Alt Left: Modern Feminism as a Psychopathic Movement?

I am starting to think feminists are psychopaths or at least modern feminism is a psychopathic movement. All feminists have told me flat out that women have a right to hit us men all the want to. In fact, they take delight in hitting us. There have been many articles in feminist press about hitting men. These are filled with comments from gleeful feminists talking about the men they have hit or assaulted and how fun it was. The rest of the comments are, “You go, girl. Hit those men! Beat those men! LOL!”

I asked every feminist I know if we ever had a right to hit them back, and they all said no. Ok, that’s psychopathic. They get to hit us all they want to, but it’s illegal for us to hit back. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

When women are unrepresented in like anything but even 1% they scream and yell and carry on and demand equality of outcome at all costs. In a number of cases now though, women are beating men. More women in college, more women getting degrees, more women in all sorts of high paying professions.

So men are now underrepresented in all sorts of fields, in school, etc. Response of feminists? Crickets! Women can’t be underrepresented 1% in anything and we have to force equal representation for women, but women get to beat men and over-represent them in anything, and that’s wonderful.

Incidentally, there have been many gloating articles in the feminist press about how women are kicking men’s asses in some field or other or in school, and the women are all cheering it on. They’re chortling and carrying on like it’s a party. “Beat those men!”, they scream with delight. They get to beat us in everything, and we can’t beat them in one thing. That’s psychopathy. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

I sincerely believe that feminism is a psychopathic movement.

Alt Left: 80% of US Women Refuse to Identify As Feminists

Studies of millennial women appear to show that 20% of them identify as feminists. Not sure if that’s a good figure, as it was hard to find the actual survey, and I averaged together the rates for the different races of women, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White. When I averaged together the rates of the four races, I got 20%. The link for those figures was to a page doing surveys on millenials. An article saying 20% of women identify as feminists linked to a page doing surveys on millenials.

In addition, an average of only 27% of European women identify as feminists. So 73% of European women reject modern feminism.

On the other hand, most said that they were full equal rights for women, maybe 80% support that. So you can argue that they support feminist goals while rejecting identification with the modern feminist movement.

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity. Bottom line: feminism has a bad name. Why? They’re fanatics. Case in point: your average feminist, wild eyes, danger hair and the rest.

The 3rd wave sites I have been on are not so dykey and anti-feminine as the truly insane radical feminist sites where the women are nearly diagnostically psychotic, but the man-hating BS is definitely still there, though quite a bit toned down.

Plus a lot of 3rd wavers are heterosexual, really like to have sex with men, and are often horny as Hell. Feminist men almost get mobbed on those sites.

Alt Left: The Single Factor that Moderates Feminist Man-hatred

Love of dick.

There’s one thing that moderates a feminist. Does she still like dick? Is she strictly dickly? As long as they still like cock, the man-hatred never gets ramped up to extreme levels.

The worst manhaters of all are lesbians, either biological or straight women who turned lez due to extreme man-hatred. Many of the extreme manhaters are straight women who have simply given up on men to become cat ladies and marry their vibrators.

As long as they’re still fucking us, they just can’t hate us too much. At some point  they run into a wall and can’t hate us anymore. The cock-love serves to block the man-hatred at some point.

I hear that there are misogynists who have a lot of sex with women, but it doesn’t seem to work that way with women. You don’t hear about a lot of man-haters who have lots of sex with men other than prostitutes, where this is quite common.

Yes, many prostitutes are extreme manhaters. Many have turned lesbian due to their extreme man-hatred. How they can stand to keep having sex with us all the time is beyond me. Much worse are former prostitutes, many of whom have a near-psychotic hatred of men. Former prostitutes now vicious manhaters are extremely common in the radfem movement.

Granted, prostitutes no doubt see the very worst of men, but then so do players and womanizers. Which may be why so many womanizers are misogynists. Womanizers and prostitutes both know the opposite sex too well. Familiarity breeds contempt. They’ve both seen the bad side of the opposite sex in spades, whereas most of us are spared the worst and remain dreamy-eyed, swooning, and addicted to the opposite sex far into middle age.

Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much knowledge can be downright fatal. That’s called a reality overdose, something most of us spend our lives downing Pretty Lie Pills to avoid. Being lie-addicted seems silly, but if it keeps you above the ground, so be it. You do what it takes in life and damn the rest.

Alt Left: Radical Feminism Is Not a Tiny Fringe Movement in Feminism

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity.

Having spent a lot of time on feminist boards, I would definitely say that those associations are reality based, in particular on radical feminist forums. Radfems are 22% of all feminists. That means that there are 4-5 million radical feminist women in the US.

SJW liars say that radical feminists are a tiny fringe group in feminism. That’s not true at all. It’s a huge movement. And most of the big names in feminism were radical feminists, including Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Sheila Jeffries, Julie Bindel, Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon.

The entire #metoo movement and the very concept of sexual harassment itself, especially the pernicious hostile workplace environment amendment to the theory, came straight out of radical feminism. Sexual harassment theory was birthed by Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon, two of the most deranged manhating bitches that ever lived. These are the intellectual braintrusts behind metoo.

“A Black a Block, Spread ‘Em Out and Civilize ‘Em!”

Jason Y writes:

Towns full of low class Whites are not ruined, but they’re full of swindler types, thieves. Also, they’re full of drug addiction (pain pills specifically).

But you can live there. But you don’t want to get too close to many of them, and you need security.

Hispanic neighborhoods are much the same. They’re not wrecked at all really, and you can absolutely live there. Maybe you will think they are not much fun, but no man ever died of boredom.

But Hispanic neighborhoods are full of lousy human beings, not all Hispanics. There are some ghetto Blacks there too, and they are pretty lousy. The lousy Hispanics will generally leave you alone, which peace you won’t get in a ruined Black city. As long as you don’t make friends with them, you are ok.

Even the ghetto Blacks act far better in my city than they would in your typical ruined Black hellhole. That is because they don’t have any numbers, so that right there makes them act a lot better for some reason. They are still absolutely ghetto Blacks with all that that implies, but these ghetto Blacks are far better behaved than the ones in Detroit or whatever.

The reason is that when ghetto Blacks are only a small minority, they don’t ruin places and they act a lot better. The Hispanics and Whites here act a lot better than ghetto Blacks, so perhaps being around folks who act better causes these ghetto Blacks to improve their behavior via good examples the way the Talented Tenth used to provide good examples for behavior and hold down the fort in Black neighborhoods of yore.

Also for some other reasons they tend to act better. Perhaps they feel completely outnumbered, so they get a lot less bold and try to constrain their behavior due to fear. Any bad behavior gets their asses called out way more around here than in Baltimore. Whatever the reason, small populations of Blacks of any kind don’t seem to cause a lot of mess. They still cause problems, don’t get me wrong. But they don’t cause mayhem, which is what they do in Newark.

Avram Davidson was a well-known science fiction writer. You can look him up on Wikipedia if you wish. He was a friend of my fathers. He was my friend too. I knew him quite well. He was an Orthodox Jew but I hate to admit that he didn’t like Blacks. Part of it was due to fear. He was terrified of ghetto Blacks especially in his old age, which is a reasonable fear.

He used to say, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” It sounds nasty but there’s a decent argument to be made. Arguments are not bad because they have an ugly sound. Ugly noises never hurt anyone, and hurting feelings doesn’t count, snowflakes. Arguments are bad is they produce ugly outcomes. And this argument does not produce an ugly outcome.

I understand that Portugal, 4% Black, did just this, and concentrated on spreading Blacks out and not letting them congregate in huge numbers in any one place, which, upper and upper middle class Black neighborhoods aside, just seems to bring out the worst in Black people. If it works, do it. Who cares about people’s petty feelings? You don’t refuse to engage in a good project because a few babies are going to get their feelings hurt.

And yes, a Black tipping point exists. This is good for a couple of reasons. First it shows that even ghetto Blacks are not horrible per se. They are only bad when they concentrate in large numbers and start dragging each other down like crabs in a barrel. Like all human beings, they imitate other humans for good and for ill, and they are indeed capable of imitating others for good and acting better.

Second, even ghetto Blacks are not genetically doomed to horrific behavior. Even if there is a genetic component to ghetto Blacks’ acting lousy, genes are never the whole story. Environment effects human behavior too, and a better environment improves outcome of even people who may have a genetic tendency to cause problems.

Indeed, in some cases a superenvironment might even completely wipe out a genetic tendency to act bad. This is how we have African tribes of 1 million population where Blacks literally turn into Japanese people, something I always said was impossible. But superenvironments are hard to create.

