The Problem with the Cultural Left: A Focus on Form Instead of Content

From a conversation on the web:

Anonymous commenter: Some of the Left has gone from fighting for real, important issues to fighting for Political Correctness and other absurdities. That’s not all the Left, just the most vocal and strident. I am what people would consider a Leftist (even though my worldview is Indigenous), and I couldn’t care less what someone says. I care about what someone does.

Even AIM (the American Indian Movement) has gone from fighting for tribal sovereignty and against the destruction of tribal lands by industries and corporations, which is still going on, to fighting against Indian mascots! Many people are fixated on words and disregarding actual facts, probably because screaming about words is easier than facing the monster of destruction this global civilization has become.

What you call the Cultural Left is more interested in form than in content…it is more interested in style than substance.

To which I reply:

Getting all upset about someone saying some word that everyone says anyway is ridiculous.

Also the Cultural Left seems to me to have become prudish, Puritanical, Victorian and even sex-hating. They are also uptight, priggish party-poopers. They’re the no-fun crowd, people who see a party and rush in and dump turds in the punch bowl.

These types used to be rightwingers or conservatives, and in this sense the Cultural Left are actually quite conservative or even reactionary and backwards.

Let’s focus on real issues, not some BS about what someone said, especially when they didn’t even say anything bad anyway.

Let’s focus on real job discrimination and especially housing discrimination against Blacks.

Let’s focus on abortion rights being taken away from women.

Let’s focus on ending employment discrimination against gays.

Let’s focus on getting rid of all discrimination against transsexuals.

You know, the real stuff, not the bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy reading!

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

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

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

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

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

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter I – The New Working Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such policies should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III – Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter V – Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then goes on to suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

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

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

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

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

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

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

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

The "Indian Personality" and Indian Society in a Nutshell

LH: Interesting post. I’ve recently noticed some things that have painted Indians in a bad light for me. (Of course, at this point I’m not sophisticated enough to differentiate between different groups/castes, so I don’t know to which subset this applies.)
Is pettiness, jealousy and envy, mixed with frankly bad judgment a common set of traits? I’ve seen this in more than one person and was wondering whether I was seeing a pattern based on a too-small sample.
RL: LOL! This is an essential aspect of the Indian character! Not sure about the bad judgement part, but the other three, of course. That is the “Indian personality.”
dumbo: I think that’s true. They act catty like the ugly friend does when you talk to the pretty one – except all the time. All they do is cock-block each other in everything and act petty and jealous – crabs in a bucket. If you try to treat one like a normal person with trust and respect, they think there must be something wrong with you. It’s repeated prisoners’ dilemma with low trust – everyone gets zapped every time.
Hence the shitting on the streets and corruption. And all the tall claims about how Indians figured out everything thousands of years ago. They don’t expect anyone to believe them, much less take them seriously- the purpose of talking is to bullshit, not to communicate a point or have a proper discussion.

Dumbo’s comment is perfect. That’s why I love this site. Only eight sentences and the last seven of them are perfect. Read each sentence carefully and try to picture what’s going on. Also try to piece it together into a coherent whole and you will see how most of these things sort of latch onto and tie into each other in a common syndrome.
I never cared anything about Indian people until I started meeting some on the Web. I talked to them for a while, and after a bit, I became appalled at these amoral scoundrels. And soon I realized that about everyone over there was a scoundrel. Being a scoundrel is normal in India. That’s actually how you are supposed to be. I tried to talk to some of them about this and I ran into a brick wall.
One guy was cooking up endless schemes to get money. None of them were well thought out and some were rather scammy. Also in the US we don’t really like people who every time you talk to them are always talking about some money making scheme they are trying to get you in on. It’s considered sleazy to be like that all the time, at least in my White middle class upbringing crowd.
Indians go on and on about how it’s racism that people don’t like them. We don’t get a damn about how you look. If someone has a crap personality and you dislike them, are you an evil bigot? Of course not. Well, when an entire nation has an appalling personality and you dislike the people who come there because they all seem to have this same crap personality, how is that racism? Were they born being lousy people? Do Indians have a Crappy People gene? Well of course not.
If they’d get rid of their crap personality, we’d like them just fine. As it is, I don’t really want anymore of these lousy people in my country. We already have enough narcissistic sociopaths running about. Hell, our own president is one and his followers love the fact that he is a sick as a death ward malignant narcissist. They think being a malignant narcissist is good. Trumpsters would be right at home in India. Is the Trumpster personality like the Indian personality or is it different. Would Indians be offensive to Trumpsters in their personalities?
The weird thing about Indians is that they act dumbfounded if you are appalled at their awful personalities and worldviews. To them this disgusting way of thinking is completely normal. They can’t understand why everyone isn’t a selfish fuck only out for himself like they are. “You mean there are people who actually try to be good? That’s so weird?” the Indian says, baffled.
Americans regard their own people who have typical Indian personality as pretty much lousy people. People who act that way are targets of a lot of negative comments about how disgusting they are. Sure, a lot of society like capitalist fanboys think this is just groovy and everyone should be a greedy little shit like them. But a lot of us still cringe at the used car salesman mindset and personality. Get out of here!
This racist accusation is getting abused. If you don’t like some ethnic group because their culture is crap, that’s not racism. The early Soviets and Maoists attacked the cultures of a lot of ethnic groups in their countries, calling them backwards and barbaric. Were they racists for saying that? I am tired of this word racist being used by barbarians, backwards, uncivilized people towards those who criticize their primitive behavior. The word racist was not meant to be an umbrella protecting all reactionary peoples and cultures from criticism. Death to the Cultural Left! They’re the ones promoting this insane definition of racism.
India is where the Human Soul goes to die. India is like a place where everything good about the human soul has died or been cruelly murdered and all that’s left is the lousy, mercenary parts of being human. It’s a testament to our remaining humanity that Americans still say two thumbs down on this stuff.

Alt Left: Identity Politics: The Politics for Those Who Will Always Be Six Years Old

You guys wonder why I hate Identity Politics so much? It’s because it’s all exactly like this. Take out women and plug in all sorts of other things:
Blacks (one of the worst practitioners of this bullshit of all):
Does that statement make Blacks look good? Yes ————————————————–> Statement is true.
Does that statement make Blacks look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
I would add that almost all Blacks subscribe to this “moral philosophy.”
Gays
Does that statement make gays look good? Yes ——————————> Statement is true.
Does that statement make gays look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
Transsexuals:
Does that statement make transsexuals look good? Yes —————————————————-> Statement is true.
Does that statement make transsexuals look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
Men (MRA’s):
Does that statement make men look good? Yes —————————————————-> Statement is true.
Does that statement make men look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
Whites (White nationalists)
Does that statement make Whites look good? Yes —————————————————–> Statement is true.
Does that statement make Whites look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
Jews (They started this whole mess).
Does that statement make women look good? Yes —————————————————-> Statement is true.
Does that statement make women look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
All nationalists ever anywhere:
Does that statement make my nation look good? Yes ——————————————————–> Statement is true.
Does that statement make my nation look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
My position is that all IP is simply various forms of egotism blown up to encompass a larger group. It’s still all about me me me me me, but now it is about “Me as part of a larger group of people like me” instead of “me as a unique individual.”
So what all forms of idiot IP boil down to is
Me:
Does that statement make me look good? Yes —————————————————-> Statement is true.
Does that statement make me look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
If you hung around humans long enough, you should have figured out that the primary purpose of the ego, in addition to mediating conflicts between the Id and the Superego, is to do exactly the thing outlined above – to preserve ego strength by saying that all criticism of the self is lies and all praise of the self is fact. The ego is a normal part of human psychology, but humans are supposed to get beyond the shallow egotism of childhood in order to take more responsibility for the self, become more secure, tone down the egotism, become more humble, and if possible, admit to some faults and try to change them. People who can’t do that pretty much stay six years old forever. We call them a lot of things, but one thing we call some of them is narcissists.
Look how retarded IP is! Why would anyone in the right mind sign up for any sort of bullshit IP “politics for six year olds?” Why? Because you never grew up? Because you love being paranoid? Because you love being a victim? Because you love being locked in eternal warfare with a dubious enemy Other? Because you love being pissed off and miserable your whole life? And most importantly because you reject logic, reason, and sense in favor or petty irrational emotionalism?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Identity Politics People and Groups Are Both Mentally Ill

Zamfir: And why is IP supposed to be bad?

