticized in 2015 for taking sides with South Korea in combating MERS.

WHO’s remarks and actions are based on information reported by the government at the epicenter, the latest data generated by the organization, and suggestions given by the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee. Clarifying and dispelling rumors and misinformation is also part of its job.

Moreover, the WHO has already taken action to prevent the coronavirus epidemic from triggering a dangerous social media ‘infodemic’ fueled by false information and to try to curb rumors, lies, and misinformation.

Along with China, the Singaporean government is also urging citizens to stop spreading rumors.

Authors: Wang Wen, Jia Jinjing, Bian Yongzu, Cao Mingdi, Liu Ying, Liu Yushu, Yang Fanxin, Guan Zhaoyu, Wang Peng, Liu Dian, Chen Zhiheng, Zhang Tingting, and Zhang Yang from Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

“Judgement Day,” by Alpha Unit

The British cargo ship Norham Castle, built in Glasgow, was launched in 1869 as a tea clipper for the trade with China. Clipper ships, sleek and three-masted, were designed for speed. Their production took off in the 1840s because of a growing demand for faster delivery of tea from China.

The Norham Castle transported tea and eventually mixed cargoes to places including Australia and New Zealand. In 1883 she was sailing near the Sunda Strait, which is located between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. It just so happens that most of Indonesia’s more than 130 active volcanoes lie between Java and Sumatra, the most famous being the stratovolcano (the steepest and most deadly kind) known to Westerners as Krakatoa.

By the summer of 1883 seismic activity around Krakatoa had been intensifying for months, producing earthquakes, steam venting, and ash eruptions. The three peaks of Krakatoa served as an exit for a huge magma chamber beneath. There is some speculation that an earlier eruption had clogged the neck of one of the peaks, creating an incredible amount of pressure building up below the blockage. The volcano was overdue for a climax.

Around 1:00 p.m. on August 26, a volcanic eruption sent a cloud of gas and debris about 15 miles into the air. The eruption was continuous, with numerous explosions. Capt. W.J. Watson of the Irish merchant ship Charles Bal reported that the noise was like the continuous discharge of heavy artillery. The noise intensified and was accompanied by a hail of ash and pumice. Ash eventually blanketed everything within thousands of square miles, plunging the area into darkness that would last two and a half days.

Capt. Watson said that the intense blackness made it impossible to see to any distance. There was also a small tsunami on the shores of Java and Sumatra.

Early in the morning on August 27, a series of explosions began triggering more tsunamis. The third of these explosions was the most horrific, so violent that it was heard about 1,900 miles away in Western Australia – and about 3,000 miles away on the Indian Ocean island of Rodrigues. People there thought the blasts were cannon fire from a nearby ship.

The noise from this explosion is arguably the loudest sound ever recorded. The barometer at a gasworks in Batavia (now Jakarta), 100 miles from Krakatoa, registered a spike in pressure of over 2.5 inches of mercury, which converts to over 172 decibels, at 100 miles from the source. (For context, if you were operating a jackhammer you would be subject to 100 decibels.)

At above 194 decibels, sound waves stop traveling through the air and begin pushing the air along with them – and the resulting “wind,” or shock wave, can blow anything in its path to pieces. Closer to Krakatoa the sound was well over this limit.

The shock waves created by the Krakatoa eruption shattered windows and shook homes within a 100-mile radius of the volcano. The shock waves were so powerful that they were recorded by barometric stations around the globe.

The tsunamis created by the eruption proved most deadly. More than 36,000 people were swept out to sea in the series of tsunamis caused by the volcano’s collapse, which created a wall of water over 100 feet high that wiped out scores of coastal villages on Java and Sumatra. The tsunami carried the Dutch ship Berouw a mile inland, killing all 28 crew.

The eruptions also created pyroclastic flows – avalanches of lava, ash, and pumice. These flows scorched everything in their path, whether passing ships or coastal villages. Michael Bubb writes:

Of the 36,000 deaths, around 4,500 were attributed to the pyroclastic flows which would have arrived just after the tsunamis. Most likely the 4,500 who met their fate with the flows had reached higher ground or shelter to avoid the rushing water, only to be engulfed in fire and ash.

Unimaginable horror was unfolding on the Sunda islands.

This catastrophe marked a series of “firsts,” says geologist David Bressan. It was the first global catastrophe and the first news story to go around the world, thanks to modern communications.

As the Sunda Strait was and still is an important passage from the Indian Ocean to the Chinese Sea, news about the eruption and destruction of harbors and lighthouses in the area were of special interest to merchants, politicians, and the public in general…

Krakatoa was also the first scientifically well recorded and studied eruption of a volcano, from the very beginning to its disastrous ending.

The study of what was left of the former island of Krakatoa also spawned a new scientific discipline: disturbance ecology. Observations made at Krakatoa were valuable for understanding the colonization of devastated or newly formed terrain.

And what of the clipper Norham Castle? On Sunday, August 26, the vessel was at the eastern entrance of the Sunda Strait, along with another ship, the Sir Robert Sale. On Monday morning both vessels entered the Strait but because of blackened skies neither made much progress.

Capt. O. Sampson of the Norham Castle reported that Krakatoa “appeared to be alight with flickering flames rising behind a dense black cloud; at the same time balls of fire rested on the mastheads and extremities of the yardarms.”

In the wake of the devastating eruption, Capt. Sampson wrote in his official log:

I am writing this blind in pitch blackness. We are under a continual rain of pumice and dust. So violent are the explosions that the eardrums of over half my crew have been shattered. My last thoughts are with my dear wife. I am convinced the Day of Judgement has come.

By the morning of Tuesday, August 28, Krakatoa had gone silent. The volcanic island had almost entirely sunk, except for the southern third. The blackness of the sky was slowly beginning to lift. The Sir Robert Sale and the Norham Castle finally made it through the Strait.

Alt Left: The Made-Up Problems of Male Circumcision

Polar Bear: We’ll never know if we’d of liked foreskin more or less. Famous pornstar Rocco regrets getting cut.

There are absolutely a whole lot of risk factors associated with keeping a foreskin. #1 is you have the ugliest dick around. Even if I was a fag, I would not have anything to do with an ugly dick like that. I’d say gimme Rocco’s dick any day ha ha.

How women tolerate those ugly foreskin dicks, I have no idea. I met this Jewish woman and started dating her. One of the first things she asked me after she asked me I was impotent (I was 48 years old when I met her, and it’s already starting up at that age) was if I was cut. I said Hell no and she said, “Good, I don’t like cownecks.” Ha ha, funny word.

You have to clean the damn thing all the time which is a PITA. This disgusting stuff called smegma accumulates under it which is grosser than gay porn. You have to keep cleaning that pond scum off your dick. Also, it sets you up for being at risk of different things: getting HIV from a woman, penile cancer, and other things.

It’s cut off for health reasons, and you never remember the cut.

Men who say there is “trauma” associated with memories of your dick getting cut at age zero are just victimfags (Great new word I just made up!). Great big pussies who love to whine about how they’ve been victimized their whole lives. Oh boo hoo! Poor babies! Man up, who dontcha?

The stink that antisemites and MRA’s make about circumcision is completely irrational. For antisemites it’s yet another perfect reason to hate Jews, which they want to do anyway. For MRA’s it’s just another notch on their victim belt. One wants to hate Jews for a dumb reason, and the other wants to be a victim for a dumb reason.

I’ve had a circumcised dick my whole life and it’s been awful damn sensitive the whole time. I don’t even think I’d want a more sensitive dick. It might turn alive, become a penile serpent, and try to crawl out of my pants. Can you imagine the embarrassment?

Color me unimpressed.

Alt Left: 100% Fact: Donald Trump Has Dementia

Check out this guy’s Twit thread. There are also many physicians chiming in in  agreement. The poster says he has gotten many messages from physicians who agree with him but don’t want to go public. He has the same thing that Linda Ronstadt has, but he’s farther along. This is simply 100% fact. Read some of those posts on that guy’s Twit and see for yourself.

This poster also says that Trump’s dementia is declining so rapidly that he probably will not even be able to run for re-election in November. I absolutely despise Trump as much as anyone, but even I do not wish this horrible disease on anyone. Dementia is the worst. I would not wish it on my worst enemy, sorry. Some diseases are just too fucked up, beyond the pale.

Coronavirus Update

My first coronavirus post. I hope to have more later on.

Look here for the best site on coronavirus numbers, updated daily and even more often than that, every hour and often even at intervals in the hour.

Presently worldwide:

  • 20,639 confirmed cases
  • 427 fatalities

Breakdown:

  • Over 600 critical
  • 2,788 serious
  • 632 recovered
  • 23,214 suspected

The virus appears to be much worse than reported or reported at the moment. Thread discussing that here. There are reports of 1 million infected and up to 30,000 dead. It’s really a serious matter. The Lancet estimates that there are 74,000 infections, and that was several days ago. There are videos of nurses in China saying that there are 90-100,000 people infected, and that was a week ago.

There are videos of people literally dropping on the streets. There are other videos of people just lying in the streets or hospital corridors until someone takes them away. There is a video of a hospital with three dead people in the hallway. They’d been there all morning.

There are reports that Wuhan’s crematoria, which normally burn four hours a day, have been burning 24 hours for days now. These reports also state that bodies are being burned without being identified as coronavirus cases. There are also reports that many coronavirus cases are simply being diagnosed as pneumonia.

However, in support of the Chinese government, there is a huge shortage of test kits, which were only recently developed anyway. They only have 2,000 test kits in Wuhan, so they can only test 2,000 people a day. Until they test someone, they cannot diagnose coronavirus.