Back to the tipping point. I looked into it, and it’s 20%. Detroit was fine with a small Black population. I did the research. As long as the Black population of Detroit stayed below 20%, there were few if any noticeable problems, and it was still a decent place to live. I noted that at 20% things started to decline, and the decline accelerated as the Black population increased.

The increase and behavioral decline also drives out Whites and probably better behaved Blacks who might otherwise constrain these people’s bad behavior by example or negative reinforcement. So the decline accelerates.

Not only do people who previously acted pretty good start acting worse and worse, but as the city declines, the better behaved folks of any race start taking off. Of course this makes everything all the worse, as these better behaved folks were holding down the fort so to speak.

Although this Black a Block argument sounds too awful to implement, nations have already done so, and we are already doing so right here in the US.

Under the Obama Administration, liberals at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) employed precisely this argument when they started getting rid of housing projects and instead giving ghetto Black residents vouchers to go anywhere they wanted to. Many took the opportunity to move to better neighborhoods which were often Whiter. Of course this caused a huge backlash because crime did go up in those neighborhoods as ghetto Blacks moved in.

However, a curious thing happened. Those ghetto Blacks who previously lived in projects in concentrations of poorly behaved people indeed started acting better when they were shifted out to White neighborhoods and sprinkled around. They did not act dramatically better but they did act somewhat better. And whatever people say about the crime rate, these ghetto Blacks’ crime rate indeed went down.

So the Cultural Left can scream all they want that A Black a Block is an evil racist theory or project. But the thing is, it’s already being implemented. And the people who are implementing are very liberal and progressive people of various races, including very liberal Black people.

And regardless of its ugly name, the project works. It’s better for ghetto Blacks and it’s better for society as a whole. One wonders why SJW’s would object to a project that improves ghetto Blacks, everyone else, and society but these people are hung up on words and feelings, not results. And that’s called having bad priorities.

One more reason why SJW’s suck.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

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

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

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives Are Murderous and Hate Democracy All over the World and at All Times

The Murderous, Democracy-Hating Latin American Right

The murderousness of the Chilean, Peruvian, Ecuadorian, and Argentine Right is in the past, but you never know when they will spring up again.

  • There was talk on the Argentine Right of calling for a coup when the last president talked about regulating the agricultural sector. They run that country like a mafia and no one dares to touch them. The Argentine Right worked with Wall Street to bankrupt the country and ruin the economy so they could win an election.
  • The Paraguayan Right overthrew the government with a judicial coup.
  • The Ecuadorian Right attempted an armed police coup several years ago.
  • The Peruvian Right staged a coup 25 years ago.
  • The Chilean Right only allowed a weak democracy 18 years ago.
  • The Honduran Right staged a military coup to get rid of a democratically elected president. Since then, death squads have murdered 1,000 people.
  • Aristide was overthrown by US sponsored coup 23 years ago, and they haven’t had any democracy since because Aristide’s party is banned from running. The last time they ran, they won 92% of the vote. After the coup, death squads rampaged through the population, murdering 3,000 members of Aristide’s party.
  • The rightwing Brazilian legislature overthrew the Left government based on a complete lie and they jailed the former president on a completely fake charge based on a bribe that he didn’t even accept! I mean they simply overthrew a democratically elected government with a parliamentary coup. They do this stuff all the time down there with either judicial, parliamentary or military coups.

The Latin American Right hates democracy.
If you wonder why the Left goes authoritarian down there, well, this is what happens if you try to do it democratically. They try to do it democratically, they wage coups and economic wars against you, start terrorist riots destroying you cities, murder the members of your government and political parties, start contra wars, or if they are in power, run death squads and slaughter the members of your parties.
I mean if they block all efforts at peaceful change, why not just put in a Left dictatorship? By the way, this is why Lenin said peaceful efforts towards socialism were doomed to fail because power never surrenders without a fight. He called such efforts parliamentary cretinism. I don’t agree with that, but I see the point.
The main point is that everywhere on Earth, the Right hates democracy and they are determined never to allow any Left governments to take power. Things are a bit different in Europe, North Africa, the Arab World, and Central Asia, but once you start getting over to South Asia, once again, they won’t give it up without a fight.

The Murderous, Democracy-Hating Right in Southeast and East Asia

  • Thailand overthrew a Left government with a judicial coup and the middle class rioters called yellow shirts destroying the country.
  • Indonesia staged a fake coup so they could murder 1 million Communist Party members.
  • The Philippines runs death squads that slaughter the Left.
  • The Taiwanese state consolidated its power after 1949 when they fled to they island by murdering hundreds of thousands of Leftists.
  • South Korea also killed hundreds of thousands of Leftists from 1945-1950 before the Korean War even started.
  • Between 1954-1960, Communists tried to take power peacefully in South Vietnam, but the government murdered 80,000 of them. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms but it was never granted. Finally, in 1960, Ho gave them permission to take up arms.

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

Sami: Robert, every single counterpoint you make brings us back, full circle, to the ultimate question concerning what the Alt-Left is really about:
Does it aspire, truly, to become a genuine, mass-based political movement with a clearly-articulated platform, that can change this country for the better from the ground up? Or is it a mere, irrelevant intellectual exercise on a few blogs?

 
There were 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook recently. It has now dropped down to ~6,000.
Also the existing Alt Left seems to have been colonized by regular Democratic Party people pushing anti-Republican partisan politics along with typical SJW stuff. The best analysis of the Alt Left right now is that it has been co-opted by Democratic Party liberal entryists.
And then the movement itself died down for some unknown reason. We had a terrible problem with being swamped by rightwingers and Libertarians the whole time we were popular on Facebook. It was a never-ending nightmare keeping the rightwingers out.
The problem is that nowadays when you go anti-SJW, you get swamped by rightwingers. And everyone on the liberal-Left is pretty much automatically an SJW.
And there is an odd process whereby as leftwing people get more and more anti-SJW, they start moving more and more away from left economics towards more openly promoting capitalism. This makes no sense to me. Why on Earth would capitalism be opposed to anti-SJWism? Feminism is just a group of women to sell women-oriented products to. Capitalists would love to cater to Blacks to sell them stuff. Capitalists will fall over backwards to cater to and suck up to gay people if only to get them to buy stuff. Why should capitalists care about Muslims? Capitalists would love to cater to this group and sell products especially for them. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for capitalists to be anti-SJW. It makes no sense. And it makes a lot more sense for them to go full SJW if only to sell more stuff to new groups.
It makes somewhat more sense that left economics be tied in with SJWism, as both are about equality, but there’s no reason left economics should hate or oppose heterosexuals, Whites, or men. Why should it? None of those three groups have anything to do with economics. Also the Left has always been sexual liberationist, but now that feminism has taken over the Left, the Left has become as prudish, Victorian and sex-hating as the Christian Right. Puritanism has no logical connection with the left or left economics. Why do Left economics have to do with sex and fucking? Nothing.
The Alt Left was an attempt to sever this horrible intertwining of left economics with SJWism and rightwing economics with anti-SJWism, but we haven’t had much success at that. When liberal Left people go anti-SJW, they abandon Left economics too. And no one subscribing to Left economics wants to go against SJWism. So economics and the culture war are still horribly tied together, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle them. It’s so frustrating.
There are several online magazines which people are referring to as Alt Left. There are some folks on Youtube calling themselves Alt Left, and there are others who are being referred to as Alt Left. I would say that it’s a very small movement, but it definitely exists.
Part of the problem is that people like me are too lazy to promote it. I have my own Alt Left group on Facebook, and I encountered quite a bit of interest in the subject. I was also on some of the other Alt Left groups, and there were a lot of interested and curious folks. The problem is mostly just laziness. It’s incredibly hard work to grow these movements, and I for one am just too lazy to do the hard work. But there are others still working on this project.
There is also the Realist Left, another small project that definitely exists.
A political scientist in Poland got interested in us and wrote a couple of pieces about us in political journals. A couple of other political journals over there also wrote us up. Mostly no one has the faintest idea of who we are, so first of all, we need publicity more than anything else.

