53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

It’s disgusting how the minute you say the phrase false flag, people grab their foreheads and start groaning. All false flags are automatically conspiracy theories and they’re all pathetic nonsense made up by the tinfoil hat crowd. Granted a lot of so-called false flags never happened and instead were actual attacks carried out by whoever claimed responsibility for them. This is particularly true with Islamist terrorist groups.

Their attacks often terribly brutal and aimed directly at civilians. Many of their attacks in the West have been called false flags, but none of them were. It has also been common for a long time to ascribe most of the worst Palestinian terrorist attacks to Israeli false flags.

The truth is that the Palestinians, like the Islamists, are quite depraved enough to do their own horrific terrorist attacks. Their attacks are depraved enough that Israel has no need to fake depraved attacks to frame the Palestinians.

But as you can see, false flags definitely occur. I never thought that the US government did these attacks very much, but we and the rest of the West (NATO) have been going on a wild false flag spree ever since NATO’s war on Russia started heating up.

It’s been one false flag after another and one attempt to blame Russia and pro-Russians for atrocities willfully committed by the other side. This is different from a false flag. In this case, Party A attacks the enemy, typically enemy civilians, or a shell goes astray and there’s an atrocity. 

Instead of admitting that they did it, they blame the enemy who they are fighting, usually for committing an atrocity against their own supporters, which of course makes no sense.

There were many such attacks like this in the Syrian Civil War when the Free Syrian Army committed massacre after massacre of villagers who supported Assad and then turned around and blamed Assad for each and every one of these crimes. 

As it turns out, Assad did not commit any of these civilian massacres because that’s just not his style. His forces don’t rampage into villages, even of rebel supporters, and slaughter civilians in brutal fashion one by one.

If they think a civilian needs to be dealt with, Assad’s forces simply arrest them and may well put them in a military prison, where they could well be tortured and mistreated until death or executed. I’m not saying Assad is a nice guy; it’s more that his style simply does not include savage massacres of entire villages or chemical weapons attacks for that matter.  When it comes to depravity, Assad has his own style.

I can’t believe that number of attacks falsely blamed on the enemy and out and out false flag and fake attacks that the US did in Ukraine and Syria. We seem to be entering into a new era of warfare where false flags are the normal ways to fight wars.

It’s appalling and terrifying because foolish Americans insist that these attacks never happen. By believing that they give their own government carte blanche to do as many false flags and false blaming of the enemy of allied attacks as they wish. And the government knows that in any fake blames or false flags the US or its allies pull off, they know that they can count on the support of every corporate media outlet in the US to go right along.

In fact, every mainstream media outlet in the West period is on board with any false blaming or false flags the West wishes to pull off. In that sense the entire media of the West is completely controlled by the states of the West, their militaries, state departments and intelligence services. It’s downright terrifying.

53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published in February 2015.

Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following 53 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admitted to it, either orally or in writing:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931 and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident.”

The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that under orders from the chief of the Gestapo, he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi General Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933 and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 while blaming the attack on Finland as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian President Putin, and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940 and falsely blame it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that between 1946 and 1948 it bombed five ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the pseudo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see thisthis and this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece, also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey, and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11-21) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO with the help of the Pentagon and CIA carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this).

Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred. And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include by way of example only the murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960), bombings in Portugal (1966), the Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969), terror attacks in Turkey (1971), the Peteano bombing in Italy (1972), shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974), shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977), the Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977), the abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978), the bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980), and shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985).

(22) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro].”

(23) Official State Department documents show that in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(24) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes) and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(25) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(26) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(27) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964… manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(28) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign, the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(29) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look, the general said, “I am giving an example.”

(30) The German government admitted (and see this) that in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(31) A Mossad agent admits that in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya, which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(32) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force), approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident,” thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(33) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, “French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit against Author”).

(34)    The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces  updated in 2004 recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars.” And see this.

(35) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998 and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked.”

(36) Senior Russian military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(37) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(38) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(39) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered seven innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police in order to join the “War on Terror.”

(40) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that in July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa they planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(41) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks as shown by a memo from the defense secretary as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq War.

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties.

Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq War was really launched for oil…not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government.  

(42) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the White House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(43) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(44) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers.

Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(45) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(46) Quebec police admitted that in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(47) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plainclothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(48) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(49) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(50) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, says that the head of Saudi intelligence Prince Bandar recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(51) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government, and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(52) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(53) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

So Common…There’s a Name for It

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s Strategy of Tension.

The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago. The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for navalair and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war… But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.”
– Josef Stalin


Nothing Worse Than a Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat sites I am banned from:

I am banned from Democratic Underground. I have been banned from Daily Kos twice. I am usually banned the very first day I register there, typically within 24 hours. I am banned from Mother Jones. I am banned from Media Matters. I got banned from Alternet but got a new name and came back and am now safe for a while. I was banned once from (((Daily Kos))) for attacking Israel. They called me anti-Semite and banned me. All the other places banned me for attacking the Cultural Left.

Suffice to say that these are all liberal Democrat sites except for Alternet, which is more Leftist.

In other words, I am usually very quickly banned from all liberal Democrat sites, usually amidst screams that I am a Republican! Except that I’m not a Republican. I think Democrats are too rightwing. I’m a flaming out and out Leftist.

There are few things more awful than an American liberal Democrat, mostly because there is almost nothing liberal about them.

They all support US foreign policy to the hilt. They all believe every lie the media ever shoved down their throat and every lie the foreign policy wing of the state ever told them. They’re flag waving patriotards.

At the moment, they are frothing with hatred against the evil Russia and the evil Putin. They all supported the Nazi Maidan coup and think Russia shot down that M-17 jet. They all hate Assad and support arming the jihadis and Al Qaeda against him and think think Assad gassed his people. And nowadays they all really hate China.

No matter what lie the state and media shove down their throat, they swallow it right up.

They reject all alternative explanations to US propaganda because it comes from Iran, Russia, etc. And they don’t believe one word those nations say because those countries lie.

You throw evidence at them, like people on videotape confessing their CIA-induced nefarious acts or even actual CIA statements (for instance, half of the CIA says Ukraine shot down that M-1 7 jet), and they shoot it all down. They say that everyone that says anything that goes against the US government/corporate media one party propaganda line is lying.

Anything other evidence is unproven. It’s “state your sources” and then all sources other than the US state and media are not credible. Any theories against US government and media propaganda lies are called conspiracy theories that must be subjected to the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” rubric, evidence which, of course, is never enough.

The Democrats are always right and never wrong. And the Republicans, of course, are never right and always wrong. If you dare to admit that the Republicans might be right once in a blue moon, then that means that you’re a Republican, and they insist that you now support Trump and are voting for him. It’s pure political tribalism of the most insipid kind.

Oh, and I forgot one more thing. One thing they really, really hate, probably even more than they hate Republicans, is the Left. You know, people like me. And the Squad. And Bernie. I’ve always said that the Democratic Party hates the Left more than anything, more than Republicans, Hell, more than out and out fascism.

A liberal Democrat will support a Nazi before he  supports a socialist. Look at how they reacted to Ukraine (supporting Nazis) and Venezuela (attacking socialists).

Bottom line is they will never admit they were wrong. And they will never change their mind, ever, about anything.

Liberal Democrats are some of the most rigid- minded, hopelessly brainwashed people I have ever met.

Assad Never Gassed His Own People: A Summary of the False Flag “Chemical Weapons Attacks” in the Syrian Civil War

Assad is not a very nice man, but he never gassed his own people.

Every single one of those gas attacks were false flags and little gas was released and nobody killed or even injured in any of the attacks. The dead were civilian hostages that the Islamists took from Assad supporting villages. They then murdered them, apparently with carbon monoxide, and presented their bodies as gas attack victims.

As far as the first attack in Ghouta in Damascus that everybody talks about, none other than the US CIA says that Assad did not carry out that attack. They got that information from the British MI5. That’s why Obama blinked on the crossing the red line thing and did not attack Syria.

The US DIA helped plan that attack and John Kerry knew it was in the works before it happened and even said so on video. Only a few people had sarin in their system, and the levels were so low that they would not even hurt the person.

Also no one saw the supposed gas canisters launched. Despite our own CIA stating that Assad did not do this attack (really there was no chemical attack at all, as in all cases), the media continues to rant about Assad doing this attack.

The Khan Sheikhoun attack was also a false flag. The US military believes that Syria bombed a warehouse where various chemicals, possibly chemical weapons, were stored. We have direct quotes from the military on that.

The bomb hole supposedly caused by the gas cylinder has been proven to be caused by a bomb from a bombing raid. Also gas attacks are never carried out by aircraft. Also the CIA told Trump that the gas attack never happened, but Trump went ahead and attacked Syria anyway! Despite the CIA telling Trump that the gas attacks were faked, the US media continues to rant on and on about this gas attack.

As far as the latest East Ghouta attack, it is now proven to be a false flag. Scott Ritter also says it was a false flag. British intelligence helped carry out that attack with the Islamists. The dead were killed in a Syrian bombing raid.

We have many interviews of civilians who were there at the time saying that they were forced by the Islamists to participate in a false flag gas attack and that the Islamists had been planning the attack for days beforehand.

Also a report by the UN’s Office on Chemical Weapons Control which visited the site proves that the attack was faked. However, this corrupt organization said Assad did a gas attack even though their own report shows that it was faked! That’s how corrupt the UN is! Despite the fact that the UN report proves the attack was faked, the media continues to rant on about it being real.

We now have ~40 White Helmets members stating on video that they faked all of those gas attacks as false flags. You can go check it out yourself.

The other sarin attacks also never happened.

No “gas victims” have ever shown any signs of sarin poisoning. Instead they were either murdered, gassed with carbon monoxide, or they were killed in bombing raids.

The many chlorine gas attacks also never happened. No chlorine has ever been found at these sites and the victims never show signs of chlorine poisoning. Instead they are always infants and they appear to have been shot up with some opiate morphine like substance.

Everything You Have Been Told By the Western Media about the Ukraine Conflict is a Complete Lie

This is a summary of the Ukraine conflict from Maidan to the present day.

The US media has been lying about Ukraine from day one. They have never said one single thing about this matter that was true in any way.

Why pay attention to what I say? For one thing, I know more about this than just about anyone you will ever meet. I was close to people who were deeply allied with the Russian separatists in the East. That doesn’t make right but maybe it makes me someone you ought to listen  to.

50% of Ukrainians speak Russian and 50% speak Ukrainian. This has been the main fault line in  the  country since independence.

After being put into power by the US and NATO coup, the Ukrainian Nazid started killing people. In fact they started murdering people even before they got into power in their murderous Maidan Color Revolution, when NATO snipers from Lithuania and Georgia holed up in a building where they shot both protesters and the Berkut police.

The US media then immediately blamed the Berkut police, who never killed one person in those riots. We now have the Georgian snipers on videotape saying that they were hired by NATO to fire on people, but they had no idea what they were really doing, and now they feel bad about it.

The old Ukrainian government was fine. It was elected in a democratic election. It was not illegitimate in any way. The overthrow of Yanukovitch was a plot by the US and NATO.

There are two big groups in Ukraine – Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers. The Russians are allied with Russia and the East, and the Ukrainians are allied with NATO and the West. Both groups have ~50% support.

The pro-Western groups tried to push through a measure allowing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU which was sponsored by the US and NATO. They had a vote and it lost by a narrow margin. The President opposed the measure as he was pro-Russian.

Since they lost, the pro-Ukrainians tried to seize power by force. This coup was plotted by the US, specifically by US diplomat Victoria Nuland, who is the brains behind the putsch and gave the Ukies $5 billion to stage this coup. Demonstrations went on for a while, but they lacked majority support.

Finally there was violence at the end as noted above when NATO snipers shot many people in a false flag operation which was immediately blamed on the government’s police, most of whom had no guns at all.

Yes, the president who was removed by the violent coup was corrupt, but all Ukrainian governments before and since have been corrupt, and the US-supported ones are the worst ones of all.

The new government immediately declared war on labor unions, gay rights activists, feminist groups, human rights groups, independent journalists, etc. because they were neo-Nazi fascists and these are first groups that fascists go after – labor unions, liberals, Leftists, and Communists. They particularly declared war on  the members of the Opposition party supported by Russian speakers, the Party of Regions, which had support of ~50% of the population.

The new Ukrainians were radical Ukrainian nationalists who are all essentially Nazis. They  immediately set about building statues and making holidays for Ukrainian Nazi independence fighters under Stepan Bandera who had fought alongside the Nazis and murdered many Jews and Poles during the Nazi occupation of Ukraine in World War 2.

The government started harassing and murdering prominent figures of the Party of Regions. Fights broke out in Parliament when the Ukrainians tried to beat up POR people. The also murdered many union members, calling them Communists, as the government was now ruled by radical anti-Communist fascists.

In a building in Kiev, up to a score of labor leaders were chained to a heater, and then the building was set on fire. A whole building full of Party of Regions people was assaulted by Nazis in Odessa. They were tortured, strangled, and set on fire. About 80 people died. The US media barely covered it and described as some sort of fight between two groups while assigning no blame.

The new Ukrainian government immediately said it was joining NATO and the EU. They also said they were taking over the Russian navy port in Crimea at Sevastopol. This port is crucial to Russia’s national security. Russia was alarmed and said they would not permit Ukraine to join NATO, as that is a severe threat to their national security.