On the other hand, it may be important for the government to cover this up, at least for now. Let the truth come out later.

If they tell the truth, the resulting total panic all across China will probably kill more people than the virus. The Chinese economy, already taking a hit from this, will blow up. A lot of countries will refuse products from China, especially fruits, vegetables, and meats. Many of the large corporations who have overseas factories might close up or even move to another country.

Everyone knows this is a big deal. The whole city of Wuhan is locked down. When you to the supermarket or any state building, a government employee is standing right there to take your temperature. The state is delivering free meals to many people who are stuck in their apartments. Cars were banned, but the resulting uproar caused them to be unbanned. The roads going out of Wuhan are all blocked with barricades. No one can go in or out.

And now a number of other cities in Hubei Province are locked down too. For now, the problem is mostly confined to Hubei Province, especially Wuhan. There have been a mere eight deaths in the rest of China.

The Chinese government incredibly enough built a huge hospital in Wuhan with 1,000 beds in only six days! There is another new hospital in Wuhan due to come online on Wednesday, February 6, with another 1,000 beds.

Existing hospitals have only 30 isolation units per hospital. People who are severely ill need to be in ICU units, but those are also in severe undersupply. But that’s not uncommon. In the UK for instance, there are 6,000 ICU units for the whole country of 80 million people. How would the UK fare with an epidemic the size of China’s? Pretty poorly.

The state has massively ramped up the manufacture of surgical masks, as there are shortages everywhere. There are even shortages in places like Australia, as local Chinese are mass buying surgical masks to send back home. Many physicians and nurses from all over China are converging on Wuhan. Many are Communist Party members.

Hospitals are overflowing with people wanting to be tested or worried that they might have the virus. There is a shortage of beds and isolation units, so the hospitals are having to triage and just focus on the worst cases and forget about everyone else.

A lot of people who seem like they have the disease are simply handed some pills (or maybe not) and told to go home and wait it out. A number of people have died in their homes. Everyone in Wuhan and many in other parts of China are wearing masks. Hospital workers are completely suited up.

There has been a huge hullabaloo about China arresting eight physicians who reported on the case very early on. They are being called whistleblowers. There is a lot of anti-China propaganda going on about these whistleblowers.

However, the whistleblowers all got released and had compensation paid to them. The Supreme Court ordered it. So you can see there is quite a bit of democracy in the party, and there are even some separation of powers in the government.

China’s not a complete dictatorship. There are 500 legal demonstrations in China every single day. There are all sorts of organizations that have sprung up about just about every issue or interest to some area: dialects, flooding, pollution, you name it. Most are legal and local Communist Party (CP) officials are often involved.

Also if China is so horrible, why does the CP have 87% support? The Chinese CP is not stupid. They took careful note of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR. They realized that if they do not “serve the people” as Mao insisted, the people would simply throw them out of office. They’re terrified of getting booted out on their asses. So they try to suck up to the people as much as they can within reason.

Permanent Ban from Twit (Twitter)

Well, I was on Twit (Twitter) only a short time before I started getting warning after warning after warning. These are all short-term bans of say three days. Then they went up to seven days.

I very quickly tried to start policing my posts to make them SJW-friendly. But every time I do that anywhere, I get banned anyway for some reason. I am starting to think that there is no appeasing these people unless you are one of them, in which case, I guess you know the drill, or you already speak the language.

The first time was a post in which I talked about how I had been doing a lot of reading, and I was shocked at how writers, especially poets, were gay or lesbian and how many were suicides.  After a while, I started asking myself how many poets are not gay, lesbian, or eventual suicides? It’s like they all kill themselves. I guess after a lifetime of faggotry and rug-munching.

I doubt if the gay behavior causes the suicides, but it’s well known that gay people have a very high suicide rate.

They talk a lot of a the rate of suicide attempts by gay and lesbian teens being high, but their rate of actual suicides is actually normal. Yet we hear endlessly of the suicide epidemic among gay and lesbian teens. I suggested this on Daily Kos and got blistering responses from fellow straight liberals.

One was a psychologist. I thought I was going to get banned. It was really scary. The psychologist was extremely hostile, basically called me a Nazi, and said that all the statistics were wrong, and the gay teen suicide rate was actually elevated and furthermore, I was an evil bigot for suggesting otherwise.

I wrote about how disappointing this was to me. I mean I don’t mind if a  poet here and there is gay or lesbian. Some gay writers are among my favorites, especially William Burroughs, and he’s practically the most fagged out of them all! But I had no idea that there were so many of them. I was reading a lot of biographies of writers I liked or had heard of, and over and over, it was gay gay gay gay gay gay, lesbian lesbian lesbian lesbian lesbian lesbian bisexual bisexual bisexual bisexual bisexual.

I would go the biography page and see that say Vita Sackville-West or whoever was actually a lez. There would be her picture. She looked like a man! Total disappointment. Women who look like men are a complete turnoff to me. I twist up my face into a scowl every time I see one. There’s something terribly wrong with a woman looking and acting almost exactly like a man. It just seems so wrong and fucked up.

Amy Lowell? Lesbian. Virginia Woolf? Bisexual. Suicide. Her husband? Bisexual. The whole damned famous Bloomsbury Group? A bunch of gays and lesbians! Mary McCarthy? Lesbian! Oh no, say it ain’t so! I really liked her. It was so discouraging.

I went to read James Merrill’s biography. Jesus Christ, he was a fag! What a downer. I still like his poetry but it was so disappointing to be hit with this gay club over and over. I thought, “Are any of these poets and writers…like…normal? You know…like…heterosexual?”

Then I closed out my post by saying that if I have deal with a bunch of fags, dykes, suicidals and crazies to read the greatest writers that ever lived, that’s a deal I’ll take.

It was humor. That’s funny, right? And ultimately it’s not even really homophobic if you think about it and get past the shock words.

Well, I got a temporary ban from Twit.

Then there was a case in Venezuela of two opposition politicians who went to Colombia and partied with Colombian prostitutes. The whores spiked their drinks with scopalamine, knocking  them unconscious. Then they robbed them. One man died and another nearly did. This happens all the time down there, just to warn you.

There was all this discussion of what happened. Everyone was saying that the guys were taking drugs with the whores and then they overdosed. I kept correcting them saying that the women were “murdering whores” who had poisoned the men, murdering one and almost murdering another, and then robbing them.

Well, Twit gave me a ban for describing prostitutes as whores. Not only that but for describing robbing, poisoning, murdering prostitutes as whores. I was exasperated. Since when is it illegal to call a whore a whore, I mean to call a prostitute a whore? I mean, that’s…like…literally what a prostitute is. A prostitute is literally a whore and vice versa. That’s not even controversial.

And I had no idea that calling prostitutes whores was the new “nigger.” But everything’s the new “nigger.” Every week I wake up and there’s another word that’s been designated as the new “nigger.” Another banned word. Another word I’ve been using my whole damn life with no problems, and now all of a sudden, it’s illegal. I swear if they keep banning my words like this, after a while, I will barely be able to talk at all!

I get unbanned. Then I get another ban for the exact same thing! Banned for calling murdering prostitutes “murderous whores.” Which is exactly what they were. Are we worried about offending the precious feelings of murderous prostitutes now? I’m sure they have very sensitive feelings. Let’s please make sure we don’t hurt them.

So I gathered my wits about me and tried to be a good boy. But then there was some post about transsexuals, and I said, “There’s no such thing as trans people. They don’t exist. Instead, they’re all just mentally ill.”

Permanent ban from Twit for pointing out the obvious – that 90% of trannies are mentally ill! That there’s hardly any such thing as trans people. That it’s just a made up word for people with a mental disorder.

So yeah, permaban. It’s pretty bad because I am on Twit a lot, and I would love to comment or like things, but I can’t.

By the way, lots of people are getting banned on Twit for saying innocuous things about transsexuals. There is a very obnoxious and vicious male tranny or transwoman who works in the department that polices and bans posts and posters. He’s reportedly the brains behind a lot of these bans on people telling the truth about trans people.

Teenage Girls Look So Great Because Their Bodies Are Completely Abnormal and Non-adaptive

If you have ever looked at teenage girls very much (and I know all of you perverts have, quit lying now) you will notice something interesting. Girls from age ~16-~18 have very interesting bodies. In male fantasy, these bodies are absolutely perfect.

For it is mostly in girls this age that you see the male dream of a girl who is quite thin with the most outrageous curvy body! Normally it just doesn’t work that way. Small body, small tits. You want the big tits? Fine. Resign yourself to a big lady. Big tits come on big women. Big tits don’t come on skinny women except if she has plastic surgery, but then she has created a type of human that does not exist in nature other than in the teenage girl.

These girls look so great because their bodies are completely abnormal! Those bodies are not adaptive at all. Forget it. That body is very poorly adapted to womanhood. This simple reason for that is that a girl in that age range still has a somewhat immature body, believe it or not. Most believe that we quit growing around age 17, but while that’s true for height, it’s not so true for development. Because a 16-18 year old girl has a body that is poorly adapted for pregnancy!

Yes, a  16-18 year old girl has hips that are not wide enough yet to carry a baby to term properly. This is one of the reasons for the increased rates of pregnancy complications among girls this age.

And at ages 18-19, a girl’s hips finally widen to the proper width of a grown woman’s. Only now is she fully adapted to carry a baby to term. So you see what turns us on so much is a body that is not even really normal for a human being! It’s immature and completely non-adaptive. We are being attracted to an illusion, an impostor, a fakery.