Alt Left: IQ Differences as Small as Five Points Can Be Easily Observed in Populations

Is there even a difference between 2 IQ points? Is there even a difference with 5-8?
I’m not sure if there is a difference with 2 points. There is a difference with 5-8 points. Asian IQ’s are 5 points higher than White IQ’s, and it is very noticeable on a macro scale for sure and often on a micro scale. On the low end, there is a 5 point difference between Blacks (IQ 85) and Hispanics (IQ 90) and you can see it as clear as air, definitely on a macro level and to some extent on a micro level too. Most of the Black women I meet on dating sites can’t even spell! You don’t see that nearly so much or to the same degree with Latinas.
At 8 points, the difference is even clearer. The difference between White Gentiles and Jews is probably ~9 points, although studies vary a lot. If it is as low as 9 points, that 9 point difference is starkly obvious on a macro scale (to the extent that groups of Jews can even be observed on macro scales) and definitely on a micro scale.

"Pipe Dream" Arguments from the Left on How to Deter Mass Immigration

Sami: There may, excessive fears of IQ drop aside, be good reasons to slow down mass immigration. For instance, it would de-energize the alt-right and other reactionary movements.

No kidding. There’s no reason for it. It doesn’t benefit our country one bit.

Sami: Best and most humane way to accomplish a tremendous slow-down in migration, in my opinion, would be to stop our brutally exploitative economic, geostrategic, and military polices toward those regions, driven by the short-sighted avarice of the Western Corporatocracy and banking interests, and their rapacious mentality toward the Third World. I highly recommend reading “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, by John Perkins, a former insider..

Obviously this is never going to happen probably ever. I will be dead in 20-30 years and I assure you that US imperialism in all of its wickedness will be rampaging along like it always has. We can’t wait for pipe dreams to come true to deal with this issue.

Sami: The British and American financial sectors launder the hundreds of billions of dollars of drug profits, completely enabling, and even driving, the catastrophic violence destabilizing Mexico and Central America.

Another problem that is never going away. This has been going on for 40 years now. See any signs of a slowdown?

Sami: Britain’s unregulated offshore financial empire takes care of the lion’s share of this out of places like the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands. These “offshore” centers also hold over $900 billion, conservatively estimated, of stolen wealth from Africa, and literally trillions from the Middle East,and Latin America, laundering wealth stolen by corrupt government officials — theft that wouldn’t be remotely possible on such a massive scale otherwise, without this laundering.

Any sign that British financial imperialism is headed out, like…ever? Of course not.

Sami: This represents absolutely unimaginable looting, and economic destabilization, as well as social and military destabilization of entire nations and continents, from which, not coincidentally, much migration into the US and Europe originates.

We’ve been raping and ruining the 3rd World forever now. Even back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, US imperialism was at least as bad as it is now yet immigration flows were far lower. Face facts. Most immigrants to the US are straight up economic immigrants. They’re coming here for the cash, for the filthy lucre. Most are not refugees fleeing this or that. Most can make enough to survive in their own lands. But they can make more here, so they flood here. Mass immigration is not exactly noble. It’s driven by raw, disgusting greed.

Update: Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Updated post on the rape and sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh. New information is in italic.
My personal opinion is that Brett Kavanaugh is or was a serial rapist who raped women at least 14 times, sexually assaulted women three times, and tried to rape women at least once between ages 17-24, mostly between ages 17-21. His friend Mark Judge assisted in most of these rapes and attempted rapes.
The scorecard on Brett Kavanaugh. Between 1982-88, Kavanaugh, aged 17-24, committed:

  • 14 rapes
  • 3 sexual assaults
  • 1 attempted rape

Conclusion: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom. Brett Kavanaugh, age 17, grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into a bedroom where his friend Mark Judge was waiting.
Kavanaugh and Judge turned the music up loud so the others could not hear their planned rape of Ford. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, got on top of her, and tried to tear her swimsuit off. She screamed and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She fought him off the whole time, and after a bit of a struggle, managed to get out from under him. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her and began playing games with a fake penis, asking her to touch it. Brett Kavanaugh then stood up and pulled out his penis and waved it in front of her face, daring her to touch it. He then forced her to touch his penis. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 and 18 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Sex-Negative Feminists Force Beto O'Rourke to Apologize for No Reason

Beto is running against Ted Cruz for the US Senate seat in Texas. Cruz will be very hard to beat. Texas is 17 points more Republican than the country as a whole. It’s has been a wildly reactionary and backwards state forever now. Nevertheless, Beto has been on Cruz’s heels, often trailing him by only 2-3 points. There is no way that a Democratic challenger should be that close to Ted Cruz. That in itself is a very good sign. Nevertheless, Cruz will be very hard to beat. I think Beto could possibly beat Cruz, but he probably only has a 25% chance of beating Cruz. There has been a bit of a scandal over Beto’s drunk driving arrest twenty years ago. He also used to play in a punk rock band when he was young. Cruz’ campaign tried to make the punk band a campaign issue, but no one cared. The drunk driving arrest doesn’t seem to be helping Cruz much either.
Nevertheless, 27 years ago, when Beto was a very young man and a student at Columbia University, he wrote a review of a Broadway show, The Will Rodgers Follies, in which he said that the dancers had no talent at all and

…whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.

What’s wrong with saying that?
In addition, the article was coming from a morally upright point of view. That is, he was criticizing the show for being a degenerate sleazefest:

…one of the most glaring examples of the sickening excesses and moral degradations of our culture.
Keith Carradine in the lead role is surrounded by perma-smile actresses whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks…

I swear, if a straight man opens up his mouth and says anything sexual at all, the feminists try to ruin him. It’s pretty hard to go through your whole life without writing or saying something sexual. But if you ever do that, the feminists will have your hide and ruin you forever.
This shows me once again that the goal of modern feminism is to stop heterosexual men from having sex with women altogether. The fact that they get furious if we even talk about heterosexual sex implies either that feminists are profoundly prudish, sex-hating Victorian prigs or else they simply want to stop men from having sex with women, or both. I don’t think there is any more controversy about this.
If we can never talk or write about sex, how are we supposed to do it? It’s incredible how puritanical the Feminist Left has become. They are worse than the Christian Right by now. Who needs Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson when we have Gloria Steinem and Jessica Valenti.
As usual whenever someone offends the feminists, Beto had to make a public apology and kiss the feet of his feminist masters. How pathetic.
From the Alternet comments:

This is just the kind of self-immolating “political correctness” run amok that is destroying, if it hasn’t already destroyed, the U.S. left by turning it into a laughing stock to most ordinary Americans!

Exactly!
Feminism and SJWism are going to be the end of the West if we don’t stop them.

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

Is there anyone on my site who thinks this rape culture folly even exists at all? I mean I’ve never raped anyone in my life. None of my friends have ever raped anyone in their lives. I don’t know any men who have ever raped anyone in their lives, at least that I know of. Where’s the rape culture. If this was a rape culture I probably would have been raping all this time.
Rape culture theory says the US has a rape culture that encourages men to rape females, that lets males off the hook when they do it because police officers, DA’s, judges, juries and our fellow men in general all sympathize with the rapists and let them off the hook. This is madness. Most men don’t sympathize with real actual rapists, I mean males who break the actual laws against rape. I’m talking real rape here. Real rape is legal rape. There’s real rape and there’s feminist rape. Feminist rape is whenever some female says she got raped, it was rape, no matter what happened. Feminists expand the definition of  rape every year and make ever increasing and ever crazier demands in terms of consent.
The intention here is obvious. Many feminists hate men, hate masculinity and especially hate heterosexual men. This is especially true of radical feminists. I assure you that if radical feminists could make heterosexual sex illegal for men, they would do it. In fact the feminists who first made up these laws hated heterosexual men, said all heterosexual sex was rape, and seemed to be trying to make it as illegal as possible. I refer to Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon. All sexual harassment came directly from Dworkin and McKinnon, two of the most insane man-hating bitches that have ever lived. Robin Morgan also made some statements about shutting down heterosexual sex and forcing all women to be lesbians. They weren’t exactly shy about their goals.
Do male cops really sympathize with actual rapists, I mean stranger rapists like the guy with the ski mask and a can of mace types? Do male judges really sympathize with these guys? Male DA’s like rapists? We men in general like rapists and support them and try to get them off the hook?
This whole theory sounds completely insane. There is no rape culture in this country, for God’s sake. Now if you go down to Latin America or over to the Philippines, India, Egypt, or South Africa, now you are getting somewhere. If we had a rape culture, all of those men would not have lost their jobs for flirting with women (sexual harassment) or touching women (sexual assault). There would have been no #metoo nonsense. There would have been no #timesup crap. The Kavanaugh hearings would not be rocking the nation like they are. The fact that all these things are happening are arguments against the existence of a rape culture, not in favor of one.