I just gave you a lot of reasons. It’s insane. All the IP’s can’t possibly be true. Only one of the conflicting IP’s can be true and the other must be false, or they must both be wrong. It can’t be true that Blacks are bad and Whites are good and also that Blacks are good and Whites are bad, etc. It’s crazy. Same thing with all of the others.
Basically these are all positions that are various forms of nonsense.
In particular,  they are much too quite to call anyone who says boo about them a hater, to demonize their enemies du jour, and frankly to be paranoid.
Most people who criticize various races, ethnic groups or nationalities are not racists. Most men who criticize women are not misogynists. Most women who criticize men are not misandrists. Most people who criticize Jews are not anti-Semites. Most people who criticize Islam are not Muslim haters. Most people who criticize gays are not homophobes. Most people who criticize transsexuals are not transphobes.
So it’s just a bunch of thin-skinned paranoid haters who can’t take any criticism, all with different glorious identities and demonized enemies. I agree with gays hating homophobes, transsexuals hating transphobes, Jews hating anti-Semites, etc., but all of these people are paranoid crazies who think everyone is an evil enemy out to get them, they all have a huge chip on their shoulders, who can’t take any criticism, who think all critics are deadly enemies, and are frankly very narcissistic with inflated self-esteem.
When these qualities are present in a person, we generally say they are unhealthy or mentally ill. Generally they have a personality disorder. If these mentally ill people have the same qualities as these groups, then we say that these groups themselves are paranoid crazies who think everyone is an evil enemy out to get them, all have a huge chip on their shoulders, can’t take any criticism, think all critics are deadly enemies, and are frankly very narcissistic with inflated self-esteem are either groups of mentally ill people or perhaps the groups themselves are mentally ill.
Actual societal structures can become mentally disordered just as a person can. So all of these groups are more or less mentally ill groups full of mentally ill people. The people in the groups have personality disorders and the groups themselves actually have personality disorders!
IP people are crazy. IP groups, being full of crazy people, are crazy groups.
Period.

SJW's Are Not the Problem; The Republicans and Trump Are and It Is a National Emergency

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

The Democrats don’t necessarily represent elites, though most have been corporate Democrats for a long time now. But there is an insurgency in the Democratic Party
I don’t care about feminism or BLM or tranny fools or gay degenerates or any of the rest of the SJW idiocy. Why are faggots important? Why are tranny freaks important? Why are feminazis important? How do BLM morons impact my life? I don’t care if they hate Whites and men.
SJW’s are like gnats or mosquitoes. At worst, their like mosquitoes in Alaska but even that won’t kill you. And there’s always bug spray.
But Trump and the Republicans are like a grizzly bear in the living room. I mean they are an out and out mortal menace to us all.
Sure I don’t like SJW’s, but it’s not enough to make me vote reactionary!
Brandon Adamson said a similar thing. He’s a identitarian liberal just like the poster, and he’s voting Republican too. Brandon’s going to vote Republican for the rest of his life. And he’s a liberal. It’s all because of race. Race trumps the 999 liberal issues that Brandon supports. It’s race uber alles. Brandon was on the radio and they were talking about me and how I said I always vote Democrat, and I never vote Republican ever. He said, “I don’t understand how he could be so attached to a political party like that.”
Well, in the US, if you are on the Left at all, and I am on the Left, you just vote Democrat. Or Left third party, but that’s throwing your vote away. You never vote Republican or right-wing anything like Brandon did in the last election.
When you look at all the outrageous stuff Trump does on a day to day basis, I mean my God, he’s not for us. Trump’s just for the rich and corporations. Trump’s hurting over everyone else.
On abortion? Outrageous.
He’s anti-gay too, he’s fucking them over.

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

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

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

Another Professor Disciplined for Telling the Truth

The law professor said she has never seen a Black law student graduate in the top quarter of their class, and they usually are not even in the top half. She also said that the university’s law review had a diversity mandate that required them to put minority editors and writers on the publication.

Here is a very inconvenient fact Glenn, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely in the top half. I have a class of 89, 95 students every year. I see a big chunk of students every year — so I am going on that, because a lot of this data is a closely guarded secret.

She’s probably telling the truth. Why lie? What for?
She’s also in trouble for telling more uncomfortable facts in an article she wrote for a newspaper last year:
The piece lamented:

the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture…the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class Whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city Blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.

 
She’s right. All this BS is going on right now and the Cultural Left fools are all cheering for this or at least running cover for it. It’s disgusting and the Alt Left talks about this disgusting breakdown in our bourgeois culture a lot. If you don’t know otherwise, we’re against it.
The Black Law Association at the university protested what they called bigotry and posted this:

Prof. Amy Wax has violated the spirit of @PennLaw’s grade nondisclosure policy by claiming demonstrably false allegations against black students and alumni.

I doubt if what she is saying is demonstrably false. The liars here are probably in the BLA for stating as facts figures that they have never even investigated. Also, how is what she said bigotry. Truth is a defense against bigotry, right? How can facts be racist or bigoted? It makes no sense. Facts are facts. They don’t have any subjective values attached to them. All facts are indifferent in terms of bias.
The dean stepped in:

It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false: Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law, and the Law Review does not have a diversity mandate. Contrary to any suggestion otherwise, Black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market, and in their careers.

He’s probably lying in spirit. Sure, maybe one or two graduated high in their class, but if it happened with any frequency, I am sure the professor would have heard of it. He’s also probably lying about there being no diversity mandate at the law review. People in his position lie about these things constantly. That’s one more painful thing about the Cultural Left. In order not to be racist and bigoted, we are all required to lie continuously. So you end up with a society of liars.
The sad thing is that just about everyone who agrees with this professor is going to vote Republican and support Trump. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that that professor votes Republican. If you agree with this woman, you are automatically labeled a conservative Republican and you start to act that way. This is why we need an Alternative Left: so liberals and Leftists can agree with this woman’s facts without having to flee the Left and take up reaction.

Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen, "This Land Is Our Land"

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
And I went walking that ribbon of highway
And saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me the golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me, a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing
This land was made for you and me

In the squares of the city, in the shadow of a steeple
By the Relief Office, I’d seen my people
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me
As I go walking that freedom highway
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

Written by Woody Guthrie. Sung by Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger (age 80).
From the great inauguration of Barack Obama in 2008. I was in a doctor’s office and the news came on that Obama had won. I saw the crowds mobbing the streets, all marching towards the main park of Chicago. The volatile Spike Lee was there. “This changes everything!” He effused. There was a little Black girl sitting next to me, maybe seven years old. I asked her if she liked Obama. She nodded her head shyly. I had tears in my eyes. How dare these idiots call me racist! What sort of racist cries tears of joy when he hears that America just elected its first Black president?
The three bolded sections above are the “forbidden lyrics.” Although Guthrie included them when he wrote the song in 1940, they are seldom performed in modern versions as they were considered subversive as promoting socialism or Communism. The song is actually a great socialist anthem. Woody Guthrie was definitely a leftwinger.
Given the choice, I would rather have the land owned by me (the state) than owned by some private individual. What’s so great about private ownership of land? What’s better for me, land that I can walk on or land that I can’t walk on? How bout the land that I can walk on?
One of the reasons for China’s great success is that the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases the land where their home or farm is. In The Netherlands also, the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases out whatever land they use. Same thing in Cuba, but in Cuba now, almost everyone owns their own residence. And a great argument for China’s success against India’s failure is that much of the poverty, malnutrition, etc. in India is caused by the private ownership of land, especially in the rural areas. India said they were going to do land reforms and they claimed to do them over and over but the truth is that no real land reform has ever been done in India, and semi-feudal relations still prevail in the countryside. Hence the horrific poverty, starvation, etc.
One of the all-time great folk songs ever written. A purely American song like virtually no other. I believe we should replace that horrible Star Spangled Banner with this much better song. This song also captures the true American spirit. The land does indeed belong to all of us, you and me. All that land the government owns, it doesn’t belong to the government. It belongs to me! It’s my land, dammit! How dare the rich give away my land to malign corporations and the 1%! Forget that. You take my land, and you give it all away to the corporations and the rich to abuse and destroy. What sort of democracy is that?
Plutocratic rule is never democracy. How can it be? The plutocrats are what? 1% 5%? Where do idiot Americans get it in their heads that rule by the rich or the ruling class is somehow democracy. Aristocratic rule is never democracy at any time or in any place. It can’t be. You either have conservatism, which is rule by the rich or the aristocrats, or you have democracy, which is rule by the people. That’s your only two choices. One or the other? Which one do you want? The rich will never rule in favor of the people. They can’t. They literally cannot. They must rule in their class interests. It’s nearly a law of social science as hard and fast as a hard science rule.
Written by Woody Guthrie! One of the best working class folk singer-songwriters who ever lived. He was also a tough, macho guy, a redneck, a worker, a blue collar roughneck with a cigarette dangling from his mouth James Dean style. This is what the Left used to be before it was taken over by effeminate men, butch women, man-hating feminists, White-hating minorities who idolize common street thugs, anti-nationalists advocating to turn all of America into a teeming Third World Calcutta, all manner of sexual identity and sexual orientation freakazoids with so many weird subgroups that they are almost beyond classification, and in general idiots, fools, deviants and dumbasses.
Woody Guthrie is what the Left used to be. He’s what the Left is supposed to be. He was born too soon. He was Alt Left before there was an Alt Left!
This guitar kills fascists!

Cuckliberals? The Cucked Left?

ec7842f365436c2474a46af9d759a1a6bbb63596c5e3b7d1baf1ce9c418d2d29
Nu males. Absolutely pitiful and pathetic!

Well we had cuckservatives, so is this the Cuck Left? Cuckliberals? Come to think of it, almost all the “men” on the Cultural Left are pretty much cucked. They tried to do a survey on Cultural Left “men” to find out how many of them would admit to being cucked, but they had to call off the survey because so many cuckliberals had penises in their mouths and hence oral interviews could not take place.
It’s true that Nu men all hate themselves for being men and especially for being White men. I do not encourage self-abasement, but looking at these specimens of manhood in that photo, I can’t help thinking that these guys probably ought to hate themselves.
The Cultural Left wants to cuck men in general and White men in particular. There’s nothing worse on the Cultural Left than a masculine heterosexual man.
That’s a 3-way casserole of oppression: masculine = toxic masculinity.
Heterosexual = heteronormative oppressor, promoter of bi invisibility.
Man = automatically oppressive even from birth merely by existing. One way out would be to go full tranny and cut your dick off, but even then, the radfems would still hate you because they would insist that you are a still a man. Being a man is like being a Jew in a racist country. There’s literally no way out. You can’t convert. You can’t adopt a new political philosophy. You can’t go over the opposition. You are an oppressive scum who needs to be killed merely on account of your genetic makeup and there’s no escape, no exit. It’s an existential dilemma on steroids. You’re a permanent stranger to society. You might as well just kill your mother and get it over with already.

Why We Need an Alternative Left

Because of morons like this.
This site is so nuts and cracked that I actually thought that Alt Righters had created this as some sort of an off the charts parody of the Cultural Left. Those commenters can’t possibly be real! Those posts cannot possibly be real! No way is that About page real! Then it sunk in. It’s all real as Hell. The About page is real. The Why page is real. All the posts are real. All the commenters and comments are real. Worse still, this is the modern day socialist Left. After all, they want their future lunatic perverted freak society to be socialist. That’s after we get rid of gender, ok? You guys still believe in gender? How quaint! Get with the program! Silly goose, you know there is no such thing as gender!
Then I thought about it a little bit more and it really hit me. This site is not even radical at all. It is actually the Left in the US. It is worse than that. It is the Democratic Party, for Chrissake. It is even so much worse than that. This is actually turning into the normative hegemonic culture of the US and the rest of the West. It was then that I realized how insane we have already become. Quit worrying that society’s going to go nuts. We have already gone nuts. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
This is the Left nowadays. Culturally, it is even worse as this is the Democratic Party and frankly this is the modern hegemonic culture – the modern hegemonic culture is simply the Cultural Left in virtually all of its craziness. In fact, if you look at the Cultural Left freakshow and then look at the Democratic Party and modern hegemonic culture, honestly, you cannot find much of a difference. Even the most radical and extreme Cultural Leftists seem to have a serious voice in the Democratic Party and the hegemonic culture. In other words, the most insane of the already insane Cultural Left freakoids, perverts and nuts are already mainstreamed in the Democratic Party and the US hegemonic culture.
There is not a whole lot left for them to do. Screaming that all men need to go out and fuck a guy? The Cultural Left is already doing that. Read hip articles on Slate and Alternet about “getting in touch with your bisexual side.” Apparently this bisexual side is something that all men have (a Cultural Left lie) and of course it is something we all need to get in touch with otherwise we are not groovy and hip and right on and cool and all that.
Hectoring people to go to an orgy right this minute? Already happening. Lots of articles on Slate and Alternet about how all you uptight sexual slackers need to get out there and do a 3-way right this minute. 2 guys and a girl? 2 girls and a guy? No matter! Well if it’s 2 guys, should you suck the guy’s cock? That would be even better! The more gay you are, the more Cultural Left you are! Let’s hear it for cocksucking men! May we pray for a world where all men are not afraid to suck a dick!
Haranguing men about how they need to live as a woman for at least a week to see what it feels like? Not there yet, but we are getting there.
You will know we are really going bonkers when K-12 schools have classes like Homosexuality 100 teaching all kids who cool it is to get in touch with their gay side. In college, we could have Gay Studies 101, with field trips to gay bars, gay backrooms and gay bathhouses (participation encouraged!). We will have Gender Studies 100 in K-12 where all children will be asked to think through very carefully whether they are really a man or a woman no matter what their stupid genitals tell them. Hey boys! You want to be a girl, go ahead! It’s so cool and groovy and hip for boys to turn into girls! It’s even more boss to get your dick chopped off!  It’s evil anyway, unless you are sticking it in other men. Just ask any feminist!
When we have mandatory indoctrination of children and citizens into homosexuality and transsexualism and every other perversion known to mankind, you will know we have truly arrived. As I type these words, I realize you are thinking I am nuts, but I swear to God, if we keep going on this insane as bonkers perverted freakshow weirdo route, I can actually see that coming.