I have always marveled at the intelligence of primitive peoples. I did a lot of ethnographic work on the Hmong at university. In fact, I read an entire ethnography (cultural history) of the Hmong – ~300 pages. An ethnography is to anthropology what a grammar is to linguistics. A grammar is a complete record of the language of a people, and an ethnography is a complete record of the culture of a people.

A lot of the work was done in the 1950’s. At this time the Hmong had almost no exposure to any sort of modern anything. They still lived very primitive lives as hunter-gatherers and swidden agriculturalists. Most of their knowledge of people and even medicine was traditional.

According to Hmong tradition, pregnancy in women is best delayed until ages 19-20. Before that, the Hmong feel that the pregnancy is more likely to have problems. What is fascinating about this is that this is exactly the age at which a woman’s hips widen enough to properly carry a baby. Before those ages, as noted, a female’s hips are not wide enough to properly carry a baby.

I doubt if the Hmong figured out about the hips widening, but they had figured out via the wisdom of the ancients (knowledge of which is now completely trashed as bigoted and stereotypical by SJW’s) that it was better to wait until 19 or 20 to have a kid versus before those ages. Ancient knowledge of which has now been conclusively proven by modern medical science. But they figured it out on their own.

Pot-Haters Are Insane, Every Single One of Them

SHI: LOL what percentage of your hippie generation were drug users? Like 100%

Not 100% at all. A lot of people were but a lot of people really hated all drugs, even pot. The hatred against pot was absolutely insane, and everyone who didn’t use the drug absolutely despised it in the worst way.

That’s the weird thing about pot. There are no people who don’t use it but don’t care if others do. If you don’t use it you absolutely hate it with the most insane and intense passion. The cops were all completely insane about pot, too. My neighbor across the street was a cop.

My parents’ generation absolutely hated pot in the worst way, and almost none of them smoked it or even tried. Pot was called “drugs.” If you smoked pot, it meant you were “into drugs” and that was one of the worst things you can possibly be.

I actually like it a lot better now that drug use has become much more normalized, and so many people have either experienced it or have had close ones who did. With familiarity comes sanity. Estrangement doesn’t usually lead to rationality. The greater the estrangement, typically the greater the emotionality and irrationality.

The pot-haters caused so much pain in my life. So much rejection and hate, firing me from jobs, arresting, jailing, and threatening to kill me by cops, and just this huge Grand Canyon of Hate between the “drug users” – people who smoked weed – and everyone else. Also pot use was all tied in with use of all the other drugs like cocaine, heroin, speed, downers, psychedelics, etc.

To the dope-haters it was literally all the same thing. A joint = 20 years of hardcore heroin addiction. There wasn’t even 1% of difference. I’m sorry that there was this chasm of hate between me and so many others, especially of my parents’ shitty generation, over this retarded issue of cannabis. It was so pathetic. Emotion over reason X 10,000.

There are still some pot-haters out there, mostly women. I meet women on dating sites who won’t date me because I smoked pot six years ago. I had a psychiatrist recently who diagnosed me psychotic since I said I was a current pot user – as in, I had used it five years ago. If you are a “current user” even five years ago, according to him, you are automatically psychotic.

I had an MD who told me that pot caused amotivational syndrome, even if you used it only once a year! That’s how deranged the pot-hating kooks are and have always been. There’s good reasons to oppose the use of this drug, but the pot-haters never utilize any of them. They’re almost all insane. Pot haters are crazy, period and there are few if any exceptions. There is something weird about that drug that drives the most bizarre wedge of irrationality between humans.

We may be getting towards a more normal view of the drug such as exists in Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, etc. Pot is a drug of the East. And that’s always been part of the problem. I hate to use an SJW word, but the concept is actually valid. We hated pot because of Orientalism. This concept is much-abused by the Stupid Left, but I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist.

Then it was a drug of the Blacks and the Mexicans – in other words, of the niggers and the spics. Use was so stigmatized in my parents’ years that the only Whites who did it were more or less criminals or lowlifes like me slumming it up in the ghetto.

Cannabis has also been fairly normalized in parts of Latin America such as Jamaica, Mexico, and Colombia. Not sure about the rest of the continent.

Parts of the world where cannabis is naturalized or normalized seem to have a much more level-headed and sane view of the drug. Where it’s stigmatized it just seems to cause mass psychosis in large parts of the population who despise the drug.

I really don’t like the pot-haters at all, sorry.

Flying Burrito Brothers, “To Love Somebody”

Great song. “To Love Somebody” Gram Parsons and the Flying Burrito Brothers, Close Up the Honky-Tonks, 1973. Recorded during the Gram Parsons era, 1969-1970, but it was not released until after his so untimely death.

They took him away from us. Stole him away. Away in the night.

In the desert night, with a full moon, with the coyotes howling, the gorgeous hippie girl he had just met for the first and last time in the  lobby, a mere waif of a woman, carefully, even reverently, sank the morphine needle into his vein. Gram Parsons looked out the window of the hotel room, five double Tequilas already under his belt, and saw a sky full of stars.

The Joshua trees outside seemed to be swaying to some strange music only the desert knows. God closed the chapter of this gorgeous book of a man that night.

Just before he blinked out, Gram looked out the window at the sky in a morphine and Tequila haze. It had been so covered with stars that it was nearly white as snow. But now there was not a star in sight, nothing but black ink all around. Gram, a son of God if there ever was one, nodded his head and closed his eyes for the last time in his life.

They say sometimes if you go to a certain spot in Joshua Tree National Park at night with no one around at a certain time of year and the weather is just right, and you are just high enough on whatever you can get your hands on, as you dissociate in the cold still night, you can barely hear, off in the distance amidst the howling coyotes, the sound of Gram Parsons’ guitar and wailing voice.

They took him away but he’s also still with us. For now, maybe forever.

Flying Burrito Brothers, “Sing It Back Home”

Flying  Burrito Brothers, “Sing It Back Home”on Sleepless Nights, 1977.

Gram Parsons and the Flying Burritos covering Merle Haggard’s great song. This song was recorded in early 1970 when Gram Parsons was still with the band. The songs on this album were intended to be released for a new album that never got released. Actually these songs were considered to be simple studio dabblings that were never intended for any finished product release.

The Flying Burrito Brothers were one of the greatest bands of the 20th Century, but almost no one has ever heard of them. Their first two albums featured the great Gram Parsons. After that, they fired him and he went on to issue a couple of solo albums before he OD’d on morphine in Joshua Tree National Park in 1973. Dead to soon.

Why do all the best ones leave us too soon? It’s almost as if they are doomed to die young – flash bright like a shooting star and then burn out before 30. What happens? Do they burn too fast? Too fast for life?

A lot of artists are nuts. That’s part of the problem. Art is all tied up in various forms of insanity and lots of artists are crazy in all sorts of ways, in particularly, self-destruction.

No one quite knows why this is, but being an artist is the ultimate anti-Normie act. The artist is giving the finger to the Normie world every minute he is alive and producing great art. He’s a permanent outsider. An outsider’s life is painful, and many artists live lives of intense pain. Perhaps the pain is necessary to produce great art. If we were all perma-happy Pollyanna Normies, what sort of great art would we produce? Anything.

Anyway, life is painful. And it’s not easy. You would think that life would be quite simple, but it’s not. In part this is because we are not completely rational. If I were completely rational, my life would be a lot easier, but instead I’m fucked in the head, so life is a bit of a chore. A happy chore but a chore nevertheless.

The Care and Feeding of Your Pet Cat, Part 1

Polar Bear: My parents had a cat with wet stinky crap that could only eat canned or he’d get the squirts. Given that wet canned food is more natural and healthy, I was thinking dry food is for domesticated cats and humans while the wild cats and humans shit ponds of pudding in the wilderness.

There’s probably not a lot of dried out food in the wilds. Think about it. What food in the wilds is naturally dried out? Not much of anything. Everything in the wilds is full of some liquid or juice or whatever. Drying foods out is an artificial project and we obviously did not evolve eating dried out foods or at least I don’t think we did. Drying food is a good way to preserve it though. Dried fruit sure lasts a hell of a lot longer than fresh fruit, that’s for sure.

The wet food is better for cats. The dry food is too dry and I believe it’s bad for their kidneys somehow or other. I’m not sure exactly how that works. You can feed your cat dry food all day – no problem. But you should also feed him once or twice a day with the wet stuff. It’s more expensive but it’s good for them.

They like the wet stuff but they can get infuriatingly picky over it. My family had cats that would only eat the very most expensive varieties of wet food and refuse anything else. We had a number of cats over the years that developed this problem. They eat anything at first but then they develop these picky tastes and start refusing a lot of the different types of wet food, often settling on just one type, typically an expensive gourmet brand.

Cats do love human food more than anything else. They always walked around on our table in my family. They would come over to our plates, and we would feed them. My Dad hated it and was always demanding that cats be off the table. He thought it was unsanitary or uncouth or something. We would throw them off but they would just jump right back on.

At my Mom’s house, they hang out under your feet when you are eating meat dishes, basically begging for food. I don’t think they can see well up close because you throw them small pieces of food and it seems like they can’t see them. Instead they start sniffing around until they find the food. Sometimes you have to stick the food right in front of their stupid faces because they literally seem completely blind to the food.

Surgical Procedure Today

Hi folks, just had a surgical procedure in the hospital. Colonoscopy to be exact. Been ages since I had one and at 62, you need these things. Also I have been having rectal bleeding these days. The surgeon asked me how long I have had this bleeding, and I told him 20 years. He was a bit stunned but then he said we’ll look into it.

I never thought it was much of anything as I always just assumed it was hemorrhoids. Well, turns out I was right after all. I’ve got hemorrhoids! Piles! Or whatever you want to call those little buggers. I assume they are internal, not external. Any advice on how to get rid of these pesky critters accepted with gratitude.