Alt Left: I Am Now Banned from Facebook

Just got a 3-day ban from Facebook for making this comment:

Trannies are mentally ill!

This violates Facebook’s code against hate speech. Can someone tell me what part of this comment is hate speech?
Is the world tranny hate speech? I thought it was just slang for transsexual. Is tranny a slur now? I can’t keep up with the ever-expanding list of words that get banned as slurs.
Is it hate speech to say transgender people are mentally ill? I am trying to figure out what I did wrong here. It was on a Marxist site.
There are some tranny morons on there, including a man who thinks he’s a woman. Most of the posters are extreme SJW Marxists who love transgender people for some crazy reason. It was probably a tranny who flagged the post. They were the worst SJW’s of them all, and they are profoundly censorious, always trying to bust people and get them in trouble for what people say.
Damn, I am getting banned from the whole Internet now.
Note: I just learned that tranny is a slur along the lines of faggot, etc.
Just to show how much I care about BS like that, I would like to say the following:
Tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny.
I would also like to say:
Faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot.

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 Failure of the American "Try Hard" Hypothesis of Human Intelligence and Achievement

In the US, no one is smarter than anyone else. Most think there is no such thing as human intelligence and no one is smarter or dumber than anyone else. And anyway, there’s no way to measure human intelligence. All methods are flawed. So why don’t you invent another one? Doesn’t matter. All efforts to measure human intelligence are doomed forever to failure. I guess measuring human intelligence is like measuring quarks. As soon as you think you’ve pinned it down, it’s already scooted out of view again.
This “Try Hard” BS is a lie. My Mom worked for a clinical psychologist who gave standardized tests for employers. He gave IQ tests all the time. He tested me and he had to go back and check the score a few times because he couldn’t believe it was so high. He told my Mom that in thirty years of giving IQ tests, he had only had 10-15 people score as high as I did. And that was after the drugs and the resulting brain fry had long since set in.
He told my mother that when he started, he was agnostic on the IQ question. But after a while, over and over, he found that Asians scored higher than Whites, and Whites scored higher than Hispanics and Blacks. He scratched his head for a while and wondered if he was onto something.
He thought maybe people scored better because they tried harder, so he found Asians who had breezed through university with straight A’s. He assumed they got that way by trying harder, so he asked them if they studied a lot. He was shocked that they almost always said that they hardly studied at all. “Maybe a little bit a day or two before the test,” they would say. The people scoring the best at university were hardly trying at all! So much for the Try Hard Hypothesis.
Then he found people who scored lower on IQ tests and had struggled through university with C’s. He asked them if they had studied hard in college, assuming that they had slacked off and drank their way through college. Most of them said that they had studied very hard but that the material was just too hard for them. Try Hard Hypothesis failed again.
I printed out a paper with Richard Lynn’s paper in IQ variations among races and my mother, now a liberal Democrat (but always a race realist), had given it to him. He read it and was fascinated. He said that he had always suspected that something  like this was going on. He was a good liberal or even Leftist Democrat, so he always believed that there were no differences between the races because this was the liberal line he got taught, but he always suspected that it might be wrong. He eventually became a liberal race realist like my Mom.

Alt Left: Where Does the Alt Left Stand on Race Realism at the Moment?

Rahul: Robert, I’m a bit confused about thy political stance.
You’re definitely Fiscally Liberal, but I can’t tell when it comes to social shit. For some shit, your extreme right, and for others you are extreme left (some of this shit is really common sense. I mean, why the fuck should incest not be legal)
RL: Where am I extreme right?
Tulio: Probably on the HBD stuff. Whether it’s true or not, it’s still seen as a right wing position. Or at least it’s only right-wingers/libertarians who tend to openly embrace HBD.

Yes! No one on the liberal – Left buys that and most hate it vociferously. The Alt Left is for socially conservative liberals and Leftists, and race realism was one of the original three pillars of the movement. However, all of the Alt Left wings strongly rejected race realism and wanted nothing to with it, so the Alt Left has dropped the race realism stuff.
Interestingly, most anti-race realist Alt Left people didn’t say race realism wasn’t true. They simply said they were agnostic on the question and didn’t know if it was true or not, but they thought that even supporting race realism at all would make the movement poisonous.

Alt Left: Feminism in Academia and Social Work

Rod Fleming: The trouble is, they’ve infested academia, and the schools of education and social work were the very first to fall. Essentially, all teachers now are Postmodern, ‘intersectional’ feminists and all social workers believe the nuclear family is an abomination and the State is the only body capable of raising children. In other words, that they know better than parents do, how to bring up their own kids.
This is not new; the creeping infestation has been going on for decades. It’s just that the reaction to Trump’s election threw it at the fan and the secret is out. Google the Orkney child-abuse scandal.

Yes, they have infested the academy. They are mostly in the Women’s Studies program, although my field of Linguistics got taken over by the worst SJW’s a long time. Really all of the social sciences have gone SJW, and all universities are hotbeds of SJWism. However, I am acquaintances with two university professors, one in the US and one in Europe. Both of them hate modern SJWism. The American professor is so famous that he has a Wikipedia entry. They both act like they have to be very quiet about this or they might lose their jobs though.
Wait, Rod.
Your Reaction gets in the way of a lot of your otherwise decent theory.
3rd wave intersectional feminists do not want to get rid of the nuclear family. Some 2nd wave radical and other feminists talked about that. These were usually coming from a Hard Left Marxist POV.
You would be hard-pressed to find an “abolish the nuclear family feminist” anywhere now. They don’t exist anymore. And I don’t know anyone, no matter how leftwing, who thinks the state does a better job of raising kids than the family does. They didn’t even believe that in the USSR.
If you work in mental health though, you better be on board with modern feminism. If you’re not and your views get out, the feminists will try to get your license pulled. I could not believe how hard my male therapists sucked up to women. It was actually rather disgusting.  I want a therapist who’s a man, not some cuck.

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.”

Alt Left: I Got Banned by Alternet for Opposing Radical Feminist Idiocy

Chalk up Alternet as one more left site destroyed by feminist fanatics. I think feminuts have taken over pretty much the entire Left at this point. There’s no way to be a liberal or Leftist now without subscribing to radical feminism.
I forget exactly what the article was about, but the discussion descended to Jeffrey Epstein of Pedo Island fame. Epstein recruited mostly legal age teenage girls over the age of 16 to work as models at Pedo Island. They ended up working as prostitutes for Mr. Epstein.
Epstein also had quite a bit of sex with girls younger than that, mostly 14-15, but he is accused of having sex with a 12 and 13 year old girl too. Charges were brought against him for having sex with a number of 14 and 15 year old girls, all of whom he paid for the favor.
So he was accused of having sex with many underage teenage prostitutes. Most took the money, but one 14 year old girl refused to take the money and decided to prosecute. Epstein had paid her an unknown amount for a handjob. He was convicted and sentenced to 13 months in federal prison for this crime.
The article went on to call this Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, a ridiculous term which makes no sense. The girls Epstein was having sex with were not trafficked. To be trafficked, you have to have a pimp. If you work on your own with no pimp, you are an independent businesswoman, and you’re not being trafficked unless you are trafficking  yourself, which is a bizarre idea.
All of this silliness has been made much worse by radical feminists’ bizarre insistence that all prostitution is somehow “trafficking.” When a man buys a prostitute’s services, he is “trafficking” her. Make sense. Of course not, nothing a radical feminist says is rational, but who cares! Radical feminists don’t logic. Anyway, I attacked this whole ridiculous concept, and the radical feminists at Alternet banned me.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist retard): “DMST comes in various forms, including prostitution, pornography, stripping and other sexual acts into which an underage child is forced or enticed by an adult.”
Robert Lindsay: This is semantic abuse, government style.
LOL she wasn’t forced. She did it over her own free will just like all the rest of the little whores. They did it for the money, same as all prostitutes do. No one was forcing anyone to do anything.
“Rape parties” LOL. You’re kidding. Most of those girls were quite willing. A lot of them were coming to his place in New York and they were often 16-17, which is legal in NY. A lot of these girls were being invited down to Pedo Island, and they went there quite willingly.
Epstein did rape some girls, but a lot of them were doing it consensually for money. Consensual sex between an adult man and a teenage girl is hardly rape. The best term for it is “illegal intercourse.”
There were hundreds of girls who came forward and said Epstein paid them for sex, and Epstein paid off every single one of them. The 14 year old would not take the money and filed charges. That’s the only reason he went down at all.
13 months in prison for a handjob from a very willing 14 year old girl sounds about right. It’s hardly the crime of the century.
It’s funny because you abused the term “sex trafficking.”