The Anglo Anti-Immigrant Right Are Awful People, But So Are Their Enemies

Ed writes:

To comment on Raja Hindustani’s (great fake name!) comment, one thing I am increasingly amazed by is the repeated insistence by self-identified “left wingers” that supporting more immigration is not only a left wing cause, it is THE left wing cause, if you don’t support more immigration you are not on the left and every other left wing position has to be sacrificed in favor of more immigration. There is a coup ongoing against the leader of the Labour Party in the UK because he is not sufficiently vocal in favor of immigration and in favor of the (anti-democratic and pro-capitalist) EU.
Its pretty obvious that immigrants are being brought into countries which have had strong labor movements, in order to drive down wages and weaken working class solidarity. Many of the immigrants are basically peasants from backwards countries -actually backwards parts of developing countries- that can be relied on for a few generations not to cause too much trouble for the upper classes. And historically the left used to recognize (eg Cesar Chavez) that this was a strategy to break the left.
The only explanation I can come up is that the left in the developed world and its institutions has been thoroughly infiltrated by moles, but that project seems to be so successful that you wind up hardly needing the immigrants.

This is about it. Everyone on the Left, I mean everyone, has to support “the immigrants.” You have to. If you don’t, you are not on the Left. So the problem then with us anti-immigrant Lefties is really we have nowhere to go. The anti-immigrant crowd is 100% rightwing, White, racist, sexist, backwards, you name it. Abd they’re all for rightwing economics, all of them. We go over there, and well, that’s not for us.
And everyone who takes any sort of a strong antiracist stance automatically turns into an “I love the immigrants” type. Because, you know, if you hate the racists, then you have to love the immigrants! But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can be like me instead. You can hate the racists and hate the immigrants! How bout that?
Also when people turn anti-racist, liberal/Left and pro-immigrant, they almost always turn anti-White and they usually start bashing White workers, especially working class White workers. Because it is working class White workers who are getting screwed by the immigrants. So if you are for the immigrants, then you have to hate the working class Whites. And this is exactly what you see. The liberal/Left “we love the immigrants” absolutely hate the White working class. Of course it doesn’t help that working class Whites can be somewhat backwards on race, gender and other identity issues.
So we see a lot of liberal/Lefties going on and on about how all working class Whites are just lazy worthless bums anyway who won’t “go out and get an education” and better themselves.
And of course this same mindset is seen on the Right. A writer for the National Review said the same thing recently. As Trump rose, he penned a piece contemptuous of working class Whites. When told that working class White towns like Muskogee, Oklahoma were crumbling in chaos, he wrote an article in which he said that working class White towns and cities needed to die, and the sooner the better.
Of course, the Republican Party is a plutocratic party, and they have never supported the interests of working class Whites even though these Whites have been voting Republican for decades now. In fact, I would say that Republicans are contemptuous of working class Whites.
And we saw something very similar in the UK. As it become obvious that working class White areas of the UK were falling apart, we only heard sleazy, oily comments about “class mobility.” Supposedly the Tories were creating a society in which people could be class mobile! Actually they were creating the exact opposite of that, but never mind. But the unspoken idea here was that being a working class White was the worst thing on Earth and that we should thank the Tories for making it possible for the white working class to move up the class ladder.
But that’s not the way it should be.
The idea is to make it so working class job pays well in the first place! To make it so working class towns are nice places to live! To make it so being working class is not seen as the last thing anyone wants to be!
And we see the same sickening thing on the Left. I have long heard Leftists shower contempt on working class Whites who resent illegal immigration. “Those Whites are just lazy, that’s all. The Mexicans work harder than those lazy Whites, and that’s why employers hire the Mexicans.” This was the old “White workers are lazy” line that the Reaganites started back in the 1980’s. To hear a Leftie talk like about the working class of his own country this is utterly repulsive.
We also hear liberal/Left types saying that any job taken by an illegal is a worthless, crappy job anyway, and any White person who would work at such a job is nothing but a loser. A Mexican standup comedian made a joke out of this by saying that the most pitiful thing that any White person could say was, “I lost my job to an illegal.”
Then we hear the “Well, the working class jobs are all gone anyway, and they are not coming back. The future is in high-tech, high-skilled jobs.” So in other words, let the immigrants flood in and take all the crap jobs anyway, who cares. Sure, but have you ever considered that not everyone is cut out to be a high-tech,  high-skilled worker?
We have created something truly bizarre here in the US, and possibly elsewhere in the West. We have a Left which actually hates their own native born working class! Isn’t that incredible?

Sokal on the Cultural Left

I confess that I’m an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I’m a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them. -Alan Sokal

Sokal of course is the professor who was the author of the Sokal Hoax in which Sokal wrote a fake article that made absolutely no sense whatsoever and submitted it to a Cultural Left deconstructionist type journal. Incredibly, the journal published it. Later Sokal admitted that he had written the article as a prank to show that decontructionists in modern academia ultimately are not saying anything that either makes sense or has any substance at all.

By this hoax he showed the modern academic obsession with postmodern deconstructionism to be essentially pure nonsense and abstruse blathering on and on about nothing.

Ultimately the postmodern deconstructionist Cultural Left university crowd is writing a lot of very fancy articles full of thousand dollar words that are very hard to understand but which reveals at its core puzzling statements that seemed nearly opaque to anything resembling comprehension.

I read (or at least look at them since there’s no point in bothering to read them) quite a few papers like this on the academia site on a regular basis. In certain fields in the social sciences, most if not all papers being written are coming from this ludicrous and even disturbing point of view which is something like PC on steroids.

Above Sokal pens something above that would not look out of place in the Alt Left. In fact, it goes along well with our views.

On Alain Soral

Here.

You can read his Wikipedia entry and see what he is up to. I just did, and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I would rather have guys like this running the media than our present elites which push a combination of Cultural Left + radical, pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-people neoliberal capitalism.

That’s pretty much the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right. The worst of both worlds.

And the people who push this represent the elites of the entire West. Pushing back against this are people like Soral (who is still quite a Leftist despite whatever lies you hear about him), Putin and Alexander Dugin’s Eurasianism. According to the Left, all of these people are part of something called the Red-Brown Movement which is some weird mixture of Far Right and Far Left, or Socialism/Communism + Fascism, the former being the red and the latter being the brown.

It’s mostly Trotskyite idiots (the poison of the Western Left) like this guy who push the line that Putin, Dugin and Soral are fascists. I do not see a lot of evidence for it, or if they are, then I suppose I must be a fascist myself! Soral still talks like the Marxist he has always been. He was even a Marxist when he “turned far right” and joined the National Front. Reading  through his Wikipedia entry, he still seems awfully Leftist, or if he’s a Rightist, than that is the sort of Right that I could easily support.

He talks and complains about Jews too much, which I think is unnecessary, but he makes some valid points:

In France, all forms of growing communitarianism (gay, Islamic, etc.) form and strengthen through imitation of, hostility towards and opposition to Judeo-Zionist communitarianism, whose privileged status constitutes the communitarian jurisprudence by which their claims against the Republic are supported.

Here communitarianism apparently means Identity Politics as best I can tell. He says that Identity Politics blows (and it does), but all of the IP crowd really got their IP from the biggest IP’ers of them all…ta dum..the Jews!

Well, maybe. At any rate, it’s an interesting comparison. Have you ever noticed that the Jews are the only people on Earth who get to be nationalists, nay, even worse, ethnic nationalists? So the Jews get their National Socialist state over in Palestine, an ethnic nationalist state if there ever was one, but nobody else gets to have one, and if anyone tries, they are fascists and Nazis!

Well that means ethnic nationalism is fascism and Nazism, right? Ok, I will not object. But let’s follow this through here. That also means that the Jews’ sleazy ethnic nationalist project in Palestine is also…wa-la! Fascist and National Socialist, right?