I also have diverticulosis. You can look it up. Well, by age 50, 80% of Americans have this condition. These are pouches in your intestine. Probable cause is constipation and diet. A physician named Burkett went to study disease and he noted the diverticulosis, etc. was essentially absent from most populations over there. Burkett became famous for his studies which took place in the 1950’s.

But they eat a very high-fiber diet, and we eat a low-fiber, high-fat diet which leads to diverticulosis, polyps, colon cancer and other cool diseases. Also their shit isn’t hard. Ever noticed those hard shits you have? Well, that ain’t normal. Africans don’t have those. Their shits look more like tapioca pudding, albeit brown tapioca pudding to be precise.

The shit is supposed to move through your intestines pretty quickly. Meat and high fat diets slow down the intestinal freeway so you end up with an intestinal traffic jam. Result is constipation, polyps, colon cancer and other groovy stuff. Eat a lot of fiber and the shit just cruises on through 55 mph with no slowdowns.

Anyway diverticulosis is nothing, everyone has it by the time you get to middle age, and it usually has no symptoms. However, diverticula can get infected, that is, something, say a watermelon seed, gets stuck in one of those darned pouches and can’t escape or even call for help. It’s just SOL and this can result in an infection, which is called diverticulitis. This is what my 84 year old aunt has now. It’s quite painful. Not sure how it’s treated. Maybe they cut it out.

Anyway spent a fun morning in the hospital today from 5:30 AM – 10:30 AM. They gave me a shot of something and I was awake and chirping like a bird and the next thing I knew, two seconds later, it was an hour later and I was waking up for a very weird short-long sleep thing. Actually I was unconscious.

Knocked out by Fentanyl. Yes, that Fentanyl, that’s killing thousands of Americans every year. And they shot it right into my vein like any self-respecting IV drug user does. Except I’ve never done needles, drug fan that I am.

Don’t know about this Fentanyl high. Doesn’t feel like much of anything really except I am pretty calm, happy, and friendly, but that’s generally the idea with mild doses of opiates. Also a lot of my chronic pains went away. Thank you, heroin! I mean Fentanyl. Oh well, it’s all the same, trust me.

They said don’t drink for 24 hours, but you really think that is going to stop a determined drinker like me? You kidding?

Die with your boots on! That’s my attitude, baby. And live dangerously!

A little research showed me that there’s no interaction with booze and Fentanyl, so here I am, drinking Tequila like a proper roue, or aging degenerate, pick your adjective. I don’t know about this Fentanyl stuff.

Good high if you want to go to sleep so fast you don’t even  realize it when you knock out I guess. But I go to sleep most every night anyway. Why take a drug that makes you go to sleep? What’s the point? It’s like taking a drug that makes you breathe, eat, or piss. With some things in life, we don’t have much choice you know. It’s pretty much do or die.

Oh well, over and out. Sitting here wasted on Tequila and Fentanyl and not feeling much pain in either my mind or my body.

Do  you want me to write about the Iran-US war situation? I can do it if you want. I have a lot of information, along with a journalist source who is close to the top levels of the Iranian and  Iraqi governments, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. And  what he told me is pretty much the exact opposite of the crap lies that the US government and  (((media))) is feeding y’all these days.

The Myth of Illegal Drugs Frying Your Brain and Permafried People

In response to Jason’s post here about drug use frying your brain, I have written this response. In general, the notion that the use of illegal drugs will fry your brain or make you permafried even after you quit is nonsense. In general, once you quit you go back to the intelligence and sanity level you were at before you started. Few people get permanently lowered intelligence or permanent mental illness from former drug use.

Most illegal drugs do not cause any permanent damage to your brain that would affect you permanently after you quit.

In all of my years using drugs, I have met 10,000’s of drug users and I never met one person who had used so much drugs that they were “fried” in the sense that they were permanently stupid or crazy after they quit using.

Cocaine

There may be some consequences far down the road – say, with Parkinson’s.

Jason’s article discusses an increased risk of Parkinson’s in former cocaine users. But it’s not really due to brain damages so much as changes in a certain receptor that make someone more vulnerable to a toxin. That’s not the same thing as having a fried brain.

I knew a heavy cocaine user who appeared to have neurological problems from the drug. But I am not sure if it persisted after he quit, if he ever did quit. But he’s the only person I’ve ever met like that, and even he wasn’t fried at all. He was still very intelligent and completely sane. However, he did appear to have some sort of brain damage. Whether it was permanent or not is not known.

LSD

I have known people who took LSD up to 700 times, and I know a number who took LSD 300 times. LSD doesn’t damage your brain anyway. It can cause some changes in the visual system due to permanent changes in serotonin receptors, but that just causes some perceptual problems, and this is mostly in people who have taken it 50+ times. It doesn’t change effect you in any way that changes the way you think or feel, in other words, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

There are some very heavy former LSD users who seem to have permanent hallucinations, but those people took a lot of acid over a short period of time – like way, way too much acid. It’s not known what’s going on with them, but I suppose they are permafried in a sense.

LSD is a dangerous drug.

Cannabis

I know many people who have been smoking pot for 10, 20, or even 30 years, and there’s nothing wrong with any of them. You wouldn’t think there was anything wrong with them if you met them. They’re not damaged at all.

The pot lowering IQ discussed in Jason’s piece is only for use before you are 18. If you start using at age 18 or after, there’s no effect on IQ. People under 18 need to be very careful about pot because it can indeed lower their IQ’s a bit.

Pot doesn’t give you schizophrenia, period. The most it can do is trigger it if you are already vulnerable, but even then, most of those people would have gotten it anyway. But it can definitely bring it on sooner than it would have otherwise.

The rate of schizophrenia has been flat for 60 years, all through the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s and 2010’s, and all sorts of drug use rates for different drugs skyrocketed at various times in that period. In other words, neither cannabis nor any other drug is going to give you schizophrenia with one exception discussed below.

MDMA

MDMA is a very dangerous drug and it can definitely cause physical damage to your brain. It permanently lowers scores on a few aspects of intelligence tests such as vocabulary, but you mostly can’t notice any changes and there do not appear to be any changes in mental stability. In general, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

However, there are some people called e-tards out there who took a lot of MDMA very frequently over relatively short of periods of time, and these people appear to be permafried. Mostly they seem a bit stupid.

However, I have heard that even these effects of MDMA go away after ~7-8 years if you stay away from the drug.

 

Speed is another matter but even that tends to clear up after you quit. There are some very heavy methamphetamine users, especially people who shot the drug, who have developed an illness that looks a lot like or possibly is paranoid schizophrenia.

There are some recorded cases out of Japan, and a friend told me about another case here in California. This is not a common outcome and even with all the heavy meth abuse that is going on nowadays, you don’t hear much about people being permafried in the sense that they become permanently mentally ill with paranoid schizophrenia.

Heavy Polydrug and Alcohol Abuse for Decades (30 years)

I have heard of one person who used huge amounts of drugs and drank very heavily over many years, starting as an adolescent. They are now off of everything, and they have a rather poor short-term memory and forget stuff a lot, but other than that, they are still extremely intelligent.

They are also a bit suspicious and paranoid, but not at the level of a paranoid psychosis. I suppose this man is permafried in a sense, but if you met him, you would not appear stupid or crazy.

Conclusion

Bottom line is a lot of that stuff can mess you up pretty bad while you are on it so you seem stupid, crazy, or even brain damaged. But most if not all of that tends to clear up when you quit. Permafried people who are permanently stupid or nuts from heavy drug use must be awfully rare because I haven’t met one in my entire life. The fried brains and permafried nonsense is mostly mythology.

You’re Not Going to Get HIV from a Woman

Just forget it. If you like to worry, please worry about something else, something more reasonable preferably.

This is from my notes. It is a comment I got from a commenter who said that he had been on HIV forum. There were HIV researchers on there who had been studying HIV risk for many years and they had yet seen a single case of a man getting HIV via being an insertive partner to an HIV-positive woman as long as the man wore a condom.

Although condoms do break at times, he had never seen a single case of a condom break resulting in a man getting infected from fucking an HIV-positive woman.

I was reading some stuff on there saying that they have never seen a insertive partner test positive from a condom breakage in their many years of doing risk assessments.

You guys can quit worrying now, please.

Alt Left: “The Pentagon’s “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Dropped on Afghanistan (2017): Devastating Health Impacts, Ruined Farmland,” by Abdulhaq Omeri

These armaments are ridiculous. War is supposed to be fair. Both sides are supposed to have a chance to escape from attacks. Drone armaments, conventional bombs, RPG’s, grenades, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank weapons, all manner of artillery and mortars, all small arms, and even IED’s, suicide vests, car bombs and suicide car bombs all have an element of fairness about them in that it is fairly easy for the enemy to escape from these weapons.

None of these weapons wipes out whole neighborhoods and cities. That’s ridiculous. The idea is that if you have an army that is superior in size and armaments, using conventional warfare tactics, typically involving invasion of enemy territory, you should usually prevail. But you are going to lose some men. So will the other side. Well, you wanted to fight a war, right?

You simply cannot have bombs that blow up whole cities and whole neighborhoods. Those are rightly called WMD’s. Napalm and white phosphorus, cluster bombs, dum dum bullets, and land mines (mine fields in particular) are all banned weapons of war.

This damned thing is a WMD. Ban it. And ban fuel-air explosives too. Those are absolutely WMD’s. And depleted uranium munitions should have been banned long ago

The Pentagon’s “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Dropped on Afghanistan (2017): Devastating Health Impacts, Ruined Farmland

In April 2017 the US Air Force dropped its most powerful non-nuclear bomb onto a Daesh stronghold in Nangarhar.