As you can see, anytime an underage girl sells her ass sexually, she’s being “trafficked”? Trafficked by whom? Who forced her to whore her teen ass out as a high school prostitute? In some cases, no one.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist idiot): This is also known as domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST), which is the commercial sexual exploitation of children through buying, selling, or trading the sexual services of American children.
Robert Lindsay: That’s a bullshit definition of sex trafficking. Who made that up? Radical feminists? Every underage prostitute out there (she was quite willing to whore herself to Epstein) is “being trafficked?” WTF. Who’s trafficking them? The men who buy sex from them are “trafficking” them? That’s madness.
I keep seeing these endless references to females being “trafficked,” and I keep wondering what in the Hell they are talking about. Generally the term means the woman is in bondage to someone, say a pimp, and is being moved around the country to prostitute for him, and she’s not making much money out of it either. It’s more or less sex slavery. It’s hard to understand how a teenage girl entrepreneuring as a prostitute is a sex slave.
Now I am getting it. For radical feminists just about every prostitute out there is somehow “being trafficked.” It all adds up now.
Flagged for semantic abuse and word murder by the radical feminuts.

She came back with more nonsense – that Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking for paying a 14 year old girl $200 for a handjob. How the Hell did he “traffic” that girl by giving her a wad of cash for a simple sex act? Radical feminists are murdering language again, but that’s nothing new.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Robert Lindsay: He didn’t get convicted of sex trafficking. He got convicted of paying a 14 year old girl to give him a handjob lol.

Alt Left: Praise for the Conservative Left

Although the SJW author of the piece that quotes Selbourne in the New Statesman attacks Selbourne, what Selbourne describes is nothing less than the Alt Left itself.
In a very early bulletin board post, a poster described my Alternative Left as conservative Leftists.” When Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York in 1969, he called himself a left conservative. Mailer has continued to describe himself as a left conservative to this day.
Well, that’s exactly what we are.
We are somewhat socially conservative on the Cultural Left Freakshow, but we are Left on everything else. According to our dispensation, Selbourne would be Alt Left, as he despises the moronic SJW Left. And as he brilliantly points out, the unlimited freedoms (not really unlimited though as look at how SJW Feminism wants to stop heterosexual flirting, dating and sex) to be as weird and crazy as you want are really the freedoms of neoliberalism.
This is radical individualism taken to its ultimate without any regard for the good of society. And radical individualism in Culture goes right along with radical individualism is business and the rest of society. If government has to get out of the lives of all the SJW freaks, then obviously it has to get out of the lives of US business and the rich too, right?

Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also.

Capitalism runs on a culture of individualism, and radical individualism is the ultimate capitalist society. Capitalists say, “There is no such thing as society.”
And in a Cultural Left world where everyone is running around flying their freak flag du jour, there’s no society either. Everyone has a different hair color. Everyone has a different sexual micro-orientation and gender micro-identity.
Everyone is divided against everyone else. The women workers are egged on to hate the male workers. The Black workers are egged on to hate the White workers. The gay workers are encouraged to hate the straight workers. The tranny workers are prompted to hate the cisgender workers. Everyone hates everyone. No one works together on any societal goals because everyone hates each other too much.
Now that the working class is divided into factions at each other’s throats, society is demolished, all humans are atomized, and the capitalists can go on their merry rapacious way, destroying everything in their path, including whatever is left of society, like they always do.

In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence.

I like how he describes the Cultural Left as the free market of culture. That’s exactly what it is!

David Selbourne, in the left-of-center New Statesmen, writes::
With socialism at the end of its historical evolution, the “Left” now lacks a coherent sense of what progress is. It has only a ragbag of causes and issues, rational and irrational, urgent and idle: a politics of personal rights and ‘lifestyle choices’, of anti-racism and environmental protection, of multicultural separatism, individual identity and gender, and much else besides.
Neither rhyme nor reason — and certainly not socialist reason — can be made of it, especially when mere transgression is confused with progress.
In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence. Nor is today’s ‘freedom’n’liberty’, whether Right or ‘Left’, the freedom fought for in the Reformation or in the revolutionary overthrow of the anciens régimes. It is not the freedom for which the 19th-century emancipationists and the suffragettes struggled. It is the freedom to do what one wants and the devil take the hindmost. No wonder that the far Right is advancing.
There is ignorance too in this pseudo-Left Libertarianism. It is reactionary, not progressive, to promote the expansion of individual freedoms without regard to the interests of the social order as a whole. Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also. The rapacious equity trader has as much right to be free as you or me; these ‘rights’ differ only in scale and consequence, not in essence.

I would actually agree with the following, and this is why I am an extreme statist at heart because face facts, socialism is statism taken to its ultimate ends.
From the Libertarian author:

It grabbed the methods of conservatism, embracing state power as the means of planning permissable changes and preventing others.

We don’t hate the state. We love the state! The state is the people personified as a single governmental entity, acting in the interests of the people to whom it serves, as Mao points out.

“The effort to escape from State control has always been the sign of liberty; the effort to enforce State control has always been the sign of Conservative reaction.” For this reason: “Socialism, in so far as it postulates State control, is Conservative in thought.”
Oliver Brett, Defense of Liberty, 1922

Fine. We are conservatives then. We are the Conservative Left!

Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton, concurred: “The truly ‘radical’ movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, ‘radical’ is today almost synonymous with ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. …It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, ‘progressive’ and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.”
Socialism and Modern Life, 1952

Fine, not a problem! I was always wondering when the Rightists and Libertarians would reclaim the word liberal.

Walter Lippman wrote: “…I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word.”
Carl A. Keyser, Spare None: the Federal Octopus: How it Grew and Other Tales, 1972
 

Sounds good.
Liberal historically has never meant anything like US social liberalism. In most of the world, liberal is a dirty word. It’s synonymous with neoliberalism. Liberalism in economics means classical liberal or neoclassical economics. It’s Ricardo and Smith all the way to Mises and Hayek, without stopping.
In the rest of the world, it tends to mean the “free minds and free markets” garbage that American reactionary foreign policy claims to support in their lying propaganda. Note once again the tie-in of social freedoms with freedom of Capital. You want free elections, gay rights, feminism, porn, civil liberties and the rest? Fine, you have to let the market run free with no restictions from the state whatsoever.
According to this nonsense, you can’t have free minds without free markets, and you can’t have free markets without free minds. Any restrictions on the free market are automatically symptomatic of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
This is why every Left government on Earth immediately gets called a dictatorship by US foreign policy. Because to the sick American way, socialism in any way,  shape or form is automatically undemocratic and dictatorial by its very nature.
This nonsense places economics over politics as Economics Uber Alles. Here economics determines the nature of the state.
If the market is free, you have a democracy automatically, no questions asked. Never mind the death squads that just murdered 200,000 people and all the peaceful opposition, the election that was just stolen, the US sponsored coup to “restore democracy” that resulted in the 17 year long “democracy saving” dictatorship, the politicized police, army, judiciary, the rich owning all the media and rendering freedom of speech a sick joke, the money-based elections giving rise to the “democracy of the dollar” and the dictatorship over the people.
And if  you have any type of socialism, you automatically have a dictatorship. I suppose Norway and Sweden must be dictatorships then. Never mind that you have the freest and fairest elections on Earth as they have in Venezuela. No matter. Elections can never be free enough in a socialist country. Even if they are the freest and fairest elections on Earth, it’s automatically a dictatorship simply by dint of being socialist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: A Conversation about the Plague Called Modern Feminism

Rod Fleming: The Right in this case are libertarians whereas the Left are authoritarians.

We don’t have any rightwing libertarians in power here in the US. All of our rightwingers, and they are the worst humans on Earth, are the authoritarian Right, and in general, they are part of the anti-male war on sex too. There is an alliance between American conservatives and feminists to stick it to American heterosexual men.
But yes, the rightwingers who are standing up to #metoo garbage are the libertarian sort, like on Spiked.