Nope. Everyone else’s ethnic nationalism is fascist and Nazi, except for that of the Jews, because their ethnic nationalism somehow isn’t fascist and National Socialist like the rest! Or whatever. One reason people tire of Jews is because they are always being hypocritical and pushing blatantly unfair and contradictory lines like the above about just about everything, which is what we should expect from an ultranationalist tribe like the Jews because that’s how ultranationalists everywhere act.

As part of the debate on laïcité in French schools, Soral claimed to prefer the Muslim veil to thong underwear.

I don’t agree, but that’s pretty funny anyway.

Alain Soral has denounced communitarianism as a “poison.”

Assuming that communitarianism means IP, he is indeed correct.

To him, feminism was invented by women tiring of their role as mothers. Soral distinguishes two types of feminism: that of the “flippées” (“freaked-outs”) such as Simone de Beauvoir, and that of the “pétasses” (“bitches”) like Élisabeth Badinter. Soral claims that the most problematic inequality is not between men and women, but between rich and poor, and that feminists, who generally come from the upper classes of society, attempt to distract attention from this struggle.

Well no kidding. The Female IP project known as feminism blows, just like all IP. And he divides feminists up into the lunatics and the bitches, although I would argue that most of them are a combination of the two.

When you’re talking with a Frenchman who is a Zionist Jew, and you start to say, well maybe there are problems coming from your side, maybe you might have made a few mistakes, it’s not always the fault of other people if no-one can stand you wherever you go… because that’s basically their general history, you see… for 2,500 years, every time they settled somewhere, after about fifty years or so, they get their arses kicked. Surely something strange here ! It’s as though everyone is wrong except them. And the guy will start barking, yelling, going mad… you can’t be able to carry on with the conversation.

Oh poor Jews! They pissed people off everywhere they went, but it was never their fault! That’s right Jews, keep on blaming other people!

Jews are like the guy who gets tossed out of every bar in the city yet insists that he is doing nothing wrong, and it’s all the establishments’ fault for tossing him. Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. I would wager that the Jews have not spent the last two millennia not exactly trying to win friends and influence people, right?

Soral believes that communitarianism in France could have a similar effect, if the French Republic fails to apply its prestigious 1905 Law of Separation of Church and State, which is enshrined in the French constitution. According to a recent TV interview (Direct 8 / 88 minutes), Alain Soral stated: “Today, no one was surprised to see French presidents, prime ministers and other high French political figures meet elusively with the Jewish representing body every year in Paris, meetings that go against the laws of France and send mixed signals to the Republic.”

Well no kidding. The French state France is based on strict separation of church and state known as laïcité. And then the leaders of France go off every year and meet with the heads of the French Jewish community! But that’s not a violation of laïcité now, is it? More Jewish hypocrisy. You wonder why others tire of these people.

The BBC and the Death of the UK

The BBC is completely controlled by the rich, the elites, the corporations and the Deep State of the UK. It’s long been a rightwing outlet. There hasn’t been anything remotely left about it for ages now.

And don’t get me started on the repulsive Fake Left Guardian. Truly sickening. The UK really is turning into a shithole. Every time I turn around it looks more and more like the US. The UK took a wrong turn into the sewer in 1980 and they’ve never recovered. I am starting to think the place is hopeless.

There are a lot more reasons for this than I can go into now.

I will only discuss one of them right now.

Suffice to say that the decades-long privatization of the NHS, wildly supported by both parties (yes, most Labour MP’s strongly support the privatization of the NHS) is a complete disaster with no end in sight. It’s straight from the playbook of the Republican Party – defund the government, and then claim it doesn’t work (because you defunded it). Here in the US, only the Republicans use this slimy technique, but in the UK, all parties including the Fake Left Labour play this game.

I had no idea that the UK was this far gone. Pitiful.

Some Common US Lies about the “Fraudulent” Elections in Crimea and the Donbass

Based on this article from a US Leftist here. The US Left is horrible on the subject of Russia. They are as brainwashed and imperialist as any neocon. It is sickening.

Yes, Russian elections in the Crimea and elsewhere are crooked or ‘unfree’.

The problem here is it doesn’t matter. Repeated, completely fair opinion polls by anti-Russian Western pollsters have repeatedly found support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea at 83-89%. In other words, Crimeans massively support Russia’s annexation by scientific polling, so elections are irrelevant. Incidentally, the polling lines up almost perfectly with the results from the elections.

Repeated polling by anti-Russian Western pollsters has found massive support for independence from the Ukraine. The latest poll showed that only 6% of the Donbass supported the anti-independence project of the Ukrainian government. 90% of the Donbass voted to secede. This is about the same number as want independence in polling. Once again, the elections are irrelevant and the results line up perfectly with scientific polling anyway.

Jews, SJW’s, Left Pushing for Hate Speech Laws in the US

You might be aware that some rather nasty hate speech laws are in effect in much of the West. We have been spared for now at least due to the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean there are not groups working feverishly to put laws in place to put people like me in jail for writing the stuff I do.

You know the Jews and the SJW’s are dying to put those laws in here in the US. If you want to get mad at Jews over something, get mad at them over these hate speech laws. They were the ones who put them in all over the West, including in Canada, and they are making a huge push now to put them in here in the US, but it’s going to be very hard to do with the First Amendment.

The SJW’s and the Cultural Left of course want these hate speech laws too. Apparently homosexuals have 3,000 sex partners while catching and spreading every disease known to mankind, transsexuals chopping their dicks off, torture sex, piss drinking, public gay sex, turning restrooms and rest stops into gay orgy parks, ad nauseum is all a-ok with these folks while at the same time they are in league with the feminists who are apparently trying to make heterosexuality illegal.

I guess if you’re gay, lez or tranny you can fuck anyone or anything you want and the SJW’s will just cheer you on; it’s that heterosexual sex that really pisses them off. Oh yeah and cissexuals. They hate us too, scum that we are. Die Cis Scum and all that.

SJW’s and the Cultural Left are very dangerous people, and they would love to join up with the Jews to make homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, antisemitic, bla bla speech illegal, while of course making sure it’s ok to hate White people, cissexuals, heteronormativity, and men. Misogyny will become illegal while misandry will rocket to the skies. You won’t be able to say racist things about Blacks or Mexicans, but if you want to hate Whites, by all means, make yourself at home and spout away.

The Jews don’t give a damn about any of the Cultural Left crap although most Jews are Cultural Left and SJW types. They just want to drag them along for the ride so they can make antisemitism illegal and put Ann Coulter in jail for her tweets.

The Jews have been pushing the envelope here in the US like they always do for a very long time, and as you can see with Coulter, people are starting to finally say they have had enough. This is pretty much what happens anywhere and anytime you get lots of Jews in a country. Expect to see more people making comments along the lines of Coulter’s tweets. As the “antisemitic” discourse (as long as it’s along the lines of what Coulter said, that type of talk is long overdue) picks up, expect the Jews to double down on the hate speech crusade.

Life is always interesting, and the near future looks to maybe be a bit of a bumpy ride, but if you like amusement park rides, it might be fun to observe from a distance anyway.

Here’s hoping we all stay alive, housed, fed and solvent.

Decline of the West Part 2: “Men”

Then and now.
Then and now.

The Cultural Left’s already gotten rid of race, and it is definitely part of the Cultural Left’s agenda to get rid of gender, as they put it. Why? Because Gay Identity Politics is an essential aspect of the Cultural Left. The Cultural Left just can’t get enough of their pet homosexuals. And I assure you that Political Homosexuality has a long-term goal of “getting rid of gender” because after all, homosexuals hate gender. Gay men mostly hate being men and want to be women. Lesbians for all their going on and on about how wonderful women are and how horrible men are don’t like being women and instead want to be men.