Crimeans began agitating for independence. Crimea has always been a part of Russia. It was only added on to Ukraine in 1950 by Khrushchev because he was a Ukrainian himself. When Ukraine declared its independence in 1991, Crimea refused to go along with it, saying they wanted no part of the new state. They had to be put down by force.

So the little green men came to Crimea and restored it to Russia. Crimea had a vote on independence, and ~90% voted for joining Russia. Repeated opinion polls since found that 85-90% of Crimeans support joining Russia.

The new government also declared total war on Russian speakers by removing the Russian language  as a national language and even banning it from all official communications. The Russian language was more or less made illegal. The new government regularly made incendiary comments against Russia and the Russians in their country, who they viewed as traitors.

A completely grassroots citizen’s rebellion started slowly in the East where common people started seizing police stations and army bases. Most of the police and a lot of the army simply went over to their rioters. Russia had nothing to do with any of this, and in fact they very much opposed it.

These people soon declared their independence and became separatists. They voted on independence in the separatist region, and they got ~90% support. Subsequent opinion polls showed that that was correct, with 85-90% support. I believe the separatists had 80% support, but it soon went to 100%. The US and the West said the elections were fraudulent, but actually they were free and fair.

A low level guerrilla war started in the East. Supplies started coming in from Russia via the “Army Surplus Store,” as it was called. A lot of soldiers and citizen veterans got roused up nationalistically about the separatist matter. They were given permission to take Russian military weaponry and vehicles and move them into Ukraine to support the rebels.

Putin didn’t want anything to do with this clandestine support for the separatists, but he turned a blind eye to this amateur effort to arm the fighters. He still wanted federalism and autonomy for the East within Ukraine. The US and Ukraine were adamant that there would be no autonomy or federalism in the separatist region.

The separatists had mass support, ~80% of the population. The Ukrainian army started conquering a lot of the region, and when they went in to towns, ~20% of the people would come out and greet them.

There were guerrillas fighting an extremely dirty war in all the towns and villages, but they were very hard to find, as they were dressed like civilians and hid in the population. So these separatist guerrillas were operating far behind enemy lines. They could not be defeated.

After a while of occupation, the 20% pro- Ukrainians all went over to the separatists due to the abuses of the occupiers.

There were a number of atrocities via shelling in the area. Most of them were behind separatist lines. Quite a few civilians were killed, and there was a lot of outrage. The US and the media blamed the separatists for each of these atrocities, but they were all done by the Ukrainian, whether on purpose or not, I have no idea.

The OCSE is the armed police and “peacekeeper” wing of the EU, and they were cruising all over this warring region lying everywhere, making up stories, and blaming the rebels for all atrocities which were all done by the Ukrainian.

At one point, the Ukrainian gained momentum, and it seemed like they were going to conquer the region. The separatists were retreating and everyone said they were going to lose.

At that point, yes, Putin did invade with ~10,000 troops to rescue the separatists. He never admitted it but they pushed the Ukrainian way back, recovered most of their territory, and even started easily conquering new territory where most people also supported the rebels. Russia lost 200 men in this fighting.

However the Ukrainians got massacred and at the moment, they have suffered 12,000 killed in action. The Ukie government lied and said they were “missing,” and I believe that is still their official status.

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

No Feminists, the Three Recent Mass Shootings Had Nothing to Do With Misogyny

Of course, the feminists are on full rant, blaming misogyny for all three recent mass shootings. The Gilroy shooter was supposedly motivated by misogyny because he praised an old Social Darwinist tract  that is full racist and misogynistic writing. Nevertheless, there’s no evidence that the shooting was motivated by hatred of women, and in fact, this man said little or nothing about women one way or the other. Nor did he target women in his shooting. He shot at anyone.

The moronic Left media state that the Gilroy shooter’s manifesto, which was basically apolitical and if anything an argument against unchecked population growth, contained  racist and misogynistic statements. He lamented that “Latinos and Silicon Valley twats” were flooding into his town. Sounds like he was upset about rampant population growth in his town.

Yes, he mentions Latinos, but he also mentions Silicon Valley types, and they tend to be either White, Asians, or South Indians. So either he hated Whites, Latinos, Asians, and South Indians equally (or just about everybody), or race had nothing to do with the shooting.

The FBI has since found a hit list of possible targets this man had composed including all sorts of government offices, churches, and organizations from all over the political spectrum. The more you look at this shooting, the more it seems to have not had any politics at all.

The moron feminist media claimed that “Silicon Valley twats” was a misogynistic phrase, apparently implying that he hated female Silicon Valley workers. Yes, twat can refer to female genitalia, though it’s not often used that way. Yes, you can call a woman a twat just as you can call her a bitch or a cunt, and it can be an insult when used this way.

But the way twat is most frequently used in the US simply means something like idiots, fools, morons, dumbasses, etc. So the comment was not misogynistic at all.

Instead he commented on “Silicon Valley clowns,” which isn’t bigotry at all except that our modern bigotry hunters, determined to excavate every bit of hate lurking in the caverns of even the most innocent of sentences, will probably dig some up. After all,  when you go looking for a certain thing, you have a way of finding it, even if it’s via hallucination.

The El Paso mass shooter is also somehow a misogynist in addition to being an “incel,” though no one knows his sex life, and he wasn’t complaining anyway. This is because he was a White Supremacist (fact), and White Supremacists are all automagically linked to misogyny via links with MRA’s, incels, PUA’s, etc. Or so say the serial liars at the SPLC, but they lie half the time their mouths are open, so they aren’t a good source about anything.

First of all, half of incels are non-White. Yes, some White incels are White Supremacists, but many more are not, and most incel boards now have polices against race-bait posting.

In general PUA ideology says nothing about race, leaving aside that clowns like Roissy and Roosh have adopted racialist ideology. PUA ideology is about heterosexual men getting laid by women. There’s no racialism inherent in such a philosophy of seduction unless I missed that lecture in Pick-Up class.

MRA’s are notoriously for being non-racist or anti-racist, and racism has never been a part of the MRA scene to my knowledge.

Yes, many White Supremacist men are quite sexist, and fascism often has strong links to sexism. But fascists never made a habit of murdering women. They just wanted them at home, in the kitchen, or in church (or the German translation of such), taking care of kids, cooking meals, and gaining spiritual sustenance. Kinder kuchen kirch.

A number of the more hardcore White Supremacists do seem to hate women or at least have a very low opinion of them. The crowd around The Daily Stormer and Vanguard News Network (though the latter is more sexist than misogynistic) is a good example of that. But the quietist aspect of the movement as seen in the American Renaissance site is not misogynistic or sexist at all. Neither is Greg Johnson’s more hardcore Countercurrents site.

It’s true there are few women in the White Supremacist scene, but that is probably because hardcore racism and fascism appeal a lot more to men than to women. In fact, fascism is actually designed to appeal to men.

Nevertheless, many White Supremacists and White racists of any type do not hate women at all, and nor are they sexist. If anything, from my depraved dope, booze, and sex-drenched point of view, I find them squares, fuddy-duddies, and party-poopers. They talk a lot about protecting their women, and they seem to mean it. They probably pedestalize women more than anything else.

So of the three mass shooters, only one has misogyny issues, and his shooting had nothing to do with his issues with women. So the feminists are 0-3 on their theory, which is about how they score on every bit of their fact-free ideology.

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?

Alt Left: Teaching Little Children to Be Gay

Well, that’s exactly what they are doing here. The woman narrating this video is very cool, an anti-SJW liberal! She’s pretty much Alt Left, and I wish she would identify as that. Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with her as is the case with so many journalists and critics.

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.
China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.
Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.
“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”
Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.
Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.
45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.
Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.
There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.
I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.
Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.
Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.
There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.
It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.
How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.
The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.
Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.
In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.
Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.
This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.
The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?
A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”
The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.
China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.
Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.
The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

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

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

Intersectionality is itself a system of power. It upholds the status quo and protects the powerful and privileged.
Recognizing this is the key difference between the alternative left and other current forms of political thought.
A fan of the Alternative Left Facebook page recently posed this question to me:

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

At a glance, this seems an absurd question. Isn’t rejection of postmodernism integral to the alt-left? Doesn’t all that deconstruction and bafflegab distract from the hard and real work of class struggle? Isn’t a return to some semblance of economic realism, if not historical materialism, what we’re all about at the end of the day?
Not so fast. While I don’t think postmodernism is a tenable philosophy long term, it does make some good points. It’s like nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism. They’re nice places to visit, and doing so is a sign of intellectual growth, but you wouldn’t want to live there.
My quarrel with postmodernism is how it tends to be cherry picked by the intersectional left, the feminist theorists in particular. They’re quite good at using deconstruction to pick apart the texts of their opponents, and will exploit other postmodernist concepts such as “the death of the author” – the idea that textual interpretation by authorial intent is flawed – to license their tendency to simply read their own narrative into ideas that threaten them.
They use such notions as science being a western, patriarchal “way of knowing” as a legitimizing excuse to handwave otherwise proven claims of some biological basis in gender differences, for example.
Deconstruction, cognitive framing and other advanced linguistic concepts are devastating ideological weapons against those who are not aware of them. Intersectional theorists get a unique education in these concepts in the academic institutions wherein their views dominate. Institutions that are not cheap to attend and require significant baseline intelligence to be successful in. They’re therefore able to win debates against their less privileged opponents simply through framing and linguistic and cognitive gimmicks of this nature.
Ultimately, however, feminist theory’s apparent embrace of postmodernism is self serving pretense. Notice how their own theories are presented as if they were eternal truths, universally binding on all people under all circumstances. Cultural relativism is fine when it’s used to impose multiculturalism and diversity upon western cultural spaces, but has a funny way of disappearing when similar demands of tolerance are made of feminist theorists in turn.
Fixed and objective meaning of text based on authorial intent is not authoritative, since the author no doubt lives in a network of socially constructed systems of which he is barely aware. But not so the feminist critic.
Her views, and her views alone apparently, somehow transcend the context of the society that gave rise to them, and so are above questions of this nature and constitute an ultimate authority on par with divine revelation. No one is faster to declare epistemic superiority for their own points of view – standpoint theories so called – than college feminists who’ve studied the poststructuralists closer than anyone. If feminist theory is not a metanarrative, you tell me what is.
Who deconstructs feminist theory, one must ask?
Yeah, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
Herein lies a very central tenet of alternative leftism: that the brands of postmodern critical theory so prevalent on college campuses and that are the underlying ideologies of the SJW’s are actually conservative, not radical. They are in fact themselves systems of power, like the very notions of patriarchy and colonialism they so love to deconstruct.
This is quite naturally a counter intuitive concept when first exposed to it. Feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and so on – Intersectionality serving as a kind of one ring to rule them all and thus a useful term for referring to them collectively – is interpreted either as official party line and not to be questioned, in the case of the mainstream left.
Or else condemned as “Cultural Marxism” and taken at face value as advocacy for an artificial egalitarianism, in the case of the right. Neoreaction comes quite strangely closest to the truth in its denouncing of progressive ideology as “the Cathedral” – a vast Matrix like social construct comparable to the Christian church in the middle ages – the state religion to which everyone must pay homage, hence the term.