Rod Fleming: “economically centrist, socially conservative (in that we believe in things like ‘children should be brought up in supportive nuclear families’ ) free-thinking Libertarians,”

Someone like this would not be a libertarian in US culture. All US Libertarians are ultra-right on economics, no exceptions. This person you describe for all intents and purposes does not exist in US politics. There’s no such thing.
But you are correct. Any person with a politics like the above would be driven out of every liberal and Left forum and pilloried as Republicans. It is the “social conservative” part that would get you. Social conservatives of any variety, even mild ones like you describe above, are not allowed anywhere near anything liberal, Left, or Democratic Party in the US. I am banned from many liberal and Left forums on the Net on the grounds that I am a: fascist, racist, sexist, Republican. In fact, I am none of these things! I am practically a Communist!
I am still not on the Right. These leftwing scum keep screaming that I am on the Right, so I took them at their word and wandered around every rightwing movement I could find. I hated every single one of them. I continue to search rightwing sites everywhere and I still hate every single one I see. I have not yet found a rightwing or conservative faction that appeals to me in any way, shape, or form, and I still utterly hate every conservative site or faction that encounter. If I am on the Right like all you leftwing garbage insist, why don’t you kindly point to some rightwing movement or web page somewhere where I can fit in without wanting to punch every conservative I see? I mean show me my movement.
Conservatives are the enemy of all mankind. I am basically a liberal deep down inside. I despise the conservative way of thinking.

Rod Fleming: At the same time, Feminism, which has always been sex-negative, has reached unprecedented levels of influence because of the way that Postmodernist Feminism has infiltrated and corrupted the education system.

What about Third Wave sex-positive feminism? My feeling is that it’s not all that sex-positive!

Rod Fleming: Rabidfems (essentially Postmodernist Feminists who have replaced Marx’s scapegoat, the bourgeoisie, with men, especially white men),

More true of radical feminists. Sort of true about Third Wavers, except most do not have Marxist roots.

Rod Fleming: want to absolutely control the supply of sex, even to the point of policing women’s sexual behavior, because 1) they loathe men and think they can hurt us by stopping us having sex (good luck with that one, hit me up if you want the names of some good bars in Angeles, boys)

Well, women always want to control the supply of sex. But now they have a lobby called feminism where they do this openly and blatantly. In Sweden they made it illegal for men to go overseas to get a foreign bride as a lot of Swedish men have. Sweden is a pure feminist Hell, the most feminist country on Earth. Feminists have actually been running the government for years now. Feminists have completely destroyed that wonderful country.
Is the purpose of modern feminism really to control the supply of sex in society? I mean, women do a pretty good job of that on their own, don’t they, with or without feminism? Why do women need feminism to control the sex supply as they do this as a matter of course anyway?
I am convinced that modern feminism wants to stop straight men from having sex. Gay men can have sex all the men and boys they want. In fact, many feminists would prefer if most or all of us straight men were gay because then we would leave them alone. Many modern feminists hate men looking at them, flirting with them, and asking them out, and if we were all gay, that would end.
The theoretical roots of both 2nd and 3rd Wave feminism lie in the worst man-hating feminism of all – radical feminism via Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon, and the rest. They were all quite open about wanting to more or less make heterosexual sex impossible or illegal, and this is exactly what they are doing with #metoo garbage and rape hysteria.

Rod Fleming: they think that if they can absolutely monopolize and then control the supply of sex, they can control society.

Women already always monopolize and control the supply of sex, and this has never given them control over society. How will this give them control over society if they do it in the guise of feminism when it never worked earlier?
Feminists want control over society so they can stick it to us men good and hard, that’s what they want. I have said this many times before, but this is paybacks. Feminism is 100% pure revenge against men and 0% anything else. They are mad at what we have done to them, and they are going to make us pay for it.

Rod Fleming: I mean, these are people who want to ban SEX DOLLS because they ‘demean women’s bodies).

Radical feminists hate those stupid dolls, but how do 3rd Wavers feel about them?

Rod Fleming: They torpedoed Milo because he refused to condemn the man who seduced him when he was 13.

Yes, those scum called Milo a pedophile because an older man had sex Milo when Milo was 13! If anything, Milo was a victim of a “molester”. He wasn’t one himself! Let’s call all kids who get molested child molesters then, right, feminists?

Rod Fleming: That would be bad enough, but then we have Rag, Tag and Bob-tail, the Omega-males snuffling round the skirts of the rabidfems, hoping that by backing them up and betraying their brothers, they can pick up some sympathy sex. That right there is the lowest form of human life, of all.

I don’t agree that male feminists are all Omegas, though of course some of them are. A lot are simply Betas. And I think some Alpha men are calling themselves feminists now because you pretty much have to. However, all male feminists are automatically wimps, cucks, girls, girlyboys, soyboys, wusses, and especially faggots. These manginas have gone over to the enemy. The women are for all intents and purposes the enemy nowadays to the extent that they support feminism.
There is something particularly horrific and pathetic about the creature called the Male Feminist, a traitorous cuck to the Brotherhood if there ever was one.

Alt Left: Feminist Cancer Strikes Oxford, Soon Goes Malignant

Feminist poison strikes Oxford, turns many female students into man-scared and man-hating dykes or shut-ins, turns men into terrified incels. 
This is leftwing progress! The Modern Left is pathetic!
[By Damian Thomson, from The Spectator, 13 June 2015] Oxford’s New Feminist Hit Squad: Cute Tumblr. Scary Politics.
“We’re at the tail end of Trinity term at Oxford, when the university finally begins to look like the ‘city of dreaming spires’ depicted in the postcards. The dismal weather cheers up; the quadrangles are soaked in sunlight; and the students — just about to leave for the summer — grab these precious few weeks to do Oxfordy things like punting and slurping Pimm’s.
Even the swots and the lefties are filled with the spirit of Brideshead. Parties spring up on every available lawn; the chatter of gossip and teasing grows louder and louder until the sun goes down, people start throwing up and the college authorities herd the revellers on to the street.
But this year a group of undergraduates — mostly women — will be shunning all this. They will be staying in their college rooms, fingers flying across their keyboards as they scowl at the screen. They are the hard core of a feminist cult that has gripped Oxford and makes life miserable for hundreds of undergraduates across the university. The cult uses Facebook to snoop on students who aren’t ‘proper’ feminists. It tries to force young women to use its extreme rhetoric and denounces them if they don’t.
Its digital tirades can poison college life. One young woman told me that new friends she’d made at Oxford suddenly shunned her in the dining hall after the word went out that she held ‘incorrect’ views on women’s rights. (She was so worried about repercussions that she asked me not to mention which area of women’s rights she felt strongly about.)
I’m going to call the cult ‘Country Living’. That’s not quite accurate: it’s actually spelled without the ‘o’, a gynecological pun that’s the only evidence of a sense of humor you’ll find among its leaders. I reckon calling it Country Living will make them cross. Which, to be fair, is not difficult. These lasses are very, very cross all the time. If there was an Oxford blue for taking offence, they’d be champions.
Country Living is an internet cult that polices behavior both online and offline. Its manifesto can be read by anyone who visits its page on the blogging platform Tumblr, which is mocked up to look like a 1970’s student magazine. Here we learn that anyone can become a C-word, which is a badge of honor, not a term of abuse. Those four letters have been ‘reclaimed’ by the group. (Like feminists everywhere, Country Living does a lot of reclaiming.)
But to earn this honor you must pass tests as severe as the binge-drinking initiation rituals of an all-male Oxford dining society. You must promise to ‘accept that gender is a social construction and embrace its fluidity’. You must ‘recognize your place and privilege within intersectionality’.
And if you fail to do these things, Country Living wants to know. It has spies all over Oxford. They’re not necessarily ‘members’ of the group — as with many religious cults, it’s not clear who is and isn’t a member, and fellow-travelers are often the most snoopy zealots.
A student can be chatting with friends in the Missing Bean, an espresso bar in quaint Turl Street, and say something ‘problematic’ — the Country Living buzzword, meaning anything that deviates from its rigid feminist doctrine, obsessed with transsexual rights. The Country ladies are ferocious earwiggers, and if the student is on the cult’s radar, the remark will find its way back to HQ. Which, bizarrely, is not an office but a Facebook group.
This is where Country Living rules on the correct ideological approach to any current issue. Its Facebook pages are designed as a ‘safe space’ for feminists — meaning an unsafe space for anyone who deviates from the line. As with many sectarian outfits, the smaller the deviation, the bigger the hissy fit. ‘The ultimate crime is not being a Tory man, but being the wrong sort of feminist,’ explains one woman student who, like everyone I talked to, asked not to be named.
The Country set love shutting down debates on their pages. Just after the general election, whose result came as a nasty shock to them, their Facebook administrator Shaina Yang announced that ‘I can’t allow these discussions [about the Tory victory] to continue until we release a clarified statement of what CL rules say is okay and isn’t okay on this topic.’ No wonder that, according to a survey by the Oxford Tab newspaper, a third of Country Living Facebook members were ‘too nervous’ to post in the group.
Such nervousness isn’t confined to Facebook. ‘The influence of CL goes way beyond its membership,’ says one male undergraduate. ‘Girls who come up to Oxford as mild feminists pick up the message that they have to take offence at anything that might be considered misogynistic. So boys have to monitor their own language, pretend to be worked up about trans issues, if they’re to stand any chance of getting laid.’ Something similar happened during the early Seventies heyday of old-style feminism, when guys would denounce patriarchy in order to get laid. But they didn’t have an internet Stasi to worry about.
Adds another student: ‘You see members of the college rugby club glancing around anxiously to see if there are any women present before they can tell a joke. Ironically, they’re the ones who need a safe space.’ I ask him how he can tell the difference between Country sympathizers and the hard core. ‘Weirdly dyed hair is one clue,’ he says. ‘But a better one is “problematic”. The hard core insert it into practically every sentence.’
All this is Oxford at its worst. The university has always been a playground for egomaniacs and control freaks, unlike milder, more studious Cambridge. Although there are Country members in other universities, its origins are no accident.
‘We insist that grammar and spelling are elitist and don’t matter because of a hundred years of linguistic study showing that. When people who insist on hyper-patriotism get language wrong, we use the errors in their language to suggest they aren’t qualified to judge complex matters.’ That’s a comment by one Alyson Cruise on a financial website, bearing the same photograph as the Country Facebook admin Alyson Cruise, a trans woman at St Catherine’s College (who didn’t respond when I contacted her).
If they’re the same person, then it’s bit rich of Cruise to judge errors in language, since her own grasp of syntax on Facebook is pretty rudimentary. But the urge to correct the grammar of the lower orders is very Oxonian. No other university is so intellectually snobbish. Even the Bullingdon Club is at times — look at the proportion of Firsts and future power brokers among its members. Country Living would hate the comparison, but they and the Bullers are both elitist, secretive and enjoy ridiculing people on the basis of linguistic clues. Among the Oxford social elite, letting slip a lower-middle-class word such as ‘lounge’ is what the hyper-feminists would call ‘problematic’. ‘I’d love to see a fights between CL and the Bullingdon,’ muses a student. ‘The feminists would scratch their eyes out before they’d thrown their first chair.’
Unlike the 235-year-old Bullingdon, however, Country Living is unlikely to become a venerable Oxford institution. A backlash is under way. Louisa Manning, an ex-member, has broken ranks to denounce its ‘patronizing, self-righteous tone’ — and revealed that as a mixed-race woman, she had been instructed by the group ‘to identify as white when talking to people of color’. She also accused the administrators of ‘Facebook-stalking members’ profiles’ to determine whether they were ‘legit feminists’.
She also accused the group of spreading a version of politically correct racism. People of mixed race — like herself — felt they were being ‘erased’ because they didn’t fit neatly into an ethnic category. She wrote: ‘Being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of “passing privilege” and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of color.’
Imagine if allegations of racial bullying were made against a Tory drinking club. The Oxford University authorities would investigate immediately. But Country Living is left-wing, so it is left alone.
Fortunately the group is unstable and beginning to divide into factions. Ordinary undergraduates are finally summoning up the nerve to tease them. The chances are that Country Living — like thousands of cults throughout history — will tear itself apart in an orgy of name-calling, finger-pointing and accusations of heresy. But not before its fanatics have succeeded in spoiling university life for other students — and themselves.”