Yes, Political Homosexuality does have an agenda, and you could indeed call it a “Gay Agenda.” The Gay Agenda is simply the long-term and short-term goals of Political Homosexuality. What’s so controversial about that? All Identity Politics groups have short- and long-term goals, so all Identity Politics groups have “agendas.” So of course there’s a “gay agenda.” Why is it some vile homophobic reactionary insult to mention that obvious fact?

I Guess I Am with the “French New Right”

Whoever criticizes capitalism while approving immigration whose working class is its first victim had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration while remaining silent about capitalism should do the same.

– Alain De Benoist, founder of the French New Right.

You know the European Left is failing when the fascists have the best ideas in the political marketplace.

US Politardics:

“Right”: I love capitalism! I hate immigration! (lol wut)

“Left”: I love immigration! I hate capitalism! (wtf)

The Politics of Idiocy.

That’s your choice folks. You get to choose between two perfectly awful views. Isn’t that cool?

There is no Left or Right. There are only nationalists and globalists.

– Marine Le Pen, French rightwing politician.

Another fascist gets my vote. This is absolutely repulsive. The European Left is so evil, insane and retarded that the even the fascists are better in comparison. Pathetic!

Alternative Left Getting Some Airplay

Hunter Wallace mentions me and the Alternative Left.

Wallace is a White nationalist. I am not exactly pro-White nationalism, but I would rather ally with those folks than these neoliberal Cultural Left Freakshow types on the so-called “Left”.

Neoliberal corporate globalist economics and the Cultural Left combines the worst of both the Left and the Right. This is today’s DNC Democratic Party. There literally is nothing here for any progressive person in my opinion.

The Left is about economics, or it is about nothing. Basing Left politics on culture is absurd. At best the Cultural Left is a sideshow, a distraction. At worst it is deculturalization as bad the McDonaldization of the globalists. There is nothing “progressive” about man-hating women, promotion of homosexuality, 31 flavors of sexual weirdness and gender-destroyers. What is even slightly progressive about any of this celebration of freakiness?

The Republicans are the same thing minus the Freakshow.

Marie Le Pen said, “There is no more Left and Right. Instead, there are globalists and nationalists.”

Chalk me up with the nationalists, in my case, leftwing nationalists (I know how nuts that sounds). What’s weird is Wallace et al on the Right are nationalists too, so they and I are now in some weird alliance against the Globalist Corporate Right, DNC Left and the Cultural Left. All three of these  are in bed with each other. They are all pushing deculturalization, deracination and what boils down to the dismantling of nation-states.

In this odd alliance, hopefully Wallace’s folks and I are for de-emphasis if not outright hostility to the Cultural Left, preservation of the wisdom or ages (your grandma was right), anti-gender feminism, anti-Gay Politics, anti-laissez faire capitalism, pro-men’s rights, pro-equity feminism, pro-tolerance but anti-celebration on sexual orientation, gender orientation and sexual freakism, pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment, pro-people and most of all pro-community. And for me of course, the preservation of the nation my motto is distinct national cultures and traditions, of course national economies and welfare states. My motto is “Without the Homeland, there is nothing.”

The Legacy of Trotsky: The Ruination of the Western Left

Jason Y writes:

Also he egged on Germany and urged them to attack the USSR, which they soon did. He said a Nazi conquest of the USSR would be a good idea.
Why? That’s crazy. That’s like an Israeli joining Al Qaeda. Do you have quick sources, backing this claim up?

Trotsky thought the Nazis could be controlled. Use them to go in and take out Stalin, then get them to back off while a Trotskyite Administration was put in instead.
Also, all through the 1930’s, Trotskyites worked closely with the Nazis and the West to undermine the Soviet state. There was sabotage all over the USSR during this decade, and it was all caused by these groups. This is what caused Stalin to go nuts and institute the Great Terror, when hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people were killed.
I do not have a source for it, but I did read it just recently. It doesn’t surprise me one bit. Trotskyites hate one thing and one thing only – Stalin and “Stalinists.” Stalinists happen to be every Commie who isn’t a Trotskyite! They will collaborate with anyone and everyone, no matter how evil, slimy or reactionary, to defeat their hated “Stalinist” foes.
Trotsky just wanted Stalin gone one way or another. Latter day Trots continue in this insane tendency. They have supported the CIA, the Pentagon, US imperialism, neo-Nazis, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic fundamentalists, you name it, all to bring down real existing socialist (“Stalinist”) states. Currently Trot nutcases are supporting the liver-eating, head-chopping radical Islamist Syrian rebels. They are also firmly behind the Nazi regime in Kiev. Trots have been supporting Nazis forever. Their marriage with Nazism goes all the way back to the 1930’s.
I cannot put into words how much I hate Trotskyites.
The real problem is that Trots have taken over much of the Hard Left in the West. This is one of the reasons why the Hard Left in the West is so useless, ridiculous and insane – because it’s been controlled by Trot nutcases for decades.

The Alternative to PC Liberal Insanity

The insanity of American conservatism – the Tea Party, and the Republican Party base. I grew up around these people. Most of my friends had a lunatic ideology like this. In fact, all my life, most of the White people around me have been exactly like this. American conservatism is probably one of the stupidest and most unpleasant political movements in the world today. Nothing they say makes sense. Almost everything they say is a lie. Their partisanship is ridiculous.
There literally is nothing of any value here at all. It reminds me a freak show at the circus selling poison snow cones to smiling fairgoers. There really is nothing here to like. This is a movement that is almost physically repellant. I go to their webpages, and experience an actual physical revulsion that propels me away from the page, as if I just experienced something that was actually physically disgusting.
The problem is in the US, you can either line up with these nutballs, or you can go with the alternative – crazy PC liberals. Now granted, liberals make a lot more sense on a lot more issues and and are not generally physically repellent, but Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism are both preposterous and irrational movements.
Idiotic liberals or conservative  nutcases.
What the Hell kind of a choice is that? How about none of the above?

In Defense of Liberal Race Realism

Nominay writes:

“Liberal race realism” is repugnant. Some of it’s true, some of it’s bullshit, but clearly the bullshit comes out on top. And I’ve never once seen described or provided from a LRR point of view what the solution for Black inferiority is. There may be some points made by Robert and co. about Blacks that are (unfortunately) accurate, but Liberal Race Realism is endlessly negative.
It just reads like a parade of White virtue while stomping on Blacks. The only difference between racists and Liberal Race Realists are that Liberal Race Realists care about Blacks (I guess). But even then, nothing positive is expressed from that. It’s easy to beat up on Blacks and showcase them as an easy target, but it takes something more admirable than that to gain insight into what can be done about the challenges Blacks face. I don’t exactly see White, Black activism today the way I did when Robert Kennedy was their advocate.