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

Neoreaction’s flaw, however, lies in the irony of its denunciation of progressivism in those terms. Isn’t a medieval form of social organization exactly what they want? The Church of the middle ages, far from being an institution for egalitarian social leveling, had a long history of supporting the aristocracy and running interference on behalf of the status quo, despite a good portion of what Christ actually taught, which may be where the confusion arises.
So it is with intersectionality. Despite its pretenses, and despite what were likely genuinely radical critiques at one time, current year intersectionality does not challenge privilege. It upholds privilege.
Do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I do not condone racism towards minorities, misogyny and homophobia. The left spearheaded the fight against those things for all the right reasons. And not merely because prejudice undermines working class solidarity, thought that is reason enough. To be left is to value equality, to some degree or another, and fair treatment regardless of what one is by accident of birth. Intersectionality itself was intended to be a manner of looking at how various different forms of oppression reinforce one another. This is not in itself a bad idea.
The problem is that intersectionality has evolved into something does not actually promote real social justice. Its lack of tolerance for dissent made it vulnerable to abuse on part of the unscrupulous, who were thereby attracted to intersectional feminist spaces.
They’ve co-opted social justice movements, and used them as tools to oppress people. It’s like Marxist Leninism 2.0 – a popular movement is appropriated and exploited by an elite vanguard professing to represent the interests of marginalized people, and using that to consolidate their own power. Cultural rather than political power this time, but the underlying mechanisms are quite a bit alike.
It’s also quite different from Marxism in one key aspect, and this is often overlooked by those on the right who equate intersectional ideas with Marxian leftism: intersectionality’s lack of emphasis on political economy. It is not merely that they simply don’t care about or are ignorant of the internal workings of the international economy or the political machines of the G7 nations.
Intersectionalists are rewarded by capital for framing privilege in terms of racial and sexual identity rather than in terms of wealth and political power. These rewards include expansion in academia, access to agenda setting mass media and favorable policy service. Ideological systems that truly threaten the status quo do not enjoy universally favorable media bias, moderator bias on major corporate social media platforms and an exalted status in academic institutions.
The state religion does not advocate for the truly marginalized within the polity.
It’s important that you divest yourself of the notion that intersectionalists truly represent the underclasses, including most women and people of color. They occupy a very different world than that of working single mothers or unemployed minority youths in the ghetto, or on their way to prison.
They occasionally will use real oppressions suffered by women and minorities while making the case for an increase in their own influence, but that is the only reason for which they ever seem to do so. If one takes their standpoint theories at all seriously, the plush halls of the academy and major media outlets are not the places we should be seeing credible voices of the oppressed and marginalized. Those voices are kept quite intentionally silent, because their demands will be for redressment of their economic hardships and lack of political representation.
Women who are turned off of men and family as a result of feminism, and men who are turned off of religion, community and nationalism as a result of anti western critical theory find themselves completely atomized and without an identity. This is central to the alt-right’s critique of modern liberalism and the abolition of borders.
But the real question is: who is the real beneficiary of all this? The far right will tell you that this is “cultural Marxism” and is necessary in order to groom the populace for the embrace of socialism.
That’s not what happened. If you do not believe that, observe how neoliberalism increased apace just as this so called cultural Marxism did. The emergence of political correctness coincided with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. If the idea was for feminism and multiculturalism to precede socialism, they could not have failed more miserably.
Atomized individuals turn to careerism and consumerism to fill the void, and they’re more easily replaced when cheaper cogs for the machine are found. So they’re more obedient and easily used in the workforce and more responsive to consumer trends. When other vectors of identity are removed, do the brands we work for and consume become the way we identify ourselves?
This seems to me to be the triumph of capitalism, and quite in line with the manner in which Marx believed capitalism would progress, abolishing relations based on kinship and reducing all human interaction to commodity exchange, rather than the triumph of Marxism itself that it’s so often described as by reactionaries.
Hard Fact: Social liberalism is the handmaiden of capital, not of revolution. And so capital became socially liberal when national economies became fully saturated and capital had to go global in order to keep up its expansion. The alt-right is hated in the capitalist press because capital must always seek new markets, and it was therefore in capital’s interest to globalize and promote diversity.
Observe one of the methods whereby Intersectionality preserves its hegemony: by seeking to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs. Often with no recourse or due process whatsoever. In what world does leveraging the power of capital over labor so flagrantly and directly constitute anything that could be at all called left wing?
This is what was done to socialists and trade unionists back in the bad old days of blacklisting. This isn’t to say that removal of an offensive or hateful person from a workplace isn’t sometimes appropriate or necessary, but to use the threat of employment loss as a means of enforcing ideological conformity more broadly is something the left should not be supporting. We can question the rationality of workers supporting conservatism all we want. It won’t seem quite so irrational now that this ugly tactic has been normalized.
Another hard fact: Intersectionality relies on the absolute power that capital has over labor and consumers in order to successfully impose its will on the population, as it’s doing in geek culture, for instance. The capacity for populations to resist cultural and moral relativism imposed from above would be greatly increased if cultural and economic as well as political institutions were democratized and under some or another kind of social ownership.
Intersectionalists are a safe and nerfed form of “leftism.” One that attacks white male “neckbeards” and “dudebros” in places like 4chan while leaving the State Department, the military industrial complex and Wall Street lobbyists unscrutinized.
Activists and even radicals who truly want to challenge the status quo find their anger and vigor channeled into safe outlets that do not truly threaten the powers that be. Offensive statements by white male celebrities are made front page news by an intersectionalist movement that’s presented in the headlines as being radical and subversive – the resistance, so called. Offensives launched by the US military on the other side of the world in defense of petrodollar interests are kept more safely out of the public eye.
Intersectionality is a tool used by an educated elite to police the culture of the underclass, and to undermine the solidarity of that underclass by dividing it along racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this done time and again now: with Occupy Wall Street, with Bernie Sander’s campaign for the White House, now with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most leftist spaces on social media are completely overrun by intersectional dominance, even ones that profess to be Marxist or anarchist.
Intersectional activists have a curious way of coming to dominate leftist spaces, and maintain their power through dividing the left against itself and redirecting popular anger towards other segments of the left. Sometimes the target is white male leftists – brocialists, so called. Sometimes it’s white feminism, or TERF’s or straight feminism. Sometimes straight black males are called the white people of black people.
Sometimes cisgender gay males are driven out of LGBT spaces. Some or another activist has run afoul of the intersectionalist overlords and is publicly shamed, like in a Maoist struggle session or the young kids being banished from polygamous fundamentalist communities for the most trivial reasons.
But the real reasons aren’t so trivial: to maintain the power of the leadership over the flock. Ceaseless purity spiraling destroys the cohesiveness of the left. J. Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO could not have done a better job if they tried. Perhaps the FBI still is, and that’s what all this really is.
Like a puritanical religion, intersectionality promotes a guilt based morality that ceaselessly berates its followers for their ideological and lifestyle shortcomings. Theories of inherited privilege based on what people are by accident of birth become a moral burden comparable to original sin. People with a lot of internalized guilt do not take action to challenge their leaders. They punch down, not up.
Nearly any action a person may commit or even a thought they might think can be construed as oppressive in some way or anther. That combined with intersectionality’s taboo on questioning claims of oppression made by its activist leadership – who are above any kind of ethical or moral standards due to their supposed “marginalization” – results in a near cult like atmosphere in intersectional spaces. Not surprisingly, most people want nothing to do with this and thus nothing to do with the left overall. Who does that benefit, in the long run?
As mentioned previously, considerable education is needed to really understand their theories, and the intersectionalists themselves conveniently have a near hegemony within the academy itself. Hence, the relative absence of working class people in these self styled radical movements.
Which in turn makes the whole of the left easy for the right to denounce as “limousine liberals”, “champagne socialists” or the like. No more effective means of turning the working class off of the political left could be contrived. This makes McCarthyism look clumsy and amateurish. People who are rightly put off by intersectionality then defect quite willingly to conservatism as a protest against it. One almost wonders if this wasn’t the intent all along.
The problem is not with education itself, which is perfectly fine and good. But rather with the co-optation of education to serve elite interests. Something that the left was much more willing and able to call out prior to the capture of the humanities and social sciences by intersectionalists.
The ideology of intersectionality itself is constructed to be a closed system of thought, wherein disagreement with it is likened to actual oppressive behavior against a marginalized person. Allegations of racism or sexism – made with the backing of powerful media outlets – against lone individuals without recourse and no due process are effective and currently socially legitimate ways of marginalizing people. It’s a good way of removing someone who’s bringing up facts and ideas that the truly powerful don’t want publicly legitimized.
Far from emboldening the resistance, intersectionality keeps protest culture in line and ensures its continuity as a controlled opposition. One that allows the powers that be to claim that they allow and legitimize dissent – so long as it doesn’t really threaten them. One oligarch or another might get thrown under the bus due to his alleged racism or sexism here and there.
The oligarchy itself is thus made safer, for it submits itself to the appearance that it really is held to scrutiny and made accountable for its abuses. Surely the absurdity of a racist or sexist comment ruining a CEO while his abuse of his workers, defrauding of his shareholders and pollution of the environment as a matter of course going completely unnoticed highlights the absurd nature of intersectionality as a form of radicalism.
With leftism like intersectionality, who needs conservatism? It’s the ultimate metanarrative, and if the postmodernist techniques of deconstruction can be turned against it, that can only be a good thing. An essential thing, as a matter of fact.

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.
Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.
I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).
As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.
I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.
So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)
You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?
Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.
A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.
So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”
The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.
The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.
Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.
Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.
And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.
I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.
The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.
So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.
Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.
The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.
Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.
I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.
Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.
The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.
The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?
The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.
Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.
After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.
As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.
After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.
The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

Answering Some Reddit Delphi Murders Sub Haters, Part 2

Here.
I really shouldn’t answer this stuff, but some of it is so outrageously and libelously flat out wrong that they need to be answered because they are so nasty, so wrong and so destructive. They actually report my conclusions as the exact opposite of what I concluded! Very few rumors below fall into that category, but a few do.
I would like to point out that a few posters were considerate enough to write about me more or less respectfully. I thank these posters for their decency. I notice they are all men. For some damned reason I am a lightning rod for women on that sub.

(like instuctionals on how to seduce a preteen girl, A.K.A “grooming”)

This is the worst one of them all. I keep answering this charge and they keep throwing it back at me. Now that I think of it, I did write a post, “How to Seduce a Teenage Girl,” but I think I said the post was mostly intended for teenage boys. Anyway, that was a troll post and having had a lot of experience with them, you don’t seduce a teenage girl any differently than you seduce a grown woman. There are no special techniques to use if she’s not 18 yet.
Thing is, I would never write a post ever instructing child molesters on how to groom a child! Are you kidding? Hell no. I don’t support molesting children. Never have, never will. In fact, I have turned people in for child porn, and I turned in a neighbor for possibly prostituting their 12 year old daughter out to men.

‘exploring the sexuality’ of underage girls by adult males is definitely illegal and mostly considered immoral.

That’s not true. Grown men can talk about the sexuality of teenage girls all they want to. Of course it’s legal. And in terms of immorality, adolescent sexuality is a study of heavy research and many books and journal articles have been published on this very important aspect of our culture.
If he truly is a psychiatrist/therapist, professional whatever,the discussion of such taboo issues on personal blog is also unethical.
Peer counselors don’t need a license. And a lot of clinicians write about subjects like this. There is a sexologist who writes about this subject very regularly. Is he unethical. Clinicians can write about any are of psychology and psychiatry that they wish, even sexology.

The correct way is to conduct a study, compile the research, and present it to a community of peers for review. Open internet blog is not the way.

That’s not true either. I publish in academic journals and I referee for a journal. Scholars, including colleagues I have worked with, publish their ad hoc, seat of the pants, anecdotal and observational research all the time. It’s just that people might not take it seriously until you do actual peer reviewed research on the topic.

Can you imagine some poor mom dropping off her poor daughter to talk to a “professional” and its him????

I don’t generally work with minors for money. I have worked with one teenage boy though. I worked with two teenage girls, one 13 and the other 14, for free because they were in such bad shape. They were miserable and almost suicidal so they needed some intervention. And course we talked about all sorts of sexual matters because that was why they came to me in the first place. Most of my professional work is with people dealing with sexual issues. Last time I checked, they felt that I helped them a lot.

but i wouldnt doubt thats the reason he got into that field-

She just called me a pedophile of some sort. I have no more interest in underage girls than any other man.
Another libel.

I know everyone is entitled to have their own opinion- but being attracted to girls that age is 100% NOT OK- I’m 38 and holding a conversation with guy or girl in their early 20’s is hard enough.. everything about him is off – total creep.

If you don’t think he’s a creep you either haven’t read his entire blog or you agree with his views on the sexual availability & desirability of prepubescent or barely pubescent girls.
Sounds like another libel. Of course I do not think that prepubescent girls are sexually available. Are they sexually desirable? Not to me, but to at least 25% of all normal men they are. But no men should have sex with a girl like that. Actually it is more than that. The most recent study I saw showed 51% of normal men responding sexually to prepubertal girls in the lab. I guess 51% of all men are evil pedophile scum who should be killed.
What’s barely pubescent? 10-12 years old? No man should have sex with a girl that young. They’re not available to anyone. Desirable? Not to me but to at least 25% men they are.
In fact it is. Endless studies in the lab have shown that all normal men are aroused by teenage girls in the lab, typically maximally. In other words, men react just as strongly to teenage girls as to adult women. The only men who don’t react to them are dead or gay, so I assume this man mosluggo is a homosexual.

Frankly I’m amazed he hasn’t been investigated on suspicion of possessing child pornography.

No one gets investigated for possession of child porn for some shitposting they did on the Internet. Good luck getting a warrant for that. They would have to have a valid tip (you saw CP on someone’s computer) or they would have to catch them on CP sites. The latter is how most men go down on this charge. They also find networks and when they unravel the networks, they often find a lot of other people trafficking in this stuff. I have no interest in that garbage and I wouldn’t have any of it anywhere near my computer. Supposedly I’ve already been reported for this dozens of times already, and no officer ever contacted me, so it’s useless to call me in.

In my opinion, these statements are the reason for all the pedophi- excuse me, hebephilic tendencies….He can’t deal with a real grownup woman. So he “explores” the sexuality of pubescent girls. But Hey, he’s not a pedophile. Noooo sir. No way.

Are you kidding? I’ve had many relationships with real grow-up women ever since age 17. I’ve dated more women than most men will in 10-20 lifetimes.

Jeez, he’s an old man pedocel…Guy sounds like an incel.

More libel.
Sheesh, I am probably as far as you can go in terms of being the polar opposite of an incel. Where do these idiots come up with these ideas?

apparently he dates almost very young models (in his dreams).

Actually I do. They are usually in their 20’s. Last date I had was last September though.

i used to read his writings and try to guess what his DSM-V personality orders were, for fun.

More libel.
I don’t have a DSM-5 personality disorder, and I’ve probably seen 30 clinicians who diagnosed me over 35 years. They actually specifically stated that I didn’t have a personality disorder, thank God.

Hmmmm….the quotes from the first few paragraphs were plagiarized verbatim from this very subreddit. I’m surprised you didn’t recognize them.

I have no idea what this lunatic woman is talking about. She is referring to this post. I don’t even read that vile Reddit, and I don’t understand what material she thinks I plagiarized (copied word for word) from there, but I copied nothing word for word from there.
Another libel.

RL might understand the consumption and effects of methamphetamine though..

This comment accuses me of being a meth user. Of course I do not use that awful drug. I’m not an idiot. I know what the drug is like, and it’s definitely not for me. The three-day post-high crash alone is enough to put me off of it.
Another libel.
 