Alt Left: The Right Are Now the Free Love Sexual Liberationists, and the Left are the Sex-hating Puritanical Prudes

Pathetic!
It is truly pitiful that the only people protesting these sex-hating, sex-banning, Neo-Victorian, man-hating dyke prudes called feminists are the reactionaries. Isn’t that pitiful? Who’s standing up for the Sexual Revolution against the Left’s attempt to bring us back to the Comstock Era. The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for free love? The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for guilt-free flirting, dating, sex and love? The reactionaries!
Since when did reactionary scum ever become sexual liberationists? And what happened to the Left. I am straight out of the free love Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution was one of the great liberation movements of the great 1960’s. And now the Left, the very people who kicked off this revolution in the first place, have become extreme sex-hating Puritans who threaten to get men fired, get their careers destroyed, and arrest, try and imprison them for the crime of flirting with, dating, and having sex with females! Incredible!
The Right are now the great freewheeling sexual liberationists and the Left are the frigid, impotent, sex-hating Puritanical prudes! How sad is that?

Game/PUA: The Big Lie: Trump Admitted to Sexually Assaulting Women

The Left, of which I am unfortunately a part of, just won’t stop repeating this stupid lie.
The Lie goes like this:
When Trump said, “I just grab em in the pussy,” he was admitting to sexual assault. Except he wasn’t and what he described wasn’t sexual assault at all. Trump said and I am paraphrasing:

When you are a famous as I am, you can get away with anything sexually. You can do anything – even grab em in the pussy. And they let you do it because you’re famous.

Ok what Trump admitted to was not grabbing women in the pussy against their will, though he definitely didn’t ask permission before doing this. He said he got away with all sorts of sexual things, all the way up to grabbing women right in the pussy,  and women don’t mind, let him do it, and actually like it because he’s so famous.
So he grabbed women in the pussy, but because he was so famous, they enjoyed it and allowed him to do it to them without objection.
Ok, look. If you grab or touch her and she likes it and lets you do it, it’s not sexual assault. It’s only sexual assault if she doesn’t like it and tries to stop you after you do it.
So Trump confessed to 100% consensual behavior on the part of him and various women in the grab em by the pussy comment.
It’s pretty sickening the way the (Feminist) Left has lied about this comment. Trump is monstrous enough without making up crap about him. Just focus on all of the outrages and atrocities he does commit. We should have our hands full with that. There’s no need to make up lies about him. The truth about him is bad enough.

America's Ferociously Anti-Intellectual Culture Is Literally Idiocracy In Practice

Rahul: Robert, Feynman didn’t win the Nobel Prize in Physics because he had a 190 Physics IQ or because he had a 125 IQ. He won it because he was ardently passionate about Physics and Math, and he contributed enough to the betterment of using Physics to serve humanity. That’s why he won the Prize.
I don’t mean to be rude when I say this Robert (hell, this is the case with pretty much any disagreement I have, which is a lot), but this comment was somewhat insulting to Richard Feynman. Really, you’re attributing it to his 190 Physics IQ (which I doubt)?