LRR doesn’t engage in bullshit. We demand fact-based analyses and hopefully fact based theory supported by some sort of fact based solutions that are at least experimentally valid while still open to challenge and in need of replication.
Also we don’t engage in racism. LRR is officially nonracist as a general rule, and some of us are antiracists. We do argue that one ought to be able to avoid and have a negative opinion about some ethnic or religious group that has harmed you or your people one too many times. LRR doesn’t know if that’s racism or not, but even if it is, then LRR would be for that “racism.”
LRR doesn’t believe in any particular causes of the behavior of various groups.
For instance, Black IQ scores are lower. But LRR takes no position on why that is. Some of us think it’s genes, some think it’s environment, some think it’s the flying purple people eaters. We urge LRR supporters to draw their conclusions about the causes of ethnic behavioral rates and metrices.
But LRR’s would say that a high IQ state should not be importing a lot of low IQ people. It makes no sense societally or genetically.
As far as crime goes, LRR simply points out with alarm that certain ethnies and even religions in certain places have elevated crime rates. We list the different rates for the different groups, and then we discuss why this might be happening. The main thing LRR does is get the truth out there about the differing rates, as it is a pubic safety matter, and PC society buries this stuff.
Now as far as what causes some groups to commit more crime than others, LRR takes no position. Personally, I think Blacks have an inborn elevated risk of criminal behavior. I am not sure how that works, but I figure it might be genetic. Now other LRR’s are free to disagree. There are LRR’s who say that the causes of high Black crime are strictly environmental. They are free to feel that way as LRR generally take no stand on causation of racial variables.
LRR would say though that it makes little sense for a nation to mass import groups that have a higher crime rate than the natives of the land. If the majority native group has 1X crime rate, why mass import a group that commits crimes at 7X the native rate? It’s irrational. Also there may be groups that have .25 the crime rate of the natives. LRR’s might say that you should import these immigrants so as to lower the nation’s crime rate and maybe even improve the genetic stock.
LRR generally doesn’t advocate solutions to race-based problems because we doubt if there are any.
Inferiority? LRR doesn’t believe in inferiority. Sure, Black crime rates are higher, and IQ scores are lower, but I don’t see how that makes them inferior people and us superior people. Why do you think a lower IQ score and a higher crime rate makes them inferior people and us superior people? Those are just matrices. Nobody’s really better than anybody else at the end of the day.
LRR is just stating observational facts. Yep, Black crime rates are higher. All over the damn world in fact. What’s causing it? That’s not really important. What might be important would be to quit importing them.
Yes, Black IQ scores are lower. LRR is just pointing that out. All we want to do is point that out. Yep. At the moment, on average Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. Fact.
Now what do you want to do with that fact? I do not know, but at least people should know it is true.
LRR has no idea how to raise Black IQ scores or lower their crime rates. That’s for educators, criminologists and police chiefs to deal with.
I would like to point out that the crazy antis and the PC nuts don’t have any solutions to these problems either.
The IQ issue they say is not even true, so they scream and yell about an achievement gap which of course is to be expected if there are intelligence differentials. Mostly these folks just fall back on insisting that poor Black school performance is all the fault of White people!
On the crime issue, first of all, they generally just deny it and refuse to talk about it. Or they make bizarre statements saying that White collar crime done by Whites is just as bad or even way worse than Black street crime.
Then they spread malicious libelous claims about Whites saying that we are evil criminals too. For instance, they lie and say Whites have a far higher rate than Blacks of being serial killers and pedophiles. Now I would be perfectly happy to claim a couple of notorious crime categories for my people, but that statement isn’t even true. Blacks are more likely to be both serial killers and pedophiles than Whites are.
So you talk about the very serious problem of Black crime, and PC types first of all say it’s not a problem because Wall Street. Then they level vicious hate attacks on my great people calling us serial killers and child molesters.
If you really press these people, they will admit that Blacks cause an incredible amount of crime, but it’s all White people’s fault that they do this. So they turn Black bad behavior into an excuse to use hate speech against my people.

From Civil Rights to Modern Antiracism, a Moral Inversion

Found on the web:

After the chicken’s chicks were all killed at eaten by the fox, a liberal chicken then said to the surviving chicken “Ya know, not all foxes are like that.”

Nice. Increasingly, modern antiracism is simply becoming absurd, stupid, dangerous, belligerently abusive and pro-suicidal.
Thinking back to our salad days in the Civil Rights Movement, I remember how things were so much different back then. We Whites were fighting for good people! Good, fine, upstanding Black people, of which there were plenty at the time and even now.
Was James Meredith a dirtball? Of course not? Was Rosa Parks a slimebag? You kidding? Were the Little Rock a bunch of scumbuckets? Huh?
If you think of yourself as a good person, it feels good to be fighting for the rights of other good people. And it is painful to see good people being so mistreated merely because of who their parents were. It’s so wrong it hurts. This was the essence of the moral impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement.
We won most of our battles, and here it is, 50 years on, and anti-racism is so far away from the Civil Rights Movement that it seems like it’s on another planet altogether.
Now the antiracist movement does nothing but support criminals.
All of the modern antiracist heroes have been criminals, often pretty bad ones. Most of them are dead and in the ground now, which is really where they belong if you ask me. It’s hard to feel good about supporting a bunch of scumbuckets. It’s hard to feel sorry for them, even if they are getting their rights violated. And typically, the people who aggressed on the Black criminals were the victims in one way or another of the crooks, or they were law enforcement or school officials trying to arrest or discipline the crooks. The ultimate hero of the antiracist movement is none other than OJ Simpson, a narcissistic sociopath who decapitated his girlfriend with a meat cleaver before he sliced her boyfriend to blood-spattered bits.
Many of the antiracist cause celebres have involved Black criminals who get shot by cops, sometimes under dubious circumstances. One thing you will notice that everywhere Black folks move in the world, this racist phenomenon called police brutality rears up its head. There is  this mysterious phenomenon whereby cops all over the world want to fuck over and kill Black people for racist reasons and only racist reasons.
Here is what happens:

  • Lots of Blacks moved to a country, often a Western country.
  • Over a period of time, they start to commit lots of crime, particularly violent crime, including homicide. They also start joining gangs and dealing a lot of dope.
  • This goes on for a while, and the police start arresting a lot of the Black criminals, for good reason.
  • The Black community starts to hate cops for “taking so many of our good men away.” Police are seen as a hostile because they are doing their job, which is to arrest Black criminals.
  • Sooner or later, a Black criminal is shot dead or badly beaten under possibly dubious circumstances. There is nothing necessarily racist about this. Most Western police departments have wildly stringent anti-discrimination policies and are far more PC than your average workplace. Police commissioners are tired of getting sued for this stuff so they are taking pre-emptive action.
  • What happens is once Black people start committing tons of crime and getting arrested all the time, sooner or later there is going to be a questionable shooting. It’s the law of averages. If Whites committed crime at Black rates, there would be a lot of dubious police shootings of White people. Dubious shootings are part and parcel of a group that commits lots of crime.
  • Blacks start rioting because one of their criminals got shot dead or beat up badly by police, which is a pretty bad reason to tear down a city if you ask me.
  • Antiracist movements begin to take up the “antiracist” cause of police brutality, an issue that usually has little to do with race.