He describes himself as a lady killer.

LOL used to be, I guess. I have no idea why people find statements like this so outrageous. Don’t they realize that men like this actually exist? Do they think it’s all fantasy and lies. There are a lot of men like this out there, you know. I know, I made friends with a lot of them. Why do women find this so offensive? Anyway, this is a PUA blog. What do you expect to find on here?

He’s almost certainly attracted to young girls as evidenced by his continual references to pedophilia and hebephilia.

Of course I am. But all men are. It’s been proven in the lab endlessly. I am just being honest. But when I see them on the street nowadays, I don’t even look at them much. They are not very interesting to me. It’s too much of a young girl.
I’m not particularly interested in those subjects, I’m no more attracted to little girls and Lolitas than any other man, but I just think society’s attitudes about this stuff are nonsensical. Pedophilia and hebephilia are research interests of mine because I work with a lot of people who are dealing with thoughts around these themes. But if you want to talk about sexual fantasies and whatnot, all mine revolve around adult women these days, and often older women believe it or not.

He also quotes a study he just happened upon that is about the masturbatory habits of pubescent girls.

Teenage girls. Right. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with studying the sexuality of sexually mature teenage girls? It’s an important subject of research in terms of Pediatrics, Adolescent Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, and many other areas. They are sexual beings who are sexually active in all sorts of ways with themselves and maybe others, and it’s a perfectly reasonable area of inquiry.

I saw several self-confessed paedophiles comment on his blog, including one who graphically detailed his abuse of a little girl in Mexico.

Yes he commented here for a while, but most of the commenters fought with him. Anyone can come here and say anything they want to. If you want to come here and confess to your serial murders or whatever, be my guest.
That slug Lindsay not only left the post up, but made a comment in response.
Sure, why should I take it down? Did I support him? Everyone was attacking him anyway. Let them post and let the antis take them on. Fair is fair.
Is it merely chance that paedophiles congregate on Lindsay’s site?
They don’t congregate here. We have had a couple but the people who came here were mostly hebephiles. I had one on here for a long time,  but I finally threw him off because I got tired of his endless linking to photos of 12 year old girls and whatnot. I could care less about that stuff and I don’t want them literring up my site with that junk.

 I wonder if they’re members of the super safe password protected site? Just musing.

Of course not. Why would I join some pedo site? I’m not into that nonsense.

Law Enforcement are checking your site, slug?! Damn fuckin’ right they are.

No they aren’t. I’ve talked to LE in relation to this Delphi case. They told me they don’t give a damn what I write here. Don’t people realize that police have better things to do than to monitor some random Internet blog?

Lindsay also had a counselling business going on where he states on his blog that he counselled pedophiles.

I worked with a couple of them, one very briefly. I don’t really specialize in that though. I would almost rather refer them out.

I wonder then, why they picked the slug as a counselor.

They came to me because of some articles I wrote. They wouldn’t to make sure they were pedophiles. I assured them that I was 100% sure that they were pedophiles. One man needed a lot of work because he was suicidal and at serious risk of self-harm. He was going to hurt or kill himself to protect children from himself because he could not bear the thought of hurting a child and he was worried he might do that. As you can see, he’s a horrible person, isn’t he? Last I heard he was going to take some libido lowering drugs to kill his sex drive because he was so worried he might hurt a kid. I thought he was a very good person.

Of course, he’s not a counselor anymore.

Yes I am. And I work all over the world too. How about that?

His new job is writing made up drivel on the internet and begging people to send him money.

I work hard. I would like to be compensated for my labor, just like any other worker. Do you work for free? Why should I work for free?
There are some disgusting paedo/hebo apologist posts.
What do you mean? For those who actually have a fixated orientation like this, they can’t help it, and it’s not their fault. It’s only a problem if they act on it? Why beat someone up for something they can’t control and had no choice over? It’s like seeing a guy in a wheelchair and throwing him in the gutter.
Not to mention continuous rants about age of consent laws
I don’t really care about age of consent law as I will hopefully never break them anyway. I am concerned about very young men going down on this stuff. I mean, an 18 year old man going to prison for sex with a 16 year old girl? Two underage teens going to prison for having sex with each other? It’s crazy. And 18 seems a bit high. Most of the world is at 15 or 16. But it makes no difference to me as I don’t violate those laws anyway. I think most men who break these laws are idiots who get what they deserve.
(Personally I think the people who watch porn with innocent high school girl themes need to be watched very very closely.
Idiots don’t realize that LE doesn’t have the resources to watch the millions of men watch teen barely legal porn bullshit. We are talking millions of men here. They don’t even monitor men with openly pro-pedophilia blogs. There are pro-pedophile forums out there, and LE doesn’t even monitor the men on those forums. There are over 1 million men like that in the US alone. LE doesn’t have the time or interest to waste on some guys shitposting in the Net.
They will only investigate if there is evidence of a law being broken. There has to be a credible charge that an attempt or actual child molestation. For possession of child porn, mostly they monitor sites that distribute this s stuff, watch the traffic and trace it back to individual computers. Police don’t have the resources to monitor all of the “possible criminals” out there. It’s an insane notion. I can’t believe people fall for this bull.

Yeah, he is unemployed.

Actually I live off a trust fund, so I don’t have to work. But my health is not good enough to work fulltime anyway, so I work these side jobs. And of course I pay my own bills.

He repeatedly quotes pro-paedo studies, like apparently 95% of men are attracted to 13 year olds or some shit like that.

Nope, it’s 100%, and they’re not pro-pedo studies.  That’s the straight up solid science on the subject. The studies have been replicated so many times that no one even bothers to test the hypothesis anymore.

Isnt he the same guy who was trying to justify being attracted to young girls, but saying he wasnt a pedo at the same time??

Shit. The teenage girl bullshit again! Of course it’s normal to be attracted to teenage girls, even if they are underage. All normal men are. The only ones that aren’t, like mosluggo here, are obviously faggots. The only men who don’t turned on by these girls are gay men. It’s been proven in the lab so many times that no one even questions it.
Of course normal men who are attracted to JB’s are not pedophiles! Pedophiles don’t even like teenage girls. Those are old ladies to them!
And the American Psychiatric Association has even stated that men being attracted to 12-14 year old girls is not a mental illness, and it’s not even abnormal! Even if it is to the point of Hebephilia. Go read the Hebephilia discussions during the debate about DSM-5 (see, I actually read all that stuff). They threw out Hebephilia as a proposed paraphilia because they said it’s not a disorder and it’s not even abnormal.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll argue the science, and you all argue the hysteria, pseudoscience and unscientific bullshit. Deal?
And if i remember right, he said hes a doctor/psychiatrist.??
I work in mental health as a counselor or whatever else you want to call me. We work on a strictly scientific basis too. And I actually specialize, among other things, in people who are getting wrapped up in worries about sex with children. And yes I have worked with a couple of actual pedophiles, and I understand the condition very well. Big hint here: They don’t get turned on by mature humans! They only like little children, under 13. I’ve worked with two of them so far, and neither had an interest in teenagers. Teenagers were too old for them.

at one point had posted a near-tutorial about how to seduce one

What? Why would I post something like that?! I can’t even touch those girls for God’s sake and I almost never even talk to them. I can tell you right now how to seduce a teenage girl though, having done so many times. You do it pretty much like how you seduce a woman. A teenage girl is a woman in a sense. What works for women works for JB’s. It’s not rocket science, folks.
how attracted to **him** these children were.
What! Hell no. I mean sure, for most of my life, some of them were, of course, but at my age almost none of them are. Newsflash to all the idiot women out there! Teenage girls like men! JB’s like men! Even older men. 18-40. Some of them do anyway. Anyone knows that except stupid women who lie to themselves and everyone else.
This makes me conclude he is a girl attracted hebephile himself.
Really you dumbass woman? Do you even know what that word means? If I were like that, it would mean that I am only attracted to 12-15 year old girls and I am not attracted to mature females at all. I would see a 16 year old girl and call her a grandma. That’s what hebephiles do. You really believe I think like this? You dumb bitch.

His so called “crime scene photos” were merely pics of searchers and natural flora that were so pixelated that the subjects could not be identified.

No one knows what those photos are of. There are many camera flashes going off right in the area of those photos. Does the brilliant Gray Hughes have any explanation for all those camera flashes? Those flashes are from a crime scene. They are being caused by detectives shooting photos of a crime scene. No way are there searchers in those photos. Searchers in a circle shooting photo after photo? Please. How stupid are you, woman?
Anyway, I think you have reading comprehension problems. In my last post, I said I didn’t know what those were photos of.

In short, if there is a rumor about that Lindsey hears, he will expound on it ad nauseum, no matter how far-fetched. I believe he never met a speculation he didn’t like

That’s funny. You realize that the ISP specifically contacted us and asked to see a lot of our photos and data? But no worry, obviously I’m full of it and ISP are idiots.

With the amount of information that he claims to have about the case there are only a few logical conclusions 1) He is LE attached to the case, but for some reason is leaking all of the information that is supposed to be kept secret or 2) He is the actual killer (only other way he could possibly know this much detailed info) or 3) A pathological liar / fraud.

None of them are true.
Of course I’m not the killer, but thank you for crediting my intuitive, profiling, and cold reading skills. Also I’ve already been investigated and cleared by Indiana State Police. Go ask the FBI. A friend of mine did, and the FBI told them, “Lindsay hasn’t left California in years.”
Of course I don’t make up anything. If I did, I would tell me group and ask them if they want to dissolve the group because I would be so ashamed of myself.
Oh boy, the clowns and haters over on Reddit are going round and round again lying about me. Some of these lies are truly pernicious though and as many times as I have refuted them, I always have to go back and do it again.
First of all, a couple of the comments are fairly respectful, as far as such things go. My regards to those commenters for keeping it clean and real. I will deal with most of it in another post.

When he first started turning up on sites discussing Delphi, because of the type of comments he was making & his blog content, people were wondering if he was an RSO trolling crime forums under a pseudonym he took from the other notorious Robert Lindsay

Whoa! One of us Robert Lindsays is a sex offender! Well, I’ll be. I always knew we can came from an illustrious family line.

I’ve definitely seen Lindsay describe himself as an extremely attractive man in the looks dept.

Gong! Wrong again. I’m not that tone-deaf. I would never say I was goodlooking because no one can be objective about that. Instead I say that other people have been saying for many years that I was goodlooking or very goodlooking. And at age 24, I did get two offers to be a model, but I turned them down because I’m so damned homophobic. Now that I think of it, that really was the peak of my looks. What I would give to have that face back!
Alas, when you bet on the body, you bet on a losing horse, as the Buddhists say. The handsomest men and the most beautiful women will all see their looks fade. I am 60 years old. Most women won’t even look at me anymore. But women my age still rave about how hot I am, so I guess I’ve still got something. Honestly though, I hate my most recent photos.

He is certainly preoccupied with his appearance and intelligence (such as it is).

It’s an IQ blog. We talk IQ on here. It’s what we do. If it offends you, leave. There’s really no need to talk about my intelligence. If you’re bright, it’s obvious to all around you. Just read the site. There’s nothing more to say.
I would like to say though that I did absolutely nothing to earn either my looks or my brains. I simply lucked out in the genetic lottery. I don’t see how that makes me better than anyone else. How am I better? Because I was smart enough before I was born to pick the right parents?
And in case you are wondering, my father was a very handsome man. I saw a photo of him at 35 when he married and he could have been a Hollywood actor. No wonder he slayed so much. And my mother has always been beautiful of course. My father had a near-gifted IQ (129), and my mother has a genius IQ (~147). She also graduated second in her class at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School. That’s pretty damned hard to do. All my siblings have genius IQ’s of 140+.
I guess we all got lucky.

His prose is the literary analog of explosive diarrhea.

Well, let’s see you do better, ok?
I won Best Column for a High School Newspaper in California in 1974 at the USC High School Journalism Awards. I wrote for my school paper and school magazine at university. Out of 50 submissions to the magazine, five were chosen, and mine was one of the five. I am a former Assistant Editor of a magazine. I have worked as a freelance writer. I have published literary fiction (short story). Gary Snyder, a very famous writer – look him up on Wikipedia – was at that literary conference, and he was telling people how much he liked my story.
I write for a peer reviewed linguistics journal and referee on the same journal. I also write books. I’m a published author. Most recently, I published an 81 page chapter in a linguistics book printed out of a university in Turkey. And that had to get through two murderous peer reviews – one for the journal and one for the book – including one that included the top scholars in that field.
So anyway, you don’t like my writing? Let’s see you do better.

The guy is a pervert and shows no regard for others and their comments. He constantly asks for money.

Pervert? Well, of course I am. Thank you very much. As long as I get those testosterone shots anyway.
No regard for others and their comments? Not so. Come to our forum some time and see if it’s true.
I don’t constantly ask for money. But this is a pay site. It’s not a free site! We hit you up of course in the first two posts on the front page, but after that, we leave you tight pikers alone most of the time. How bout if you tell me why I should work for free? Do you work for free?

I am saddened to think that anyone would believe anything he writes.

Ask the ISP. They requested to see a lot of our data and photos, and we sent it to them. I sure hope they don’t believe us!

He seems to me like a sad, lonely, messed up man with nothing but time on his hands.

Not sad.
Not lonely.
Messed up? Hey, we all are. But I work in mental health, so I’m not allowed to be too nuts, or I won’t be able to work with my “messed up” clients.
Time on my hands? I live off a trust fund. I don’t have to work. Eat your heart out!