He was passionate about it and he contributed to using physics to better humanity because he had one of the most brilliant physics minds ever recorded. It’s not insulting to say Feynman had a 190 IQ in Physics. In fact, I bet if I knew him and I said that to him, he would probably laugh and say I was right. The 190 physics IQ is literally proven by having some of the highest physics scores ever recorded on various tests. If you go around the Net, everywhere they talk about Feynman’s IQ, they say just this. No one anywhere says he did it by trying really hard.
You do not get one of the highest Physics scores ever recorded on a widely given test by trying really hard. Fuck that. You get that by being one of the smartest and highest Physics IQ men in history in Physics.
Why are you such an IQ denier? Have you lived in America your whole life?
Because in this idiot, insane culture, the line is, “Anyone can do anything” and “Intelligence doesn’t matter.” And in America, there is a complete denial of intelligence itself. This is shown by contempt for the very concept. In America, “anyone can do anything they want if they give it enough effort” and often you cannot even acknowledge that human beings differ in intelligence at all or that this matters in any way.
I talk like this a lot because intelligence is interesting to me, and I get very politely shut down (they simply disagree with me very politely, mostly by dismissing my argument with a smile) all time.
This Idiocracy culture is so infuriating. We acknowledge frankly intellectual gifts in a whole range of things, even athletics, where “physical intelligence” forms a large part of “athletic genius.” Haven’t you heard athletes who say things like, “Baseball is 90% mental.”? However, your average American usually insists that great athletes simply tried real hard.
We often speak of artistic and musical genius and the implication is that it was inborn, though you often run into resistance to that with countless Americans implying that musical and artistic geniuses simply “tried really hard.” 
Americans simply refuse to believe in the concept of inborn intelligence or intellectual strengths in any way, and that is when they acknowledge that intelligence itself even exists at all.
Many, perhaps most Americans simply insist that “there is no such thing as intelligence,” which is a stunning statement for a human being to utter. Most infuriating of all is that the smartest people are the worst intelligence deniers. Even more infuriating is that the more leftwing people get, they more openly hostile they are to the very concept of intelligence, especially if it is inborn. All I have to say is that an American Left culture that has extreme hatred for the very notion that intelligence exists at all is not one I want to be a part of. It doesn’t sound like one that’s going to be very successful either, or if it is successful, I fear for the country that ends up being run by these overeducated fools.
You start getting down below 100 or especially 90 IQ, they generally agree that some humans are definitely way smarter than other humans. At that level, people are often awestruck by very smart people.
That’s if they are not too stupid. Truly stupid people around 80 IQ often can’t even seem to grasp the concept of intelligence at all or refuse to see how it could be important in any way. This is because they are literally too stupid to even recognize intelligence for what it is.
Further, if you start talking about intelligence even related to jobs in the US, you get shut down almost immediately with, “Oh no, you don’t have to be smart to do that. Anyone can do that.” You even get shut down if you imply that some people are smarter than other people.
Sometimes I talk about how I can tell someone is smart by simply looking at their faces while I interact with them. I usually get completely dismissed when I say that. I can tell how smart someone is by looking into their eyes, listening to how they talk (for instance, speed, comprehension, response speed), and mostly looking for, more than anything else, simply speed of response. Smart people are simply faster than other human beings. And it correlates directly with IQ.
I had a girlfriend with a 140 IQ once, and she was one of the fastest women I have ever known. She got my jokes, bam, immediately, as soon as they hit her brain just like that. And she had a sharp response to the joke almost instantly. She was so fast it almost seemed like she started laughing before the joke was even over. I had another girlfriend with a ~115 IQ, and while she was definitely intelligent, there’s no way on Earth she was that lightning fast.
And I met a woman with an IQ of 156 once who was literally the fastest woman I have ever met in my life. She was faster than the 140 woman, knew more stuff, and picked up completely new topics she knew nothing about very quickly. She would ask me, “What is that?” about some concept that she had no idea what it was. I would start to explain it, and it never took more than 3-5 minutes before she had gobbled up the whole concept and had gotten the gist of it like an expert. I have never met a woman who understood brand new things with so little explanation.
She might even have been faster than I am. Her IQ was ~10 points higher. I didn’t feel outclassed at all though. We were basically on the same level. But I had definitely met my match. She was a real challenge to talk to, but I love challenges.

How SJW's Are a Threat To Human Intelligence Itself

Thinking Mouse: “What about the exceptions?!?” is good for research, though. You want to know as much as possible.

Even in research, we don’t care much about that. I write for academic journals. In a lot of fields, we don’t care about exceptions. We just look for a statistical effect. Of course we have to discuss the exceptions statistically in our findings, but in a lot of fields, no one really cares about them.
The purpose of life is looking for patterns that help you to explain reality. The SJW What about the exceptions? nonsense is intended to completely stop humans for seeking or discussing any patterns in humans because all patterns in humans are necessarily generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia and all the rest of the folly .
On Quora, they often ask people with genius+ IQ’s (140+) how they think. Over and over you hear that they are always looking for patterns everywhere they go in life. If all patterns in human life are generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, and if What about the exceptions? nullifies all generalizations, we are talking about wiping out the very pillars of human thought.
All this dangerous silliness is coming out of postmodernism, a theory which denies even the possibility of truth or the ability of humans to discover it. That’s why in all Identity Politics like feminism, gay rights, trans rights, anti-racism, all the rest of the foolishness, you always get hand-waving away of the scientific facts they don’t like because the facts conflict with their precious theory.
All Identity Politics is based on the primacy of theory over fact, and as such, all IP is intellectually fraudulent. The fact that it is mandatory for all humans in the West to go along with a manifestly intellectually fraudulent and provably false set of theories on pain of job firing, career destruction, etc. is one of the most anti-scientific and anti-intellectual outrages of our modern era. I lay this whole travesty at the foot of the intellectual joke called the Cultural Left, a miasma of propaganda and lies masquerading as truth and science. 
The SJW’s are an actual menace to human intelligence itself.

Dysgenic Breeding Has Been around Since Antiquity

Greg Rambo:
“The current dysgenic behavior of the African-American community is a complete and absolute result of the government subsidizing pregnancy and desertion.*
* Professor Thomas Sowell.
Agree or disagree?

Sowell is a conservative, so I don’t like him as I am a Leftist. However, he is right on it regarding a number of issues. I don’t mind his theories. I just dislike his politics. You see here he makes an argument about dysgenic breeding and high illegitimacy rates, he turns into a damned anti-welfare argument because he’s a conservative ideologue first and a sociologist second.
Breeding is dysgenic anyway.
It’s dysgenic among Whites and Hispanics too.
For Chrissake, even the Romans wrung their hands and wrote about dysgenic breeding in Ancient Rome. So dysgenic breeding has gone on forever. I doubt if it seriously harms the gene pool since it’s been around since Antiquity.
Scumbags, especially psychopaths, have lots of kids. Which is probably why sociopathy stayed in the gene pool. The women keep breeding with the bad boys, and they either became tribal leaders, or they managed to make a few babies before the other tribal members murdered them or cast them out, which was actually the fate of many psychopaths in primitive society.

An Interesting View of Masculinity

Found on the Net:

Feminized and passive men don’t solve problems. There are men in this world committing rape, murder, and all kinds of wickedness. When a man is feminized, he becomes passive and won’t stop those who are doing evil things. Feminized men are passive men, and passive men don’t draw lines in the sand, won’t stand up for principles, and won’t protect, provide, and defend those who need it most.
But masculine men will stop evil men from committing evil. The same traits that supposedly make men “toxic” – warmongering, colonialism, and greediness – also make men courageous enough to stop evil men from doing evil things.
As Allie Stuckey once said, “we don’t need less masculinity, we need better masculinity.” This world doesn’t need feminized, passive men. This world needs better men, braver men. It needs good men who will stand up against men of evil intent and declare, “This is the line in the sand. and you will go no further.”
We don’t need less masculinity. We need more.

Interesting view.
Of course the feminists and the Cultural Left themselves will hate this because they hate nothing more than masculinity, heterosexuality, and men. I would add Whites but they are not important to this argument. T
The hatred of the three things above is because intersectional 3rd Wave feminism is an integral part of the modern Cultural Left, and 3rd Wave feminism hates masculinity.
It doesn’t hate heterosexuality and men nearly as much as 2nd Wavers do, but the insane #metoo consent insanity that they put in seems to be an effort to put a halt to all heterosexual sex, although they don’t realize that. The #metoo, consent, sexual harassment, exploding rape definition insanity was actually put in by radical feminists in an effort to slow down or stop heterosexual sex as much as they could by making a lot of it illegal.
Sexual harassment theory was created by Katharine McKinnnon and Andrea Dworkin, two of the most psychotic, manhating bitches who ever lived.
Dworkin’s opinion was that all PIV sex was rape, and this  criminalizing of a lot of normal heterosexual flirtation, dating, and sex was an effort on her part to put theory into practice.
It was McKinnon who expanded quid pro quo sexual harassment – a legitimate area of law – into hostile workplace insanity, an ever ill-defined and undefinable standard that has exploded the workplace and much of public space for that matter, as everything down to lingering looks is criticized as a form of sexual harassment, violence, and rape.
3rd Wavers have mixed feelings about men. The man-hatred is still there, but it’s in the background. As I said in an earlier post, 3rd Wave man-hatred can’t go too far because 3rd Wavers like dick too much, so it only goes too deep. They want to hate men on some level, but there is that raging sex drive now kindled by porn culture that keeps driving them back to us. And they do love men on that level – a love and sex level.
This sort of ambivalence towards men is actually typical of straight women period, but it is much less strongly expressed in most straight women, who tend to voice puzzled frustration with men more than out and out hatred for them.
I hardly ever encounter out and out man-hatred in any women I date. I would add that if you are dating a man-hater, watch out. No matter how much she likes or loves you and sex, that man-hatred is always going throw a monkey wrench into your relationship. You won’t have a stable relationship as long as she has that poison in her brain. How many women have good relationships with misogynists? Well, it’s the same thing when it’s the other way around.
About the theory above, I like it, but I fear that it will be abused by sadistic, BD/SM, sociopathic misogynists who seem to be increasing in number nowadays. Sadly, more and more women, especially young women, seem to enjoying and even preferring these psycho men. This trend really has me worried.