Almost two and a half years after the United States dropped the “mother of all bombs” onto a Daesh hideout in eastern Afghanistan, locals say they have been afflicted by “many diseases” and agricultural lands are not yielding crops.

TOLOnews reporter Abdulhaq Omeri interviewed residents of Mohmand Dara village in the Achin district in the eastern province of Nangarhar. Omeri witnessed many children and teenagers suffering from skin problems and listened to many residents speak of the bomb’s lasting effects.

In April 2017, US Forces dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) on a Daesh stronghold of caves and tunnels in eastern Nangarhar province. The bomb, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” is one of the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapons in the US arsenal, according to the US Department of Defense.

MOAB is a concussive bomb, meaning it detonates above ground rather than penetrating hardened defenses. Anyone within 300 meters will be vaporized, experts say, while those in a one kilometer radius outside ground zero will be left deaf.

Nangarhar residents said the bomb has had a lasting effect on the area.

“The ‘mother of all bombs’ was dropped here,” said Pacha Shinwari, a local resident. “You can see that the stones can be broken easily, the plants are dry, the trees are dry, the nearby houses are all destroyed–40 or 50 of them.”

“The government evacuated the people (before the bomb was dropped), but when we came back, we saw that the houses were destroyed,” local resident Mohammadullah said.

Some teenagers are suffering from skin problems following the bomb explosion.

“Many diseases have emerged in this area after the bomb was used. Most of them have skin problems such as acne and skin irritations,” local resident Jam Roz said.

“The agricultural yields are not the same as in the past. The harvests are lesser,” said Aminullah, another resident.

Medical doctors and analysts interviewed by TOLOnews said the use of such bombs leaves an impact on areas where it is dropped.

“There are some concerns about the emergence of diseases after the use of the mother of all bombs in Achin, but so far the public health directorate has not recorded any disease that is related to the bomb,” said Zahir Adil, a spokesman for Nangarhar’s Directorate of Public Health.

“This bomb has three effects:

  1.  It impacts the eyes. People will feel irritation in their eyes.
  2. It impacts the inner organisms of the people who breathe the air where it has been used. It also impacts pregnant women and newborn babies… Afghanistan is a laboratory now.
  3. It has an impact on lungs,”

military affairs analyst Atiqullah Amarkhil said.

President Ashraf Ghani’s advisor and state minister for Human Rights and International Relations, Sima Samar, confirmed that the use of the MOAB in Nangarhar has had long-term effects on residents of Mohmand Dara village.

“It inevitably impacted the health of the Afghan people, especially in areas where explosives are used a lot, including the ‘mother of all bombs,’ which has left its mark on the lives of Afghans,” Samar said.

Featured image is from Tolo News


Alt Left: India and China: A Comparison

SHI: The Rapeublic of India is taking a leaf out of the PRC book when it detains Kashmiri politicians and opposition leaders. So every time I read about the Uyghurs in China, it rings close because the Indian fascist regime is engaged in closely similar tactics.

They’re different countries. China is a Communist dictatorship. Commies don’t mess around. They kill people, put lots of people in prisons, etc. It’s just what they do.

India is theoretically a democracy. They should not be acting like a totalitarian state. That’s way out of line.

To me, China runs on the Maoist principle of serve the people. They are also one of the countries on Earth (unlike us) who believe in the greatest good for the greatest number. They really are out to help everyone, with a special emphasis on the poor. Does India (or the US for that matter) work on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number? Of course not.

India has utterly failed its poor. India and China were approximately equal on most social figures in 1949. Since then, China has leaped far ahead of India.

And the Indian capitalist system has resulted in 200 million excess deaths compared to China since 1949. That is, if they had followed the Chinese model, 200 million lives would have been saved. There are still 4 million excess deaths in India every year compared to China. Check out Amartya Sen’s work. That’s where I got most of these figures.

Further, at least 30 years ago, 14 million people died of malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses every year in the world. Most of those deaths were in South Asia. In my opinion, most of those deaths are tied into the private ownership of land (I am talking farmland here).

Neither India nor Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Nepal ever did a proper land reform. The issue comes up from time to time in India, but the Indian state is ruled by large landowners (instead of  corporations), so it never gets implemented. India’s going to have terrible problems until they do a proper land reform.

for Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Pakistan still has semi-feudal land relations with debt bondage and sharecropping, and it also has always been ruled by large semi-feudal landowners.

The Secret to China’s Success – The Capitalists Are Kept out of Politics

China isn’t really a capitalist country. Why not? Because the capitalists are not in politics. They don’t run the country. The market or the capitalists are a tool to develop the forces of production instead of a form of Politics as they are most everywhere else, where they manage to conveniently screw up most everything for the masses.

The Communist Party rules China and the Hell if they are going to let the capitalists take over their country and run it into the ground like they do everywhere else. Instead the market is simply a tool, and the capitalists are barred from politics as they ought to be.

Capitalists should just make stuff. They’re pretty good at that. Once they gain political power, they seem to blow up everything and turn it all to Hell. Want some evidence? Open your eyes and look around at the capitalist world. See?

In China the capitalists have to go along with the Communist Party’s plans. New labor laws? Suck it up, capitalists. New pollution controls? Better fix those smokestacks, capitalists. The capitalists don’t have any say in this because if you let them take over, they always vote to ruin labor and destroy all the environmental laws because that’s what the profit motive demands.

Capitalists in China have to follow the Party’s five year plans. They have to do what the government says, or orders, for that matter. If the capitalists defy the party and don’t do as they’re told, the Party will just go in and confiscate all their property.  They’ll steal all your stuff. So that’s good motivation to get along and go along. Then they will either nationalize it or turn it over to one of their friends who is a bit more obedient.

There is a Party committee that sits on the board of directors of all large corporations. Large corporations are frequently bought out and nationalized. The state must own a proportion of all foreign corporations that set up shop in China. Apple wants to set up a factory? Fine, but the government gets a piece of that.

The banking is almost all controlled by the state. This is how China among a few other countries weathered the bankster economic crash of 2008. The state owned the banks so China was not plugged into world capitalist finance.

Japan is similar. There are a few very large banks at the top of the economic pyramid, and they are owned by the state.

Like in Korea, economic decisions about the development of the country are made by teams made up of the government and corporations. Korea’s giant conglomerates are nearly state-owned in part.

The Russian government is similar. It either owns outright or owns 50% of almost every large corporation in Russia.

A number of China’s state corporations are among the largest companies on Earth. They are right there in the Forbes 100 or even in the Forbes 50. They are immensely profitable and they generate a tremendous amount of money for the state, which is then used to develop the country or distributed to the people in one way or another. What’s wrong with that?

The Chinese state spends a staggering amount of money developing their country.  They do things quite easily, quickly, and even cheaply there – such as developing deep water ports or high speed rail systems – that either take forever and cost a fortune in the US or are simply not done, as they are economically unfeasible.

For instance, the US has decided that high-speed rail is not economically feasible in the US. How is it economically feasible in China, Japan, and Europe then? That argument is senseless.

China is presently pouring vast amounts of money into the rural areas, as they have been neglected. A lot of rural people move to the cities to seek their fortune. A lot of them don’t make it. China allows them to keep their farms as insurance when they do this, so rural folks who don’t make it in the cities always have the fallback of moving back to their farms. Hey, at least they can eat and survive.

This is where having the state own all the land in China comes in. Since the state owns all the land, the rural farms can remain as a backup insurance policy for rural workers who migrate to the cities and don’t make it.

If land in China was privately owned, that backup would not be available, and Chinese cities would be teeming with awful slums made up of rural dwellers migrated to the city. This sad scene is typical all over the capitalist world. But maybe it’s not necessary.

As noted, all land in China is owned by the state. Every inch of it. This is important as the private ownership of land is one of the main reasons that the India – Pakistan – Nepal – Bangladesh South Asian region is such a shithole. The best single thing India could do would be to abolish the private ownership of land.

In China, you get to own your house but not the land it’s built on. Sure you can lease out state land, even for a long time, but you can’t own it. In Netherlands, similarly all land is owned by the state. It’s not a bad idea.

A vast amount of the Chinese economy – 45% and growing – is publicly owned at some level or other, often at the municipal or even village level.

The state owns the vast irrigation system that underpins the entire rural economy. If that were privatized, all Hell would break loose. Think about it. You can’t have private corporations running the irrigation networks. Hell, we don’t even have that in the US.

The state used to run small schools and even medical centers in most rural villages, although they are getting away from that. Education is free through the graduate level. This also helps free graduates from being mired in poverty in debt for years or decades after they graduate. They keep their money to spend in the economy instead having most of their money go via debt bondage to parasitical bankers who don’t create anything of real value anyway.

Most capitalist banks in the West are giant loan-sharking institutions or casinos in the sky. Speculation isn’t real investment. It’s like going to the casino. If everyone just goes to the casino, this is good for the economy how? This is what happens when all that’s left of your economy is the economic mirage called “finance.”

Similarly, China now covers almost all typical medical care that people need. The state pays 85% and people pick up the rest. It’s easily affordable for most anything other than a very serious injury or illness such as cancer, which, unfortunately, the state won’t pay for.

This is a black mark to me, but it’s still better than our for-profit medicine system that wastes incredible amounts of the productive forces on overhead and executive payouts.

Medicare’s overhead is 2%. All the rest goes to medical treatment of patients, as it ought to. The overhead and profit of private insurance companies comes to 20%. So with Medicare, 98 cents of every dollar goes to actual health care, and with private insurance, only 80 cents of every dollar goes towards patient care. That’s obviously a grossly inefficient waste of economic resources. What’s this about the state being inefficient and the private sector being so efficient?