I personally feel like he should be ashamed of himself for all of the nonsense he spews.

Of course not. They’re all rumors and nowadays at least we check the rumors out extensively before we even run them. A lot of rumors come from such unreliable sources that we never run them. Rumors are rumors. A lot of them will go bad. That’s just how rumors are. But usually some will end up being correct.

He’s banned him and deserves to be sued…How he hasn’t been sued and found guilty of defamation is beyond me.

I am certainly not banned from the Delphi forum. I posted there not long ago in fact. No one will sue me. I am a Journalism major. In order to prove libel, the statement must be:

  1. False
  2. Known to be false by the person who made it.
  3. Made with malice aforethought.

Of course I don’t print anything that I know is false. Anyway, you can’t get sued for libel for printing a rumor.
BA Journalism. Had to take Law of Mass Communications, run exactly like a law school class. We spent a lot of time on libel law. I know it better than you all ever will. I can’t be sued for libel because I haven’t committed any.

People that use tragedies like this to exploit others are the lowest of the low.

Ha ha. Well the police found some of our information valuable. That’s worth something. And the families don’t care what I write here. We have contacts with people who are very close to both families and they told us this.

I’m pretty certain that he is an Aspie (Aspergers syndrome) which is through lack of a better term high functioning autism.

Assburgers?! I’ve been seen by plenty of clinicians over time, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, MSW’s, LCSW’s. I’ve gotten a few diagnoses but I definitely never got that one! I’ve dated maybe 200 females in my life. There’s no way I could have done that if I had Assburgers. I hear those guys are practically Walking Chick Repellent.

He is extremely intelligent from what I can see, and a lot of what he says is either stated fact or it’s talking about a rumor- that’s where he falls over, he is a bit time deaf and awkward to the mood.

Lots of people are tone-deaf, especially men. The vast majority of them certainly don’t have this massively overdiagnosed condition. Actually I am the opposite of socially clueless. I can almost read your damned mind! That’s how socially with it I am. That’s just about a diagnosis of Anti-Assburgers, if there is such a thing.

Same reason he spends his days on Quora answering questions.

Queera banned me. Thank God! Why is answering questions on Queera all the time imply being tone-deaf? There are hundreds or thousands of people who do just that.

The part I have a problem with is not only does he obsess about pedo vs. hebe., he said he went into chat rooms with little girls and also went on and on about how sexual 9 yr old girls were.

This is so wrong! I have never gone into chat rooms where there were little girls. Why would I go into a place like that? I’d be ashamed to anywhere near a place like that.
As part of some anti-pedophile research I was doing to try to disprove some common arguments pedophiles use to support having sex with kids, I did go into bulletin boards where teenage girls were talking about developmental milestones, which I was doing research on as the age of pubertal markers is said to be dropping. It just so happened that  they were discussing their sexual behavior too. They were just bulletin boards like Reddit, sitting on the Net for anyone to see. No one was chatting in real time. You can go read them yourself if you wish.
I wasn’t there for that, but I got out a pen and tallied it up anyway. It’s good research. Underage teenage sex is problematic in a lot of ways and causes some society problems. We need to learn as much about it as possible. It’s a public health matter.
That nine year old girl stuff is some real slander. Pedophiles argue that little children have strong sex drive, want to have sex with adults and  try to seduce adults all the time. That argument seemed dubious to me, so I was out to disprove it. That’s why I was on the bulletin board. And on the contrary, my research determined that pre-pubertal children do not have much of a real sex drive at all.
The sex drive comes on in girls at age 13 nowadays, and at that time, many start masturbating, fantasizing about sex, and desiring to have sex with other humans. I found little of that behavior before age 13. So this person has completely misrepresented my position. In fact, they have turned it completely upside down.
I’m getting called a pedophile for doing anti-pedophile research! What in God’s name is wrong with you?

“hot girls throw themselves at me”

LOL wut. Baby, I’m 60 years old. That was way back in the old days, and those days are long gone, never to come again. But yes, it was like that for a bit. People just don’t understand how good handsome men can have it if they play their cards right and perfect their charm, Game, personality, etc. You would not believe the type of lives they can live and the crazy things that can happen to them. It’s the sort of stuff you hear about it and say, “That never happens to anyone!” except it does happen to Chad. I have known many young men like this, and oh boy, the stories I could tell you.

it is NOT okay to be discussing little girls(9 freaking trs old!) Sexuality.

It is ok. I will do it again just to piss you off. As far as the sexuality of 9 year old girls goes, as a good rule, they don’t have any! They don’t have  any real sex drive the way we adults do. They do not have the physical sex drive that mature females do. There are physical sensations of the mature female sex drive that I will not go into here, but girls have none of these. Furthermore, little girls do not seem to have any interest in having sex with other humans.
This is the psychological component of the mature female sex drive. One of my best woman friends once described it to me as a feeling of “hunger.” Well, little girls don’t have that. Yes, little girls do engage in sex play. We call it childhood sex play and it is extremely common. I hear about it from clients all the time. This seems to be more exploratory or curiosity seeking as opposed to the type of actual physical and psychological sex drive of a mature adult.
You happy now?

He admitted going into CHILDREN’S chat sites and discussing sexuality with them…He crossed the line with his “research” and I didn’t care to support someone who would blur those kinds of lines for any reason…they were still trying to explain the problem wasn’t him being specific about age or development preferences in child sex offenders, it was his activities and methods of getting information.

We already discussed this, well, libel. Of course I did no such thing and would not ever do such a thing. I’d rather kill myself.

Oh, ugh, I forgot he was talking about underage girls being attracted to him.

Haha! Baby, I am 60 years old. Come on, please. How many 60 year old men are able to attract underage teenage girls? .01%? I wish they were still attracted to me. That would be so great for my ego. I would not feel so old. But really? This does still happen to me, but almost never, maybe only once a year. The last time was nine months ago, she was a 15 year old girl, and she was a total knockout. You’re welcome. I am so proud of myself! Eat your hearts out, haters.

As someone who is usually called a “hot girl “ you’d never see me ever hit on him let alone lie and say he’s attractive.

Evangitron baby doll, I wouldn’t touch your hot ass with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension!

He should be looked at for at least the creepy research with young girls.

Turn me in, Evangitron, for reading bulletin boards on the Internet! I dare you.

Honestly, it his was what he wrote in his blog about the pre-teen sex drive and his own ‘studies’ that creeped me out more than anything he ever posted about Delphi.

Sigh. Here we go again. My studies determined that “preteens” don’t have any damned sex drive, for Chrissake! That blows up one of the pedos’ biggest justifications for molesting kids! You happy now?

Haven’t looked for a long time, but I see he still has some of his milder views re teenage girls on his older blog posts

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/test-to-see-if-a-man-is-gay-or-not/

I love it! One of my favorite posts of all time! Thank you so much for linking to that. And yes it is a gay test, and all you guys who say that girl doesn’t turn you on, well, you’re all a bunch of faggots, ok? Have fun in Frisco, boys!

…he came into the biggest fb group posting such unusually graphic sexual assault scenarios to explain the crime scene, that he got himself banned from the group within a few days + mass-reported to the Delphi tip line (he ranted about being questioned by police on his blog not long after being booted from the group)…Being kicked out of the group & questioned by LE was what set off his first round of blog rants.

I don’t care about those silly bitches and their hen party groups. They can have them.
Sheesh. Ranted? How would you like to get reported to the police 50 times for no good reason as a suspect in one of the most notorious modern murder cases? Would you be happy with that?

and it was so sensationalized because he wanted/needed people to pay him.

Not really. Some of the rumors were quite gruesome and nasty as far as how the girls were killed, but we had to report them, as they were good rumors that had a lot of traction.

Should I Open Up a Patreon?

Apparently a lot of content creators, thinkers, public intellectuals, writers and video creators are setting up Patreons so people can pay them to write, create videos, and be public intellectuals. Jordan Peterson is making $80,000/month doing this. This is perfectly acceptable to me. After all, if the person is working 20-40 hours a week or more writing or creating videos, why in God’s name shouldn’t they get paid for their labor?
I will never understand Normie scum who call this begging. If you are working 40 hours a week creating content, what’s wrong with asking to be paid for it?
Further, many online magazines, journals, and even newspapers are asking for donations to fund their journalism. And why not? Say folks at NACLA or The New Internationalist people are working 40 hours a week  putting out their journal, are they somehow begging if they ask their readers to fund their work? How is that begging? They’re working 40 hours a week, working their asses off, and asking to be paid for working their asses off is begging?
WTF sort of world do Normies live in anyway? Or is it just writers, unlike all other workers, who have to work for free like slaves while everyone else gets paid for their work? I will never understand Normies. Normies are shit. Pure shit. If every Normie on Earth died tomorrow, I would sing and dance for 100 days, that’s how much I hate them.
More and more sites are going pay now or at least donation, and why not? Most online papers might let you read five articles a week and then they ask for a subscription. All of the larger blogs such as Moon of Alabama and Vinyard of the Saker have regular aggressive fund drives. And why not? It’s’ surely a full-time running such a large site.
I think as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer free sites. Slavery just doesn’t appeal to most people.
Thing is, you guys aren’t funding me here on this site, why should I expect you pikers to fund me on Patreon? I’m not getting this. Is there something magical about Patreon that will cause people to fund me as opposed to this site. One thing I could do is buy an upgraded WordPress subscription that would allow me to put a Patreon button at the end of every post. I think most people don’t realize that the site runs on donations.
Asking regular commenters to donate $10 to keep commenting isn’t working very well. Lately, requests for regular commenters to fund the site have been met with the commenters simply going away. I think I have been embarrassing them in the threads by asking though, so in the future, I will ask by email.
If I could ever get a Patreon stream going, I would quit hitting up commenters altogether. Alpha thinks it is terrible that all these commenters are taking off after I hit them up, but I don’t really care. If I quit doing hitting commenters up, I get even less money than I do now. And really, if you won’t pay ten bucks to comment here regularly, I’m sorry. You’re not my friend. Any friend of mine would gladly do such a thing. So you can go bye bye, and it’s not a worry of mine.
Another part of asking regular commenters to contribute to the site is that by commenting regularly you are becoming part of a team that this site represents. The value of this site lies not only in my posts but in the many fantastic and brilliant comments that the posts generate from my gifted and learned commenters. The commenters and I, along with Alpha, are all part of a team that in effect produce this site. So if you don’t want to join our team, well bye bye. I’m not particularly bothered.
One thing I would like to know is who is getting funded by Patreon? Are there any writers getting funded that way? Or is it mostly content creators like vlog creators? Keep in mind that these folks are essentially writers too. They are simply communicating via voice what others communicate with a keyboard. And a lot of vlogs are very smart and knowledgeable, often as good as the best journalistic prose on the web.

The Left Wing of the Democratic Party – Where Progressive Policy Goes to Die

Indra Varuna: Hey Robert! Off topic but you think of Vox? (the progressive website and not Voxday)
It’s look like a Democrat mouthpiece, they published a article against Venezuela and another that Israel shouldn’t be boycotted, but they’re progressive in almost everything.

I don’t know Vox very well. I think they are probably OK, but I don’t read them that much. I think the last I read there was a debate on the B-W IQ gap between Ezra Klein and Sam Harris. Pretty much a waste of a two-hour podcast. They’re probably pretty awful on Cultural Left stuff.
Vox is really just the bullshit Democratic Party, in particular the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is still shit in my opinion.
Go to Daily Kos sometime. Sign up for an account. I have a lifetime ban on Daily Kos for “anti-Semitism.” Really I just attacked the Israeli cancer that is metastasizing in Palestine.
Some Kossack wrote an article attacking Syria from a BS POV and I asked, “What’s the capital of your country, Tel Aviv?” I basically said, “You are not an American. You are just another dual loyalty / agent of a foreign power / dual citizen type.” Well the Kossacks flipped out, called me a ‘virulent anti-Semite” and permabanned me.
If you want to understand the cowardly and craven left wing of this pathetic party, go to Daily Kos and read around.
In a nutshell:
DK is split on Israel, but most Kossacks love Israel. However, a minority of Kossacks have had it up to here with the Israeli infestation and attack them ferociously. Kos put in a directive that all debate on the subject of Israel is banned. I suppose that is where it is now. Not catastrophic but not real great either.
The real problem is that Daily Kos is really (((Daily Kos))). Like most other entities in American life, Daily Kos is Jewed to the hilt. 60% of the Democratic Party’s money is Jewish money, and most of it comes with pro-Israeli strings attached.
You don’t read much about Venezuela on Daily Kos, but what you do read is pretty bad. I read one article that was pro-Venezuela, but the commenters were all bitterly against the piece, and one said it should be flagged and banned as opposing some Kos policy. In other words, if you support Venezuela, you are violating Daily Kos policy.
Keep in mind that even Sanders was horrific on Venezuela. He called Chavez a “Communist dictator.”
The truth is that the Left is the US is pretty much crap. The actual Left in the US is usually pretty OK, but the majority of the Left in the US are these maggots called “liberal Democrats” who are distinguished by the fact that there is almost nothing progressive about them.
The US Democratic Party has long been pretty good on domestic policy, but they have always been horrifically reactionary on foreign policy. Even my late father, a proud ADA Democrat, was a Cold War Democrat who was horribly reactionary on foreign policy. Also, since he had been in the Marines, he believed that the US military could absolutely do no wrong, and he supported the US military to the hilt no matter who they were bombing, shooting, killing and slaughtering at the moment. It didn’t matter. They were always right. You could not oppose the US military in his presence. He would almost threaten to hit you. It was that bad.
Bottom line is the US is pretty hopeless. There’s no real Left in the country, and the Democratic Party is pathetically reactionary on foreign policy. The very idea that liberal Democrats are are even leftwing in any way is pretty risible.

The B-W IQ Gap: The State of the Argument

Alpha Unit: Facts about behavior stand on their own. But it’s perfectly okay to question someone’s assertions about why people behave a certain way.

Oh of course! I agree with that 100%. Actually the B-W IQ gap controversy has shifted over to that.
In the journals, the people on the Left surrendered a while back on the tests not measuring intelligence or being culturally biased. They now agree that the tests are real and that there are intelligence gaps between races.
The argument now has shifted over to what’s causing them.

  • The Left says it’s environment
  • The Right says it’s genes
  • Others say it’s both

I regard all three positions as completely valid hypotheses and I do not think any of these positions is a racist position.
It’s hard to say if there’s any consensus at all. A statement authored by Linda Gottfriedson and signed by 100 intelligence researchers in the New York Times in 1996 said the consensus was that they were not sure what was causing the differences, but the trend was for researchers saying that both genes and environment were involved.
To me, this is a much more productive discussion.
Unfortunately, in the popular press and mind, the arguments for the tests not being accurate or being culturally biased are still bandied about although they were abandoned in the journals a long time.
In other words, the Left in the press and in the individual minds of the Left continue to promote ideas that are so far to the Left that they’ve even been abandoned by the far Left in the journals.
What is bizarre is that things that are now taken for granted even on the far Left in the journals, such as:

  • The tests measure actual intelligence
  • The tests are not culturally biased
  • There is an actual B-W intelligence gap between the races

will get you called racist, fired or your career destroyed if you say them in public because the public is 20 years behind the journals.
In other words, you will get called racist, be fired or get your career destroyed for taking positions that are regarded as scientific fact even by the farthest Left intelligence scholars. That’s just bizarre and not only that, it’s totally pathetic.

Ideological Conservatism Associated with Lower Intelligence

Tulio: You know what, I do think I recall seeing a study that showed that the more ideologically left someone is the more likely they are to be intelligent (think a Noam Chomsky type). Whereas the more ideologically right someone is, the less likely to be intelligent.
Many voters are not strongly ideological and may be voting for simple issues like who they think will give a larger tax cut or be toughest on terrorism, since Republican voters tend to make more money than Democratic voters from what I’ve seen. I’m sure you have to really hash out the data so that we aren’t assuming causation. Republicans tend to be older, and older people tend to have higher income because they have longer work experience. It might also be skewed by a small but disproportionate amount of one percenters who vote Republican for purely business reasons but aren’t all that culturally conservative.
When you go further and further right into culture/ideological conservatism, the types who want abortion banned, no gun restrictions, super-religious, homophobic, and racist, I think there’s a good chance that they have lower IQ than someone equally far on the other end of the spectrum.
If I can find that study I’ll post the link.

I have also seen that study. It did indeed correlate ideological conservatism with ideological liberalism. And it definitely found that as you go further and further left, IQ goes up. I am very happy for the liberalism of my Black and Hispanic brothers, but most of them tend to be rather mild liberals rather than ideological Leftists, which is just fine. I think as you start moving into the real ideological left types, at least here in the US, they tend to be smarter.
Even as Blacks and Browns move further left, they tend to get smarter. Black Leftists are not common, but a lot of the ones I meet are a lot smarter than your average Black. Same with Hispanics.
In the US, it is very hard to become a Leftist or in many places even a liberal. The entire media is right-wing. Even the “liberal media” is right-wing. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek magazines, all are right-wing publications. There are no liberal newspapers in the US. There are no liberal newsmagazines in the US.
I will grant that MSNBC is a liberal station in the Democratic Party tradition, which is not very liberal. However, the rest of the TV newsmedia is right-wing, and even MSNBC follows state propaganda on US foreign policy. There is very little leftwing radio in the US. Other than NPR, which is always going on fund drives to raise money while Congress always threatens to cut their funding, there is there is only Pacifica, which is always under threat of going under from lack of funding.
My life would have been so much easier if I would have just gone Republican like everyone else. Even when I worked in Beverly Hills, I was considered to be an excessively ideological left-winger. People weren’t against it. They just thought it was a bit odd to be so ideological, even in Hollywood! Being an ideological Leftist has not made my life easier at all.
Part of the difficulty of going this way was seeking out the materials to create and back up my viewpoint in the first place. Even today, almost all news, radio and TV I am exposed to is the usual state propaganda or corporate and rightwing lies. I read and listen to all news with an extremely jaundiced ear, expecting that most of the news I am ingesting is a lie in some form or another.
I isolate what appear to be the most outrageous lies, even though I cannot prove them to be lies. I read something and I think, “No way is that true! I need to go look that up!” So I go home and look it up on the Net and sure enough, almost 100% of the time, the US government, corporate or rightwing viewpoint is  some sort of a flat out lie or an obvious distortion of some sort. Typically it is straightforward political propaganda straight out of the Soviet playbook.
My point is, how many people do this? How many people are able to sift through the barrage of US government, corporate and rightwing lie blizzards and figure what’s true and what isn’t? Even worse, how each lie is actually a real lie and what the truthful point of view is instead? Most people don’t even have the time to partake of the news, much less digest them with a fine intellectual toothcomb like that.
I think it is because it requires such mental heavyweight lifting to even figure out how you are being lied to by the Right and what the other view from the Left is, that many of the people you see on the Left will be those intelligent and educated enough to do this sort of high-level and fine-grained ideological sifting. Quite a few more educated Whites will be able to do this, but these will often by the brighter ones with at least some college. And of course the only Blacks and Browns who will even have the brain resources to do the sort of hard and difficult work of making these fine distinctions will only be the brighter ones.

Everything You Need to Know about the False Flag Fake Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018

The Russian government sent special CW teams to the site where the “chemical weapons” attacks took place, and they found no evidence of any chemical weapons use.
Here are quotes from two doctors from the Syrian Red Crescent Society saying that they have not treated anyone in Douma for chemical weapons exposure during the course of the war.
The Syrian Red Crescent is a separate organization that is not part of aligned with the government in any way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_b3_35lXjE
Here are interviews with Syrian doctors from Douma saying there was no chemical attack. Unfortunately it is in Arabic. The doctor says that an airstrike set a fire which then suffocated a number of people. In this case, those dead people really were killed by Assad or his allies. This also explains the burned or singed extremities.
They also visited the area hospital and found no one being treated for chemical weapons exposure.
In addition, there is only one hospital in Douma, a government hospital and all the doctors all work for the state and have been getting salaries all this time. It was not bombed by Assad though he supposedly bombs every hospital he can. The physicians at this hospital reported that they treated no one for symptoms of chemical weapons exposure from April 6-8.

11:31 AM Twitter time = 9:31 PM in Syria? early tweet UOSSM uses only those same clinic images, but heard at least “6 people killed and 700 suffocation cases from a reported chemical attack on Douma, Ghouta; Largest area hospital destroyed. #SaveGhouta”

OK look, they claim the largest hospital in the area got destroyed, but there’s only one hospital in Douma, the employees still get paychecks from Assad (he pays state employees in rebel areas, even under ISIS rule!), and it has never been targeted. This is a straight up lie.

I am hearing that doctors at the hospital have been interviewed and they said they were treating some people for injuries when some White Helmets people ran in the hospital with video cameras yelling that there had been a chemical attack.
Above is a video of the events above with two Syrian doctors narrating. You can see the scene on their computer screen as it was all captured on video. The people are being treated, possibly for smoke inhalation, and a man runs in and starts yelling that there was a chemical attack. A film crew then comes in. You see later patients panicking when this group tells them that they need to be hosed down due to the chemical attack. You can see these people washing down the patients with hoses.
Unfortunately it is from the Russians, but it does quote two people, Yaser Abdel Majid, a doctor at the only hospital in Douma, as saying that they treated no one with chemical weapons symptoms in recent days. In addition, ambulance driver Amed Saur said that between April 6-8 they treated no one for chemical weapons exposure, only ordinary war wounds.
The reports from WHO that the attack took place are based on health officials who are part of the rebels. The official report of the health officials is as above.
This piece says that WHO’s evidence apparently came from the White Helmets, and Medicins sans Frontiers has no one on the ground in Douma.
From the website A Closer Look at Syria:

SAMS is the fraudulent acronym for the Syrian American Medical Society, reputedly founded in the US, in 1998, as a “nonpolitical, nonprofit, medical relief organization.”
Reports on unproven allegations of a chemical attack in Douma, the Syria city formerly occupied by the Army of Islam insurgent group, invariably rely on a key source: The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS). Together with the White Helmets, SAMS has been cited by the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and virtually every Western media organization reporting on the incident. In Douma, SAMS staff have claimed that they treated more than 500 people for symptoms “indicative of exposure to a chemical agent.”

SAMS  is the Syrian American Medial Association. It was set up in the US. It is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and is reportedly funded by USAID. USAID = CIA. It’s been a CIA asset forever.
I have no response to claims about claims by US officials of chemical weapons being found in blood and urine samples. Remember that Iraqi WMD BS also relied a lot on these anonymous US officials.

This scene appears to be staged.
From the comments on the video above:

Absurd. I’ve been working a lot with gas cylinders. No Way it can pierce a hole into the steel reinforced concrete roof and stay undamaged….It hasn’t even DENTS. Further, it penetrated the ceiling but landed softly on the bed w/o breaking it.
The canister looks well rested after breaking the roof, probably because it made its way to the bed and is having a nap.
I repeat here: the gas bomb breaks concrete ceiling and hit a bed. NOT EVEN A SCRATCH on bomb. Clear paint. Parts of the bomb, which were made of thin metal, is not even bent. They brought this bomb in the house and put it to bed. Poor-made fake.
No way! The hell cannon shell was so tired from doing all that work – breaking the reinforced concrete roof and all – it decided to take a nap 🙂 I’m surprised it didn’t use the blanket, it looks chilly
On what idiots is this video calculated? The bomb broke through the concrete roof, but the hole was left, and the wooden bed was not broken. Dust is only on top of the bomb, but not across the entire surface of the bed. Do they think we are these idiots???

Indeed, the canister has dust all over it, but there is no dust on the bed?
From Caustic Logic‘s page:

And as some discussion on Twitter helps me decide (no expert), chlorine gas does not stain things the color that it appears. The color you see is from the optics of the gas molecules in light, not from a dye it contains and can leave behind. Rather, what it touches is affected however. At least in the presence of moisture (which is common all over), it’s hit with corrosive acid. The materials get oxidized, burned, bleached, damaged, rusted, or unfazed, depending. It doesn’t turn pale yellow green like an airbrush with that color of dye in it would do. I’m pretty sure this has to be a fake scene. (credit: Orbi, Kobs, McIntyre)

Chlorine does not turn everything light green or yellow as in this pic. This photo must be faked. It looks like they sprayed some green or yellow something on the bed.

Could that be put in a chlorine tank? Easily, if one has the sarin to start with. Is that what killed people? Not that girl who can be handles with no gloves and no repercussions. Not the people who lack cyanosis, much of the SLUDGE syndrome, etc. This isn’t chlorine or sarin, but something else, likely done somewhere else.

Look at two photos of the dead bodies. Whoops! The second one has a dead baby on top! Looks like someone decided that that photo would look better with a dead baby on top of it, so they threw one on there!
Information at this link shows that the victims could not be victims of a chlorine or sarin attack, there was no sarin attack because girl is handled with no gloves, and there was no attack by sarin or chlorine either because the victims lack symptoms of poisoning by either agent.

The “chemical weapons” bomb photographed at the scene does not look like the shells that Assad for his chemical weapons arsenal. They all had a certain look and were designed to be shot out of artillery. Furthermore, that bomb appears to be unexploded and it is hard to see how any chlorine could have come out of that shell.
Look at those two photos. The “chlorine gas” stains on the bed are brown in one photo and green in another? What?
Look at that huge hole in the roof. That bomb made that huge hole in that roof and then landed on that bed. But that bed is completely intact. It would have been smashed all the way through, right?
Now look at the bomb. It’s completely intact. We cannot see any breaks in the bombs’ seals at least from this view of the bomb. Now look at the cylinder. That cylinder is closed. That is where the chemicals would have had to have come out of if this was a real chemical weapons shell. Look at that guy with the gas mask. Not only does he have a staged expression on his face but he is wearing an old Soviet era gas mask. My understanding is that these gas masks that the rebels have aren’t even functional anymore:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Sarin-attack.jpg
This is from the Khan Sheikhoun fake attack. First of all, those photos are from a rebel field hospital base five miles from where they said the attack took place! Second of all, they are not using proper gear to handle those “sarin attack victims.” They are handling them with their bare hands! If that were a real attack, you can’t do that. The people handling the victims will get poisoned by the weapon themselves.