Once again, when the state covers your medical care, workers can not only relax, but they also don’t have to go into debt, bankruptcy, and poverty to  pay their medical bills. All of which helps whom? The vultures called for profit hospitals and insurance companies?

Why should sick people be financially ruined and living on the streets because they were so sick that they had to give every time they owned to some human shark in a corporate suit? In what possible world is this a just or even acceptable outcome?

Instead of being ruined, losing everything they own, and going homeless due to medical bills, with state health care, workers can keep working at their jobs and keep their money and their wealth as the state foots the doctor bills. So these workers remain productive and continue to spend money in the real economy. Win-win.

How Did the Polynesians Get So Huge?

Polar Bear: Polynesians fascinate me because they have Asian (SEA or Taiwan) roots and big builds. The Austronesian women they descend from must’ve been large and in charge.

Good theory but that’s not what happened. They went on long sea voyages to populate the Polynesian islands, but first, they came from Taiwan all the way to Papua New Guinea, which was also a very long voyage.

These were the Lapita people from Taiwan and later from coastal New Guinea and then on to Polynesia. The Lapitas were the greatest mariners who ever lived! And they were around a very long time ago. They are thought to have navigated by the stars.

I did a lot of work on another group of ancient Indo-European people speaking a now extinct language (Liburnian) on the Croatian islands. They were also thought to be amazing navigators. Some people think they even went to India! They also navigated by the stars. It’s pretty amazing that primitive people could figure something like that out so accurately.

Obviously the big problem at sea is fresh water. There are probably always plenty of fish to catch and eat and you can live off of those.

Scurvy was possibly not yet a problem for whatever reason and only turned up among British mariners later on. It’s amazing how they figured that one out too.

Sailors kept getting scurvy. It was Vitamin C deficiency because they were living off hard tack (a form of hard bread) and water, pretty much. Well, scurvy can make you pretty ill. I suppose some sailor at some point must have had some citrus with him on a ship, and when everyone else got scurvy, he avoided it.

And humans are intelligent enough to put two and two together when something like that happens. “Let’s see. What’s this guy doing that no one else is doing? How’s he not getting it? He’s eating citrus!”

Or they went back into port and those who ate citrus right away got better fastest. Who knows! All we know is back then people didn’t even understand about vitamins and minerals, much less deficiencies and yet somehow they figured out that you needed to bring citrus with you on ship voyages to keep from getting scurvy.

Incidentally this is where the word Limey for British person comes from. British were also the greatest mariners of their own time and at one time, the Union Jack ruled over all the High Seas. Spain was the previous power but the turning point came with the Defeat of the Spanish Armada by the British in the early 1500’s. British sailors had limes aboard their ship to eat to keep from getting scurvy, hence, the slang term.

Anyway somehow or other the Polynesians managed to have enough water with them for these long voyages.

How on Earth did they know that they would find islands out there somewhere? Many of those islands are a long way from anything else.  They could have kept sailing on and on and never found any island anywhere, at which point, they would all die.

Anyway they somehow had enough water and food to survive. But the theory is that things were very difficult on these long voyages, and only those who could best withstand famine and other harsh conditions survived. So by the end of the voyage, only the biggest and strongest were still alive – all the others were dead.

Well, it’s obviously a just-so story like so many evolutionary explanations, but at least it’s a theory. And I ask the detractors of this theory: Fine, do you have a better theory? Of course they never do.

 

Is Cousin Marriage Ok or Not?

James Schipper: You are far too concerned about inbreeding. The problem with inbreeding is that it increases the probability of harmful recessive coming together. However, if those genes are very rare to begin with, then the negative consequences of inbreeding will be quite modest.

Some time ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel had an article about that.

Its conclusion was that the consequences of cousin marriages among Turks weren’t particularly severe. As an example, it mentioned a debilitating disease caused by a recessive gene.

This gene has the same frequency among Turks as among Germans, but 1/10,000 of Germans had the disease while 1/4,000 of Turks had it. So the frequency of the disease among Turks is 2.5 times higher than among Germans. However, 1/4,000 is not a huge problem.

Suppose that x is a recessive gene and that it has a frequency of 1%. If mating is purely random, then 1/10,000 of the population will be xx, (1x + 99X)(1x + 99X) = 1 xx + 198Xx + 9801XX. The more assortative mating becomes, the more it will approach the limiting case of 1xx + 99XX, in which case 1/100 of the population will be xx.

Contrary to widespread belief, inbreeding does not worsen the gene pool. It may lower the quality of population, yes, but that is something different. If anything, inbreeding may lead to an improvement of the gene pool. This can happen if people with xx are sterile or so undesirable that nobody will mate with them. In such a case, the x gene will gradually disappear as more and more people who are xx will be born.

All indications are that the predominantly Muslim populations of Northern Africa, West Asia, and South Asia are on average not as intelligent as Europeans. However, neither are the Hindus.

Ashkenazim Jews, on the other hand, are on average smarter than Gentile Europeans, but consanguineous marriages were common among them as they were among blue-blooded Europeans. European kings or aristocrats who married a cousin were legion. Queen Victoria and William III, for instance, were married to a cousin.

The problem is that something called inbreding depression has been well-documented for IQ. The more inbreeding, the lower the IQ goes on average. You can plot it on a graph. However, if this is true then why is Ashkenazi Jewish IQ so high? And they do have quite a few genetic diseases too.

The high rate of genetic diseases among certain Arab Muslim populations, especially in the Gulf, has been well-documented. And the effect of inbreeding depression on the IQ’s of Muslim groups who practice this has also been documented. I think what James’ comment leaves out is the well-documented inbreeding depression effect that cousin marriage has on the IQ of offspring. He leaves that out of his critique.

Alt Left: The Dangers of Medical Transition for Transsexuals, Especially During Childhood

I hope to do quite a few papers on this subject. In general there is no such thing as transsexualism and there is no such thing as transsexuals. Nobody is born in the wrong body.

~10% of transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen, do have a female-shifted brain, but it is not an actual female brain. Their brain is simply in between a male and female brain, so it is female-shifted if you will. But there is no one who is stuck in the  wrong body. No one has a female brain in a male body or vice versa.

And a recent flood of new cases, mostly in teenage girls, is simply a mental illness being caused by social contagion. In this sense it is quite similar to Anorexia Nervosa and in fact, these girls resemble anorexics in  many ways. All of this is completely fake. None is real at all.

I have to have some sympathy for some transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen. These boys have stubbornly insisted that they were girls from an early age such as two or three. Such cases are intransigent and resistant to treatment. I am just fine with transition for these folks.

The rest are just mostly very effeminate gay men who are so effeminate that they think  they are women, sort of an extreme form of homosexuality.

Many transmen are simply very butch lesbians. Whereas in the past they would simply have identified as lesbians and lived their lives this way (something I am just fine with in these cases as I feel it is biological), now they are insisting that they are really men and transitioning. As might be expected a lot of lesbians are pretty mad about this. They hate men enough anyway, and now many of the recent crop of lesbians are insisting that they are the hated gender. Oh noes!

Puberty blockers are catastrophic and they are being given out en masse to very young children nowadays. The results are disastrous and I think this should be done seldom if ever.

Risks of puberty blockers: Sterility and permanent loss of sexual function. Very high levels of sterility. Impairment of bone mineralization, hence weak bones that easily break. Impairment of proper hip development (females only). Results in a male hip instead of a proper hourglass shaped female hip.

Risks cross-sex hormones for MtF only: 5X rate of throboembolic disease. The estrogen causes blood clots in these men’s veins, how I have no idea. Gynecomastia, rarely reversible. These men develop female-type breasts or moobs that never  go away.

Risks of cross-sex hormones for FtM only: Hirsutism, very difficult to reverse. They will have hairy bodies for the rest of their lives even is they detransition. For instance, even if these women go back to being women, they will still have to shave their faces for the rest of their lives. Deeper voice – this is permanent.

Risks of cross-sex hormones only: Elevated heart attack rate, possibly in both sexes.

Transition unnecessary in childhood – no need for immediate transition to prevent suicide: No evidence that transition with drugs and surgery before adulthood reduces the trans suicide rate.

Fake disorder – transsexualism is not real – they are all just mentally ill: Rates of mental disorder and autism among FtM transsexuals are very high, mostly Borderline Personality Disorder and autism.

Unnecessary – goes away on its own: 80% of childhood onset gender dysphoria resolves, often with puberty.

Man Ate Five-Day Old Pasta Salad and Died

There are a bunch of these videos done by a toxicologist. This is the first one I have watched. It’s mostly idiots, fools, naifs, and people making terrible mistakes.

This man ate a pasta salad that had been sitting out for two whole days. He made all of his food on Sunday and then ate it all through the week. That right there is a bad idea. Food left out for more than two hours can spoil. I have lived with morons who routinely left out food out for that long and more and didn’t care. They got mad when I put the food in the fridge. What can I say? People are retards.

Anything sitting out for two days is very bad. Always smell, look closely at, and even touch your food before you eat it. But it’s rude to touch your food! Ridiculous – the fingers touching the food are your own. You aren’t going to give yourself a disease you already have. But on the safe side, wash your hands before eating so you can touch food in confidence. In reality there is likely to be little pathogenic bacteria on your fingers.

Always wash your hands before cooking. Always wash a wooden cutting board after cutting chicken or any raw meat on it.