It looks like the rebels caught onto their lousy theater and tried to remedy some of it. This video is from the same location as the previous film showing the canister on the bed. Now it’s on the floor. Why? What happened? Did it move on its own? Now look it. It looks quite damaged and part of it is even burned. So they heard that their shell looked fake, so they damaged it and burned it some or substituted another canister. Only one canister hit that building supposedly.
Assad’s forces were advancing right in the area of the attack at the time. They have no gas masks or gear. Any forces advancing into a chemical weapons hit need that gear. A Russian TV video with a Russian reporter embedded with the Syrian Army. They were interviewing soldiers who said they were advancing into the area at the time of fake attack and you can’t use chemical weapons when your own army is advancing unless they have gas masks, etc. Maybe someone else can find it.
There is no way that a chlorine bomb hit killed 80 people and wounded no one. Chlorine is not even very lethal. I remember Al Qaeda used to use chlorine shells in Anbar during the Iraq War. Typically they would get 5 killed and 1,000 injured, something like that. It was always a figure like that.The stuff hurts you but it generally does not kill you, and you get rapidly better. It is more of a nuisance weapon than anything else.

“Backing the Ghouta Media Centre’s claims, SAMS alleged that a second attack with “mixed agents”, including nerve agents, had hit a nearby building.”
(note: it’s mixing sarin and chlorine in one weapon that would not work. This is what they allege killed many).
Because if they were allegedly used together in one weapon or one attack, the sarin part would largely be cancelled out by the chlorine, depending how well they mixed.

There are claims that sarin and chlorine was mixed in a bomb. However, if you do that, you chlorine cancels out the sarin and makes it not work, so there’s no point in adding sarin to a chlorine bomb as it works as well as a pure chlorine bomb. It’s a waste of sarin.
This link shows that chlorine gas not toxic enough to explain death toll.
Even a nerve agent attack less toxic than mustard still has only 2-3% kill rate. And it is so subject to varying wind and weather conditions for proper drift that it is best used just before dawn. Also when they are finding any sarin at all as in Ghouta 2013 and Khan Sheikoun 2017, the doses are very low. In Ghouta some had sarin in their blood, but the levels were too low to cause harm. In Khan Sheikhoun, very low levels of sarin were found in the area but not in any humans.
I believe the rebels released their bathtub sarin in both cases. The MI6 determined that the sarin used in 2013 was the bathtub sarin that the rebels had been making, and they said it did not match samples of Syrian government sarin that they had. This was relayed to the CIA, who informed Obama. This is the real reason the 2013 attack was called off – the CIA told Obama that Assad didn’t do it. The CIA did not assign blame to anyone – they simply said that Assad did not do it. See Seymour Hersh’s recent article which had to be published in Germany because not even the London Review of Books would dare publish his findings.

The Pure 100% Truth about the Conflict between the West and Russia

This is taken from Moon of Alabama, one of the few places on the Web where you can find actual honest commentary about the issues of the day. If you will notice as you read below, you will see that almost every single thing the media has been telling you about Russia for some time now is a straight up 100% lie.
What is shocking is that almost 100% of the Western media is in on these lies. Until Tucker Carlson questioned the latest fake chemical attack on Fox News the other day, not one single US news outlet had questioned any of the anti-Russian lies that the media pumped out. And Fox is still presumably full of people pumping out the latest anti-Russian bullshit.
This is quite striking.
With all of our media outlets, wouldn’t you think that there might be even one that might go against the dominant narrative? But there isn’t. The entire US media is in lockstep on all of this stuff.
The only dissenters are some far Left and far Right outlets on the Internet that are always broke and have small audiences. Even these small audiences are too much for the powers that be though, so they are trying to shut them down in various ways.
One way is via getting rid of Net Neutrality. Now that Net Neutrality is gutted, the ISP’s, who are after all part of the same power structure that controls the media and the state, will have the power to put any alternative media in the slow lane and offer fast lanes only for favored media. Getting rid of Net Neutrality has always been in part about getting rid of alternative voices to what for all intents and purposes is the Deep State.
In addition, the fake news bullshit story was immediately picked up by all powers all over the world.
Obama immediately decided that any news attacking his administration or US foreign policy was fake news.
The Democratic Party instantly said that all news against the Democratic Party was fake news.
The same thing happened on the Republican side to an even greater extent.
The fake news controversy was then weaponized by the Deep State to go after alternative media that is calling bullshit on all the Deep State’s wicked machinations. Google and Facebook then wrote new “anti-Deep State” algorithms that put the entire US progressive media lower in search rankings so it would be harder to find them.
As you can see, Google and Facebook are not cool or groovy companies. They’re as much as part of the Deep State as the rest of them. These are large corporations and part of the Deep State is the corporations. They are run by billionaires and another part of the Deep State is the very rich. So you can see that even the modest and very minor alternative media is already too much for the Deep State and the Powers That Be.
The best way to see the Deep State is to see as The Powers That Be, the powerful group that runs this country, the foreign policy establishment, or the ruling class. These are the people who run this country and in particular control its foreign policy.
It is important to note that the Deep State includes nearly all US corporations and nearly all of the US rich, the 1%, because after all, the sole purpose of US foreign policy is to benefit large corporations and the rich, the 1%. There’s nothing in US foreign policy for us, you, me, and the little guy. In fact, you could argue that US foreign policy is objectively opposed to us. It’s a hostile force that works against us.
That’s a big reason why any American who doesn’t want to fight for the rich and the corporations should never join the US military. You’re fighting and dying for the Watsons, the Trumps, General Electric, Exxon, and AT & T. If you want to go fight and die for those entities, be my guest, but I doubt if many Americans join the military to do that.
So the US media is for all intents completely controlled at least as far as foreign policy is concerned. I would not say it is controlled on US domestic policy, though it is more controlled on that than you think. The Deep State is indeed split into a Right faction and a Left faction. It’s just that the Left faction isn’t really left at all. The Left faction of the Deep State is, for instance, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. We may as well be living in the USSR with Pravda and the rest of the state media. That’s how much real press freedom we have in the West.
What is even more shocking is that it’s not just the US media that is controlled. Nearly the entire Western media from right to left has been lockstep on all of this anti-Russia campaign. So it is not just the US that lives under controlled media. All of us in the West live under completely controlled media with no dissident media to speak of other than a few broke and little heard of outlets.
Everything you read below is true. The only thing that I am not sure of is Russia influencing the US election. They might have tried to do that, but even that story seems pretty hokey.
The rest of it is straight up facts. If you read carefully, you will see that nearly every fact below completely contradicts an alternative fact that was supplied by the controlled Western media.
All of you in the West are being lied to, all the time. All day all of the time and everywhere. There’s almost no escape from the Western Deep State spider web.

Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over – It Won’t

Donald Trump may perceive these bad cop/good cop tweets as a serious way to negotiate with Russia. They ain’t.

Donald J. Trump – @realDonaldTrump – 10:57 AM UTC – 11 Apr 2018
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

Donald J. Trump – @realDonaldTrump – 11:37 AM UTC – 11 Apr 2018
Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?

Russia said it would destroy the platforms that launch the missiles, not only the missiles themselves. Did nobody explain the difference to Trump?
There is reason that U.S. relations with Russia are now worse than they have been for some time and Russia is not responsible for these. The GW Bush administration killed the Anti-Ballistic-Missile treaty which guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction and thus strategic stability. The Obama administration launched a trillion dollar program to ramp up U.S. nuclear capabilities and ballistic missile defense with the aim of achieving superiority in a nuclear conflict.
It is cynical to say that “Russia needs us to help with their economy”. The U.S. under Trump is waging economic war on Russia by implementing more and more economic sanctions. The last round on Friday targeted Russian industrialists, many of whom are not even aligned with Putin. Aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, disliked in the Kremlin, lost 15% of his fortune. The Rubel plummeted against the dollar for two days in a row. U.S. Treasury stooges are now traveling in Europe to press European banks to shut down all services for Russian companies.

bigger(Ironically both economic attack vectors will help Putin’s program. Since 2014 Russia has been pressing its oligarchs to repatriate the billions the stashed in ‘western’ offshore banks. They will now do so out of fear of confiscations. The lower Rubel will increase local production and allow for cheaper exports.)
The U.S. incited Georgia to attack Russia. It ‘regime changed’ the Ukraine. It attacks Syria, an old Russian ally. Then there are the hoaxes that get attributed to Russia without any evidence. Russia did not influence the U.S. election. It did not poison the Skripals. There was no ‘chemical attack’ in Douma.
Russia has all kinds of reasons to be hostile to the U.S. but always stays calm and well mannered. It is stupid to mistake that for fear or inferiority. Taunting Russia like Trump now does will only increase its resistance to U.S. moves.
Is Trump trying to make an offer to really help Russia’s economy and to stop the arms race?
If Russia would roll over and give up on Syria would Trump really lift the sanctions? Would he really stop the U.S. race for nuclear supremacy? Could he even promise to do such? And why would anyone believe Trump anyway?
Unlike western European countries, Russia is not led by yapping poodles. The Russian government and its people will not roll over. They have historically never done so. President Putin will start his period of governance on May 7 with a war cabinet structured and manned for conflict. He expects a long fight.
Russia will have to respond to any U.S. strike on Syria. It needs to do so to keep face and the faith of its allies. But it also needs to so in a way that avoids further escalation. Something that is very strong, in a different theater and not attributable? Or something that is openly targeting U.S. interests, but not U.S. soldiers, in the Middle East?
It is Israel which is behind the war on Syria and which is pressing for further conflict. There are one million Russians in Israel, many of whom are not even Jewish. Could Russia ask them for help to change the strategic picture? Or should it increase support for those who directly fight the Zionist state?

Sticky: Support Beyond Highbrow

This is not a free website.

Regular Commenters – $10 donation

Delphi Murder Info Forum – $20 donation (optional)

Reading this site is like reading a newspaper or a news magazine. If you give money to the site, it is like you are buying a newspaper or magazine copy or subscription. Think of it that way. Reading for free is like going over to the newspaper rack and opening up newspapers to read without paying for them. That said, no one has to donate, and people may read for free all they like, especially if they are poor. But even if you are poor, I would suggest that regular readers might want to donate $3 or so.

This site is independent media. We consistently go against the entire mainstream corporate media, and we regularly expose the lies and machinations of the media and the government. We also discuss the  lies and machinations of foreign governments. The motto here is, Let the Truth Shine. We are not going to knowingly lie to you about anything here. According to readers, this is the most “uncomfortably honest site on the Internet.” That’s the purpose of the site.

Although we are on the Left, and this is a socialist website, we will also expose the lies, machinations, and falsehoods being peddled by the Left. If the Right is correct and the Left is wrong on some particular issue, we may well side with the Right, as abhorrent and wicked as they are.

All controversial issues must be evaluated for their truthfulness. Truths need to be reported on even if they make my side look bad and the other side look good. All lies and misinformation needs to be called out, even if calling out the lies makes my side look bad and the other side look good.

Although this is not my only source of income, I do not have a regular job for health reasons. Nevertheless, I work for myself and earn money that way via various income streams, and this happens to be one of them. So this is one of the jobs I do in order to make money.

I don’t feel like writing for this site for free. If that’s the way it is going to be, I may well just shut down the site. If you don’t see me posting for more than a day, that means that I am on strike. On strike for more wages or any wages at all. By asking for donations from this site, I am requesting to be paid for more labor. I am a worker who is asking to be compensated for his labor and hard work. I am not a beggar. I work very hard on this site, and it’s very hard work to do.

You may worry that you are making me rich. I figure I got paid $5/hour at most to write for this site. That’s half of the California minimum wage. If you want to know my current financial situation and whether I am feeling flush or busted broke, email me and I will let you know what is going on. I don’t expect you to donate to a rich man, but that’s not what you are doing here.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/contribute/

The Putin Stole the Election Nonsense

Putin really does have over 80% popularity. There were six other people running in the latest election. Anyone could have voted for them, but few did. A lot of the opposition is not coming from a much different place than Putin is. The Communists are Left-Putinists and Zhirinovsky is a Nationalist-Putinist. Two others are more or less Putinists.
There were two pro-Western liberals running. Anyone could have voted for them. But only 2% did. That’s because about 2% of the country supports the pro-Western liberals.
State TV put both of these liberals on debate shows all time during the campaign. In fact, state TV puts anti-Putin people on all the time. The format is debates. Now, it is argued that Putin puts these people on these TV debate shows so his supporters can show how idiotic the liberals are, but they are definitely on TV.
The Russian opposition is all over the Internet, and I think all those sites are free for Russians to browse. There is a lot of opposition press published, mostly in Europe in places like Finland. It’s just that Russians don’t want to go to those sites.
Anti-Putin newspapers publish every day and are on sale in Moscow every morning.
There are many anti-Putin people writing in magazines and especially in opinion journals. There are anti-Russian websites you can go to that quote opposition people writing in some journal the most outrageous anti-Putin nonsense. A different opposition person is quoted in a different journal every day on those sites.
Look, if you give the people what they want, you get massive support. Putin gives the Russian people what they want. He’s a Russian nationalists. The pro-Western liberals are seen by most Russians as traitors. Those opinion surveys are conducted by good Western firms and are anonymous and completely reliable. No one knows who talked to some pollster, and no one worries about being persecuted for talking to some pollster.
The latest election was free and fair. Navalsky was forbidden from running because he’s a criminal. I think last time he ran he won ~1%. The Opposition called for a boycott of the elections, but that’s helpful. The voting was fair, the ballot is secret, and the votes are counted accurately. There are cameras in polling places to guard against fraud. There was a bit of fraud this time around, but the Election Council threw most of those votes out. Putin got 73% of the vote, and he gets 82% approval in polls. His election totals and his popularity line up very well.

Lies of the Capitalists: Capitalism Is Great Because of Competition and We Love Competition

The first part of the title is actually not a lie. Capitalism with vigorous or even extreme competition is quite a nice mode of development. It’s definitely great for consumers, offers great customer service, low prices and ferocious innovation and improvement of products. The attitude of a system with vigorous competition is not only the customer is always right but also adds to that I need to treat my customers better than my competitors.
So where’s the problem then? The problem is because the competition usually doesn’t last. As Marx noted and has been proven immaculately correct, capitalism tends towards monopoly over time as surely as day follows night. Vigorous competition is soon replaced by monopoly capitalism and Monopoly Capitalism is probably one of the worst modes of development known to mankind.
Every anti-monopoly business being harmed by a monopoly will turn pro-monopoly as soon as they get their own monopoly. And all businesses wish to be a monopoly. They all hate competition. There’s nothing a capitalist hates more than competition, which is part of the joke of capitalism, which sings the (granted, considerable) praises of robust competition, while all of the capitalists despise this very robust competition being crowed about.
Politicians and media outlets all claim to be pro-competition but they are all also pro-monopoly. The politicians are pro-monopoly because they are all whores for big business and are frankly taking open bribes from them. The media is pro-monopoly because the media only prints what its corporate advertisers want to hear (a pro-monopoly message) and also because most media outlets, as capitalists, of course long to be monopolies themselves. The fact that capitalists and their supporters rant and rave about how great capitalism is due to competition despite the fact that business and its paid propagandists all hate such competition is one of the worst lies of all of the capitalists.
 
 
 

Website Going to a Subscription/Donation Model

To access the latest posts on the site, please scroll pasts the first two sticky posts. 
I am really getting sick and tired of this endless bashing of me by scumbags for trying to make some money off my website. It is really quite incredible.
So for now and into the future, the website will no longer be a free website. It will move to a donation model of many pay websites. However, like a lot of such sites, you will still be able to access a lot of content for free. For instance, all of the articles on the main site can be read for free forever! However, if you wish to comment on articles, there are now limits. If you become what I consider to be a regular commenter, you will have to give a minimum of $10 for a donation. After that, you can comment forever on the regular website’s thousands of articles forever!  You are certainly free to donate more than $10 if you wish, and many people do. I regularly get donations of $50, $100, $200, $250 and rarely up to $500.
People who like the site often give quite a bit of money to keep it going. I do not have a high income, as I have made ~$14,000/yr for the last several years. By donating/, you are mostly just helping me to survive.
Of course, when you go on those pay sites and read their free stuff, they hit you up to buy a subscription or buy whatever it is they are selling on a regular basis. It’s logical. Do you walk into a store and assume you are not going to buy anything? Of course not. You go into a store, and the owner assumes that you may well buy something. Same at the pay sites. So you get nag screens, pop-ups, limits on free viewing, etc. pretty regularly when you access their free content. And why not? Accessing the free content is like walking into a store fully intending not to buy a thing. The nag screens, requests to donate or buy a subscription, popups, etc. are like the owner repeatedly asking you if you want to buy something. The limits on free viewing are like when you spend an hour in some store not intending to buy anything, and the owner finally asks you to leave.
As this is now a pay site, it’s perfectly logical that I should have announcements or comments seeking people to donate to our services.
I am a journalist. I have a BA in Journalism from a good university. I have previously worked as an editor at a major magazine. I worked for a while as a freelance writer for money. And I am now a published author. Most authors don’t go to work for some newspaper or magazine and expect to work for free. They expect a wage or salary. Book authors don’t give their books away. No author who makes his living off writing gives his writing away for free. Why should he? Everyone else works for money. Why shouldn’t authors work for money too? Apparently my critics think I have no right to work for money! I have no right to offer my writing for sale instead of giving it away like an idiot. I am supposed to give all my material away for free and I guess starve or live on the streets and beg or something.
So if you hear, “Lindsay’s always hitting people up for donations,” first of all, this vicious lie of my critics is not even true. I only occasionally ask for money on here. A few site services now cost money, and people are told that if they wish to access that material, they must pay a fee.
Second, why they Hell can’t I ask people to give a donation?
You go to the New York Times, Washington Post or Guardian, and they hit you up for money all the time. The Times and Post only let you read a few articles for free a month, and then you are cut off. If you wish to comment on the Times or Post, you need to purchase some sort of subscription. The Guardian hits you up for donations at the end of every single article you read. And why not? Are the Times, Post, and Guardian supposed to give their product away for free? Why? How are they supposed to stay in business? How are they supposed to survive? They run a business. Why do you expect businesses to give their products away for free? They will all starve and live in the streets if that is the case.
Why should I be any different? This is also a news site run by an accredited, experienced, and published journalist/author. He doesn’t give his writing away for free. Not exactly anyway.
It is quite amazing what you can read on here for free. On the other hand, like many pay sites, to obtain full use of the site, you must make some sort of a purchase.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing idiots screeching that I ask for money. Damn right I do. This is a pay website, and like the rest of them, we will hit you up for donations like any other news outlet on the web. Why it is outrageous that I wish to work and survive and get paid for my labor in America is beyond me. This is something I will never understand.
If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Up with Alexandr Dugin

It’s quite popular to hate this guy, and everyone calls him a fascist, but he doesn’t seem very fascist to me. He never talks about race. All I know is if this guy is a fascist, I guess I must be a fascist too then.
He’s a Russian nationalist, and Russian nationalists don’t care about race. There was one armed Russian nationalist group fighting in the Donbass, and their only requirement for joining was to follow the Russian Orthodox religion and speak Russian fluently. I saw some very Asiatic looking faces in the group of armed men. Some of them were so Asiatic they could have been Kazakhs or even Tuvans.
Putin’s Defense Minister is a Tuvan. Putin is a Russian nationalist.
Russian nationalism is based on the theory of a Russian Empire. Traditionally, many non-Russian languages and several non-Russian Orthodox religions were part of the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire now would seem to imply everything encompassed in the Russian state.
There many official ethnicities and there are many official languages spoken throughout Russia today. Many to most of those languages have official state support, and with many of those languages, you can attend school in your native language. In some cases, I think you can even attend university in your native language. There are state-sponsored TV and radio stations and newspapers and magazines all in these languages. Many Russian ethnicities still grow up speaking their native language. Putin’s record on this has not been optimal, but he is driven by fear of secessionism as is the case with nearly all official languages of nation-states. Nevertheless, the language situation that was set up by the USSR still largely stands, and in many cases has expanded in recent years.

An ominous and alarming country on the other side of the ocean. Without history, without tradition, without roots. An artificial, aggressive, imposed reality, completely devoid of spirit, concentrated only on the material world and technical effectiveness, cold, indifferent, an advertisement shining with neon light and senseless luxury; darkened by pathological poverty, genetic degradation and the rupture of all and every person and thing, nature and culture. It is the result of a pure experiment of the European rationalist Utopians.
Today it is establishing its planetary dominion, the triumph of its way of life, its civilizational model over all the peoples of the earth. And over us. In itself and only in itself does it see ‘progress’ and ‘civilizational norms’, refusing everyone else the right to their own path, their own culture, their own system of values.
How wonderfully exactly does all this remind us of the prophecy concerning the coming into the world of the Antichrist… The king of the dead ‘green country’, that arose out of the abyss of the ancient crime…
To close down America is our religious duty…
– Aleksandr Dugin

Jews Don't Control the US Media or Anything Like That!

19657097_10213438809155374_8629965664126680048_n
God I love that Jew icon so much! Le Happy Merchant is the coolest Jewish icon ever. Everything I see him, I can’t stop laffin. I would almost like to make him my personal icon if I could. That’s how cool he is! Happy Merchant I love you!

No way! Jews don’t run the media! They have nothing to do with it at all! And if you say they do, you’re a Nazi! I guess scientific fact is Nazism then? The Jews need to rewrite their propaganda. When the truth is Nazism and Nazism is the truth, it’s not a good day for the days. Sorry, it just isn’t. Jews! Get back to your machinations! Your old lies are failing badly. Come up with some new ones quick! Your God Bernays is rolling in his grave!*
*Edward Bernays, the man who invented Public Relations (making up stories and lies for paying clients) and propaganda (a synonym for modern Western “journalism”), was Jewish. Isn’t that incredible? The man who literally created lying for money and the concept of political propaganda was Jewish! No way! Jewish are honest! They never lie! Like, ever. Say it ain’t so, Jew!

DNC Democrats Burn in Hell

Here.
Take your studies and stick em where the sun don’t shine. They’re not in parallel markets anyway. ATT and Time Warner “compete” in the cable market. In a typical city, you have one DSL provider and one cable provider.  You also have one satellite provider. In truth,  none of them compete at all. They all offer extremely slow service and criminally usurious rates. High speed Internet is much faster and much cheaper in the rest of the world where the government often owns the lines. We capitalist retards in the US let the capitalist crooks build their own phone lines and lay their own cable, hence, every city has a monopoly DSL and phone carrier and a monopoly cable carrier. Cable service is horrific in most US cities. Comcast is usually rated as the worst company in the US.
Another Hillary clone. Jon Ossoff, who lost in Newt Gingrich’s district in Atlanta, was another Clinton/Obama corporate Democrat “Centrist.” There is really nothing Centrist whatsoever about this Clintonite cancer that has taken over the Democratic Party. It started under Bill Clinton when the DINO named Bill created the DLC to take over the DNC which had become too pro-people and not sufficiently pro-rich and pro-corporate. Hence the lead DINO himself engineered a coup in which the DLC basically took over the DNC. Around the same time, a similar tumor called “New Labour” grew in the UK, destroying the once pro-worker and pro-people Labour Party and leaving the UK with two Tory parties.
Corbyn’s recent victory in the last election is part of a brutal civil war in Labour between New Labour Tories and the real Labourites under Corbyn. The entire UK media, including the “leftwing” corporate Labour outlet The Guardian have come out ferociously against Corbyn. Similarly, the Guardian absolutely hates Bernie Sanders and has always supported the Clintonite usurpers and traitors. Surprise surprise it is also a leading member of the (((Western media))) that lies constantly about the war in Syria in order to start another War for the Jews in the Levant.
“Centrist” Dems and “Centrist” Labourites are frankly a cancer, mostly because there is nothing centrist about them. Or, if that’s centrism, let me off the bus please. I signed up for progress, not another party of the corporations and the rich.

CIA, Mossad, MI5 and Many Sunni Intelligence Agencies Are Directly Embedded inside Al Qaeda in Northern Syria

The Saudis, Qataris, Jordanians, Emiratis and Turks all work very closely with Al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamists in Syria. In an Operations Center in Jordan on the border with Syria, all these factions work together. In addition, (((US and UK forces))) have been working closely with Al Qaeda and other rebels for a long time now.
In fact, I have solid proof that all of the above governments have military intelligence personnel actually embedded in Al Qaeda in Northern Syria. That’s right, the CIA, MI5 and Mossad all have personnel actually embedded inside Al Qaeda itself in Northern Syria. This information comes from an interview a German journalist conducted with an Al Qaeda commander in North Syria in his cave.
The (((world media))) eventually went to war against this actual journalist, trying to discredit him, but his news is absolutely correct. There were reports that dozens of (((NATO intelligence agents))) were stuck inside Aleppo at the very end. That’s why the (((US))) went crazy with the wild lying at the very end of the battle. (((We))) were deadly afraid that our CIA guys were going to get captured by Assad’s forces in the fall of the city. Pro-Assad news outlets actually published the names of ~20 (((NATO officers))) who were trapped inside Aleppo with Al Qaeda. About a dozen of them were US (((CIA and MIA))).
 

The Only Time The Media Universally Praised Trump

The only time the media universally praised Trump was when he bombed Syria based on a fake false flag poison gas attack that never even happened.
For an excellent writeup on how this attack was not a poison gas attack and in fact how this attack never even happened in the first place (!) please see Seymour Hersh’s excellent work in the German press, just out. Hersh presumably had to take his work to the German press because the (((US press))), I mean the US press, would not run it.
Notice the difference?
(((US press)))
(((British press)))
(((Canadian press)))
(((Australian press)))
German press
Notice that the German press is apparently the only media that is controlled by nationalists, members of the nation state itself, that is, actual German people, not (((traitors))), (((double agents))) and (((agents of a foreign power))).
This is the difference between having a true national media and having an (((anti-national globalist cosmopolitan media))) run by (((internationalist traitors))).
Have you noticed this?
Let me put it in bold.
The only time the US media unanimously cheered for Trump was when he bombed Syria. 
Do you understand why that is?
It’s because we don’t have a media. We have a (((media))).
We don’t have a Congress. We have a (((Congress))).
We don’t have a Democratic Party and Republican Party.  We have a (((Democratic Party))) and (((Republican Party))).
Keep in mind that there are Jews and there are (((Jews))). The highest calling of any Jew converted or born should be to remove those damned parentheses from your name. This more than anything else nowadays it what it really means to be a Jew. Want to light the way to a better world? Clean your own house first, then worry about being cultural messiahs.
Mr. Hersh, despite his ethnicity, will not get three brackets. Mr. Hersh is a good man and a good Jew, a true mensch. He is an American nationalist who puts Americans first and Jews second.
With most of his people, it’s the other way around. You wonder why they kept getting thrown out of countries? It’s because of this.