Always cook your food before you eat it where food needs to be cooked. Meat always needs to be cooked. Raw beef can have E. Coli, raw chicken can have Salmonella, and raw fish can have parasites. Fully 60% of chicken has salmonella. Raw pork can have trichonella which causes Trichinosis, but that mostly been eliminated from our food supply. I am not sure about other foods.

In general it is a bad idea to eat any sort of raw meat. Even sushi can be dangerous. Humans have had fire for 1-2 million years, and we have probably been cooking our food for most of that time.

Raw meat, like most raw foods, takes a long time to digest. You eat a raw steak and you will be digesting it all day. You cook food so you can digest it faster and also cooking food kills pathogens. You heat just about any food on high on a microwave or at a certain temperature on the store (not sure which) for even three minutes, and it will kill just about anything pathogenic in there. If you buy “hot pizza” from a 7-11, always reheat it. I got sick recently eating that stuff.

Bad food almost always smells bad. If it smells bad simply do not eat it.

My family used to have food that had been in the fridge, served it to me, and I said I wouldn’t eat it because it smelled bad. People always got mad because they said it smelled fine, and they were eating it. Go ahead and eat your poisoned food! My Mom got insulted because I implied she served me spoiled food. None of them can smell anyway, and my smell is so good I am almost part dog. Well, full dog if there are women around.

Bad food often looks weird. You can often see the mold right on the bad food. Moldy bread is no big deal. It’s penicillin. It just tastes like crap. When you eat moldy food, the gross taste can stay in your mouth for hours, and it’s hard to get rid of it.

Bad food can feel funny. Spoiled food often has a weird slimy feel to it. Don’t eat slimy spoiled food.

This guy really paid for it eating that spoiled pasta salad. It had Bacillus cerueus, a common cause of food poisoning. Food poisoning usually just gives you nausea, diarrhea, and possibly vomiting. It rarely lasts more than a day. But in some cases it can be much worse as you see in this video!

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

But we did, Nathan. And that’s precisely the problem.

In the unlikely event that Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs magazine and I were ever to sit down and discuss policy we’d like to see implemented, I’m sure we’d agree on a great deal. We Need to Revive the Fight for Overtime Pay, reads a July 9, 2019 headline.

No argument here.  Doubtlessly Robinson is an advocate of universal single payer health care, preferably with basic dental and eye care included. Probably an advocate of renewed vigor in the union movement. Probably for ending neoconservative petrodollar warfare in the middle east. Probably for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics. You get the picture.

At times his enlightenment goes beyond that: Discipline, Strategy and Morality, or why beating up unarmed writers is a poor way to advance left-wing ideas… reads another article, regarding antifa’s recent violent assault on right leaning author Andy Ngo.

While Robinson has no kind words for Ngo, he rightly condemns antifa’s assault on him: “The attack on Andy Ngo does not, to me, meet the criteria for justified violence. A Quillette writer with a GoPro is a nuisance. Punching him might be satisfying (to some, not me). But it is gratuitous and unjustified. It’s wrong. It does nothing helpful, and actually harms the cause of the left.”

Agreed, though to be fair and in the interests of equal time, it’s worth pointing out that there are those who claim that Ngo is no innocent angel or martyr here either.

But I digress. As far as left wing pundits are concerned, expect good stuff from Nathan Robinson. Most of the time.

However, in a recent piece in Current Affairs, Don’t Believe What They Tell You About the Left, he drops the ball, and does so in a manner that reveals the heart of what’s wrong with so much leftism, both past and present. The article criticizes Intellectual Dark Web pundit Bret Weinstein for asserting that the left’s ongoing demonization of White people will drive more and more of them to the embrace of White Nationalism.

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight white male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight white man.” Nothing of the kind.

The closest thing I’ve ever gotten is “perhaps as a straight white male you should exercise a bit of caution and restraint before loudly giving your opinion on matters that other people may have somewhat more personal experience with.”

But when people insist they “won’t apologize for being white,” I still wonder who has been asking them, because nobody has ever asked me to do anything but show respect for marginalized people’s perspective and critically examine my own assumptions and advantages. Which seems a fairly modest ask. 

Robinson goes on to insist that there are no such voices on the left condemning white males categorically, and that these claims come exclusively from right wing sources. The article favorably quotes one Sam Adler Bell:

These people are not getting the message “everyone hates white straight males” from left wing media. They’re not watching left wing media!! It’s absurd. They’re getting that message from right wing media *interpreting* left wing media for them.

He then goes on to suggest:

Don’t get your understanding of left concepts from Prager University videos. Get them from books! Or from leftists. Go to a DSA meeting and meet some people and listen to what they have to say.

Okay. I like the idea of going to the source. Get your views on the left from right wing sources, and what you’ll get is a telling glimpse of the private obsessions of the right wing mind. The vast majority of the time, these have little to do with the obsessions of the left.

What you’ll get instead is a Shapiroesque gish gallop or a Petersonian word salad, wherein you can count on one hand the number of inhalations the speaker takes before getting into the evils of communism, government intervention in the economy, the need for high income tax cuts and deregulation, one hundred million dead in the 20th century, and no small number of mentions of Venezuela and of course endless hosannas exalting endless private wealth accumulation and concentration.

Whatever the Koch Bro’s pay them to say, basically.

And that hasn’t changed in decades now. Listen to the right wing on any format, and what you’ll get is the clear sense that the western world reached its absolute satori around 1981 or so, when Maggie and Ronnie were slashing taxes, privatizing and deregulating left and right, and sticking it to the unions at home and the commies abroad.

From there, what we have to look forward to is a millennium of glory, as outlined in the gospels of Rand, Mises, Friedman and Hayek. If this actually sounds pretty lame, that’s because it is. An endless future of sweatshops, indebtedness and boom and bust cycles doesn’t sound that exciting to me. Sorry guys.

Plus, I should hope that we’re all smart enough not to be enticed into White Nationalism, no matter how shrill and stupid the anti-White rhetoric on the left gets. Too wrongs don’t make a right, after all.

And let’s especially give Adolf Hitler’s resurgent fan club a pass. Let’s not forget that he did start a war that got tens of millions of Europeans and white males killed, that devastated the nations of Europe and permanently ended their global hegemony. With friends like Adolf, White guys certainly don’t need enemies. Fortunately, this groundswell of neo-fascist reaction against social justice culture doesn’t seem to be a huge big thing.

And no, Trumpism doesn’t count. Neither does the Tea Party. Reactionary politics tap into impulses in the American (and European) body politic that are decades, centuries even, old. It reincarnates on a decade, maybe a generational cycle, but there’s nothing here that hasn’t been here in numerous different forms for ages now. So a surge of White supremacism as a response to social justice excess isn’t a thing, in any event.

So if you want to see what’s going on on the left, check out leftist sources. Agreed, and the reverse is true. Don’t just believe that Jordan Peterson is a Nazi and that Sam Harris is a genocidal neocon. See for yourself (said no leftist ever). Unfortunately for Nathan J. Robinson, doing precisely that actually damns his basic claim.

Frustration with the Left of the kind he’s criticizing isn’t coming from the Heritage Foundation or Liberty University. It comes from people like myself and many others who’ve had countless encounters with left wing people online and in real life and report having very similarly frustrating experiences. Common themes include:

  • Robinson has had good luck with Leftists if the only anti-White, anti-male hatred he’s encountered is strictly tongue in cheek, or hyperbolic expressions of frustration with White and male privilege. If such expressions abound, that should tell us something about the character of the Left in the social media age, and that something isn’t good. If expressions of hate for anyone (except the legitimately horrible; Hitler etc) have become acceptable on the Left, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we’ve lost the plot. Remember when we hated racism, not White people? When we hated sexism, not men? This was the cant on even the radical left as recently as the 1990s. If you don’t think the Left has a White hatred problem and a misandry problem, you’re not paying attention to a host of sources: Twitter, Tumblr, a host of woke blogs, r/socialism, most of Leftbook, a good portion of Breadtube, most online feminism, etc etc. It takes a glaring dose of willful blindness not to see that the Left has become about flagrant racial and gender partisanship. It shouldn’t be.
  • Leftists are too often not direct and honest in conversation. One wonders if protest is the only way they actually have of communicating with other people. In encounters with ideological rivals, the tendency online is to post vague expressions of disapproval in a scolding and parental tone, intended to gaslight their target into assuming a purely rational, “what did I do wrong?” kind of stance. And then eat them alive. Another is a “whew boys, look at this” sort of post, followed by mocking laughter. This is the entire format of The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube. You know, the channel with the cackling asshole in the background at all times. Chapo Trap House is largely about this as well. While satirizing the right is fun and easy, if that’s all they do, one starts to come away from media like this with the impression that what leftists stand for is how smart, clever and funny they think they are. Are actual ideological and policy positions expressed on these shows? Or is it ALL gaslighting? I don’t honestly know. We’d do well to learn from the brilliant Kyle Kulinski, who always lets you know exactly what this is – or should be – about policy wise.
  • Leftists have a love of sloganeering, thought stopping rhetorical tricks, witty portmanteaus and reciting, sometimes word for word, official dogmas. I’ve read the same copy-pasta, word for word, on gender related subjects I don’t know how many times now. And as bad as the intersectional feminists are for this, they have nothing on the classical Marxist-Leninists and (worst of all) the Maoists. Now these are a thankfully small minority on the Left, but do show how we’re not immune to the ills of flagrantly cult like thinking.
  • Closed ideological systems, which contain within themselves easy means to dismiss any and all criticism of themselves. Critics are simply White males defending their privilege, reactionary capitalist roaders, kulaks, etc. They all have a stake in the maintenance of the present “oppressive” system. That the cherished dogmas of the Left, like Marxist-Leninism once upon a time and intersectional feminism today, could be flawed (while still making some correct observations) is inconceivable.
  • Related to this is a tendency to display “moral relativism in monstrous incarnation.”  Which refers to the tendency of Leftists to judge actions on the basis of the “classes” of people who perform them, or whether they belong to a “marginalized” vs a “privileged” group. Leftist hating of White males isn’t really hatred because hatred is “power plus prejudice” and since feminists and minorities have no power (according to their own self referencing dogmas) they can’t be bigots. Violent actions visited upon the kulaks or other enemies of the people are okay. Kto Kovo, right?
  • Frequent expression, or at least implication, of truly bizarre and extreme views. Consider, for instance, the occasionally cited Schrödinger’s Rapist, which implies that all women everywhere should at all times avoid all men, because they have no way of knowing which men are the rapists and which are not. This has clearly not been thought through, and doesn’t reflect the way that virtually all progressives and feminists live their lives in the real world. Gee, I wonder why? Yet even if such ideas are not meant to be taken at face value, what does their popularity among Leftists and feminists say about their underlying mindset? Most of them may not all really hate all men and white people, but their doctrines certainly open the door to legitimizing such hatred, and anti white male exacerbation is a recurring motif in Leftist spaces in a way that would not be tolerated (and rightly so) were the racial and gender identities switched. Are we to believe that only White males have flaws in their character that require self reflection and repentance? At what point do “power” and “privilege” simply become legitimizing rationalizations for why it’s okay when the Left’s charmed circle of preferred identities hate?  I guess the idea that we should not be discriminated against based on our race or gender isn’t really the idea after all. This all says something, whether the Nathan J. Robinsons of this world want it to or not. If men, White men especially, are put off by this ongoing pandering to female moral vanity, can we really blame them?
  • Fragility. Put up serious arguments against Leftist dogmas and watch their adherents fall to pieces or go into full on attack mode. You’ve caused them personal injury, and they’re damn well going to let you – or your employers or people you do business with – know it. They sure the Hell let Andy Ngo know it, among others. Of course, they’re the first to accuse their opponents of likewise being fragile, with “White fragility” being a common thought stopping slogan among critical race theorists to denounce the tendency among whites to dislike being held collectively responsible for historical mistreatment of minorities.

I should like to point out that I, and many others, were not told about any of the above second hand by Bret Weinstein or Dave Rubin. We weren’t all good, dutiful socialists until Stefan Molyneux or Carl Benjamin somehow brainwashed us into falsely believing all of this. They are experiences that I and countless others, including some of these very “rightwing” YouTubers have had, and they aren’t isolated occurrences. They are the rule and not the exception, I’m afraid.

And I hate to say all of this, because I am a Leftist at heart. I don’t even completely disagree with the tenets of today’s Left: intersectionality and so on. Robinson is right in that we’d do well to listen to those with more experience with particular kinds of discrimination, and not be so quick to get defensive.

The problem is the weaponization of intersectionality and the inflation of standpoint theory into claims for full-blown infallibility. Plus, we can reasonably question just who the intersectional ideologues are speaking for, and how representative professional journalists and academics really are of the downtrodden and marginalized?

We’re not stupid, Nathan. We know when these ideas are being manipulated so as to establish social dominance. We’ve been through it with hip, politically correct ideologues time and time again, and the fact our frustration with it gets chalked up to the “alt right” simply compounds the problem.

Where Robinson gives himself, and the mainstream Left away, however, is in this pair of quotes:

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight White male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight White man.” Nothing of the kind.

One of my colleagues, for instance, has a tendency to joke that all men should be fired into the sun. (At least, I believe she is joking.) Men sometimes email to complain, saying they do not feel “welcomed” into the Left and that these jokes are hurtful because they imply that all men are bad.

I am not very sympathetic to the men who write these notes, because I am of their gender, and I do not feel wounded about remarks advising that men be fired into the sun.

In short, Nathan J. Robinson has not himself ever been told to fuck off for being a straight White man, so we’re to assume that never happens. Nathan J. Robinson himself doesn’t feel wounded by remarks advising that men be fired into the sun. Therefore, such remarks are well and good.

Well, I hate to have to say this, Nathan, but it isn’t all about you. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not wise for Leftists to countenance White male bashing in their ranks because doing so drives away a huge potential base for support. Support the Left needs to actually win elections, take power and actually implement policy that can really help poor and marginalized minorities.

Maybe that support and the politics it can achieve is more important to the broader cause than professional educated professional activists getting to be right and dumb Rightists being wrong about a cherished point of dogma, such as ‘power plus prejudice or of the ego stroking satisfaction of displaying their unbound feminist wittiness in the face of yet another neanderthal male.

But many Leftists will never consider this, and thus the core of the problem on the Left reveals itself, and why self-reflection (except a vain sort of self criticism of one’s own ideological shortcomings, itself a very totalitarian and cultish concept) seems never to be on the table with most Leftists:

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

Too many Leftists are caught up in a kind of narcissism wherein their projected self-concepts as warriors fighting on behalf of the underdog (the precise origin of the derisive use of the phrase social justice warrior) must be shielded at all times from any kind of doubt or criticism.

Thus, their reactions to disagreement are always ones of emotionalism, hostility and defensiveness. Never due consideration of what their opponents actually have to say, even if the end result of such consideration would reveal the critics being incorrect and the Left’s position vindicated by the facts.

One gets the sense that, like the religious fundamentalist, many Leftists demand blind faith, and the very notion of fact checking thus offends them. To doubt is to be racist, misogynist etc.

It’s so much easier just to handwave any and all dissent as the shrill hysteria of this or that rightwing pundit, and maybe even call for their deplatforming, milkshaking or the like.

So much easier than meeting the challenge head on. The bubble of self satisfaction doesn’t get burst that way. Not to say that rightwing pundits on YouTube or elsewhere are correct in their own world views. The Right has its own problems. However, the lack of self awareness among so many on the Left is simply breathtaking.

Perhaps this is why most of the intellectual and activist vigor on the Left is poured into digging in their heels over metapolitical dogmas aimed at asserting a kind of ideological infallibility: standpoint theory, power plus prejudice, white male fragility, dissension from feminist and race theory equating to racist and sexist oppression, and “hate” speech as a form of actual violence (justifying censorship).

As opposed to fighting the good fight for actual policies that will help real people in the real world: universal health care, free education, a living wage, ending petrodollar warfare, a new new deal, getting money out of politics and so on.

Witty Leftists so love their portmanteaus, so I have one of my own: too many Leftists are egolitarians. Its meaning should be obvious. So if you are reading this, Nathan J. Robinson, or whoever else on the Left who’s reading this, let’s work at not being egolitarian.

Let’s make this about the policies we all know we need, that Kyle Kulinski and Bernie Sanders so love to repeat so often. I’m not calling for perfection, purity testing or vigorous tone policing. Rather, let’s try to make this about ourselves and our self concepts a little less and about achieving good political results for the most needy and the most marginalized a little more, if we could?

Repost: Alt Left: What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.

Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.

How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.

A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me. Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. It is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse; nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were  fairly to very common to in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis, and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men; whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights. I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying, and heartbreaking, particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society.

Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.

The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men. Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions.

I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.

I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.

However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.

The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.

Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate. However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.

Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities. Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).

Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

Alt Left: Do Not Eat Processed Meats with Nitrates or Nitrates

I am just learning this right now. The nitrates are added to processed meats such as luncheon meats, bacon, ham, sausages, pepperoni, etc. to help preserve them and to give them the pink color. Most meat that has that pink color is probably bad for you.

The nitrates and nitrites themselves are not harmful. Many vegetables have them. However, when added to meats, especially red meats, the nitrates interact with chemicals in the meat to produce nitrosamines, which are not only bad for your heart but are also a strong carcinogen.

We’ve known this for a long time now. There was a big warning leveled against these meats in the mid-1970’s.

Back then the FDA was pro-consumer, unlike now when it is viciously anti-consumer, pro-business, and anti-public health. The FDA gave the meat industry three months to prove that nitrates in meat were harmless. They couldn’t do it. Instead they made up a lie that nitrates were required to keep botulism out of food.

But meats cured without nitrates have been used for decades and there hasn’t been one case of botulism. Most botulism comes from canned foods, often canned vegetables. The can is often very old and many times the botulism causes a bulge in the can. Never eat out of any can that has developed an odd bulge in it.

In 1980, Republicans came in and a consumer and public health-hostile and pro-business FDA came in and the nitrate controversy went away. It awakened again a few years ago when British papers published studies showing that processed meats with nitrates caused thousands of cases of cancer per year in the UK. This was called the bacon scare.

The industry has been lying shamelessly about these carcinogens in our foods for almost fifty years now. Their line came right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook.

There are many websites on the Net with articles about the fake nitrate scare and even how nitrates are good for you. I just realized that I bought a package of turkey hot dogs and one of ground turkey meat that both had sodium nitrite in it.

There’s really no safe amount of this stuff you can eat. Even eating one nitrate hot dog a day significantly increases your risk of dying of cancer, typically colon cancer. If you know what’s good for you, you will quit eating this junk right now.

There are not a lot of nitrate-free processed meats out there, but there are some. There are completely safe traditional ways to cure meats that work just as well as nitrates. But the curing process can take up to 18 months. Meat companies want their meats to cure rapidly. Waiting around for them to cure cuts into profits.

So we see once again how the maximize profits directive of capitalism once again puts money and profits over human lives. Capitalism literally murders or kills humans just so other humans can make a buck. I hope you fanboys are proud of that fancy free market of yours.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.