These antiracist movements spend almost all of their time defending the absolute worst of Black society, the scum of the Earth. These are their heroes. If you are on the Left, you are supposed to support the lionization of these sociopaths. If you point out what scumbags they are, you are accused or racism yourself.
You see how far we have come? Pointing out that the Black criminal cause celebre du jour who may have been victimized is actually a piece of dirt is racism! It’s racism for good people to call criminals what they are!
That’s pretty breathtaking.
It goes far beyond that. All criticism of mass dysfunction in Black America, typically in the more ghetto areas, is slammed as racism. Good people are called racists for complaining about bad people acting bad! Wow! That takes my breath away.
If you try to counter an anti-White myth such as that Whites are more likely to be child molesters or serial killers by pointing out that actually Blacks have higher rates of both serial killing and child molesting, you are a racist! Whoa! It’s racist to pore through crime statistics to try to catch people telling racist lies about crime rates of various races! It’s racist to point out that Group X commits way more of Crime Z than Group Y.
Pointing out the obvious is racist. Telling the truth is racist. Hard and fast statistical truths are racist. Apparently, The Truth itself is racist.
The only way not to be a racist in this modern era is to be a liar!
This idiotic movement extends to the rest of the world. Much of the 3rd World is very screwed up. A lot of it is non-White. Pointing out how lame, dysfunctional, and pathological these failed states and cultures are is racist. Damn! Good people criticizing bad people overseas for acting bad is racist. People from decent cultures criticizing sick cultures for being stupid and evil is racist.
Pointing out that Country X is swarming with crooks, liars, cheaters, frauds and thieves, not to mention violent crooks, is racist. Telling people to avoid these shitholes is racist. In fact, we are ordered to travel to these shitholes just to prove how antiracist we area. In this sense, modern anti-racism is pro-suicidal. They want good people to go to places were lots of terrible people who act awful and stay there a while (presumably until they get victimized, which won’t be long) just to prove their antiracist mettle.
If you say, “I don’t see why I should risk my life and limb to associate with this group just because a few of them are good people,” you are racist.
Modern antiracism does nothing but defend bad people.
All of its heroes are criminals, often very bad criminals. These are the leading lights of the movement. It is racist for good people to criticize the bad behavior of these criminal heroes.
The only cultures it defends are non-White 3rd World cultures where a large percentage of the people act terrible, where states are failed, where cultures are toxic when they are not flat out wicked. Yes, to modern antiracism, the worst, most dysfunctional, corrupt, amoral and idiotic cultures of all are actually the best ones of them. These are the “heroic cultures” of modern antiracism. Modern antiracism fetes barbaric cultures above all else.
Cultures are crappy because they are full of crappy people – who behave in lousy ways and think in even worse ways. There is no such thing as a crappy culture full of good people. Good people make good cultures. Lousy people make lousy cultures.
The bottom line is that antiracism criticizes good people for attacking the behavior of bad people. It’s racist for good people to defend themselves against bad people – I assume we are supposed to let them kill us to prove earn our antiracist stripes in the afterlife. Anti-racism attacks people from good, competent, successful cultures for attacking lousy, incompetent and failed cultures. Once again, it punishes the good for attacking the bad.
I could go on here, but I think I will stop. You get the idea.
All I have to say is that this is a complete inversion of the moral principles I signed up for in the Civil Rights Movement. We were the good guys fighting for the good people against the bad people. Now it’s the other way around.
Let me off this bus please, Rosa.

Why the Western Left Is So Trotskyite

Third Eye writes:

In what world is the western left Trotskyist? Hell, not even the old Trotskyists are really Trotskyist anymore. The combine of academics, NGOs, bureaucrats, and lawyers that passes for the “left” amounts to a bunch of glorified lobbyists.

Most of the significant Marxist grouplets in the US (the ones with actual names and organizations) are Trots. The biggest Western Marxist websites (In Defense of Marxism and WSW) are Trot-run.
If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can head on over to Marxmail and see for yourself. Western Marxists often fulminate against the “Stalinist” Left. Any Marxist who goes on “Stalinism” is a Trot, no matter how much they try to deny it.
Furthermore, the obsessions with homosexuals, transsexuals and other oddbodies, women, minorities, immigrants, criminals, Muslims as “oppressed” groups in the West as opposed to lining up with the true oppressed of the 3rd World is a sign of the Trots. The whole Identity Politics thing in the 1960’s was a Trot project.
The people they call Stalinists always focused on economics and never cared about divisive identity politics all that much. That stuff just divides the working class anyway.
Set race against race, men against women, gay people against straights, oddbodies against normal bodies, Muslims against infidels, immigrants against natives, criminals against decent people – way to go!
Way to divide the working class!

Robert Lindsay Hater Link for the Day

Here.
They really tear me apart on this one. The title is, referring to me, “Crazy Racist Asshole (also a misogynist pig who LOVES sex-positive feminism, maybe he and SRBtP can hang?).” That’s great. I haven’t been complemented like that in a long time. God I love being called a crazy racist asshole and a misogynist pig! Few things light my fire like that!

I was searching for a final death toll for Katrina (re: linnjob saying “thousands” of black people died) and came across this crazy white power asshole (that would be me). Between the bland design and pseudo-academic writing, it’s easy to happen upon and not think much of. But the I checked out the About to see if he was legit before posting it here.

He goes on, freaking out on my About page, which most people don’t understand because most of it is tongue in cheek.

My About Page: Although I am generally opposed to racism, I do hate Gypsies.

I mean come on, man! That’s not even serious! It’s supposed to be funny, kids.
They are also upset that a misogynist pig like me (Hey! That’s Mister Misogynist Pig to you!) could actually support some sort of feminism, but I do.
So they think this part of the About page is nuts and baffling.

My About Page: I also support sex-positive feminism, riot girrls, (Naomi Wolf – qualified approval) and especially post-feminism. On the other hand, I am also a masculinist: I am a man, and I must be for myself. As a masculinist and a devoted libertine, I am opposed to gender feminism and radical feminism.

See below. It’s been quite some time since anyone has called me an over the top psychopath. That really made my day.

The point was that sex positive feminism, as I was pointing out, was attractive to self-interested straight men. In this case, an over the top psychopath was still able to find it useful. That does not discount it (something I never argued) but does buttress my point: straight men defending criticism of sex-positive feminism are quite possibly speaking from self-interest.

You got it! A lot of jerky, scummy, misogynist pig straight guys are totally down with sex positive feminism because they just want to get laid! Absolutely! They discovered our dirty little secret, damn.
Honestly, these posts are so tiring.
I do not consider myself to be any of these things:

  1. A White Supremacist – opposed to White Supremacism
  2. A racist – consider myself nonracist at least and am against racism in general
  3. A misogynist – Do not like misogyny or misogynists, never have
  4. A psychopath – psychologists have even told me I am not one

The Identitarian Left won’t quit calling me this stuff, and it really gets old.

The Problem with Writing about Race

Coward writes:

Robert, I have been reading this blog since I was 13, although I haven’t posted until I was 15. I remember back in the good ole’ days of this blog, you discussed race freely and notoriously with titles such as, “Black People Like To Fuck”, and “Are Blacks Closer To Apes Than Other Humans”, “Nigger Genes Ruined Portugal”, “Pictures from Shithole India”. Nowadays this blog is all about politics, economy, Bigfoot, and random shit. Now I know why you don’t want to post about race; some commenters, myself included, aren’t mature enough to discuss race. I admit it. I have contributed my fair share of Black-bashing and Asian-bashing. However, I don’t really bash Blacks anymore, and the Asian bashing wasn’t even serious.

One of the purposes of this site was to develop something called “Liberal Race Realism,” which is a movement that I started. Admittedly, it hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Actually, it has been a complete failure. But that is ok. Really what it shows though is just how messed up people, especially Americans, are about race.
We simply cannot discuss race in any kind of a sensible way at all.
There are really two options when it comes to talking about race:
PC: race denial, no such thing as race, race is a social construct, etc. Focus on White racism against non-Whites as the cause of all problems among non-Whites. All discussion of racial differences banned as racist. No discussion of problems or failings of non-Whites allowed, as this is considered racist.
The PC style is really the only acceptable way to talk about race in America. But obviously, it has got some serious problems. Mostly it just seems like another effort at self-censorship. Many aspects of the race question are simply banned outright as racist, and they are replaced with a strange and obsessive focus on White racism as the only kind that matters. The effects of this racism (which is real) are vastly exaggerated.
White supremacism or ethnic chauvinism of some form or another. This is simply exaggerated, out and out racism, often of the worst kind. If you reject the PC game, it seems that you default into a Nazi or supremacist super-racist of some sort.
Clearly this leaves something to be desired also. This sort of racism is ugly and nasty and we fought a world war against it already.
In part, the two reinforce each other. If you stray the slightest from the PC line, the PC crowd gathers around and relentlessly bullies you, calling you eugenicist, racist, Nazi, KKK, on and on. So people who are forced out of the PC camp are labeled as members of the supremacist camp and are more or less forced into that nasty camp. The supremacist camp sort of does that too. Any attempt to be reasonable with those folks results in accusations that one is a PC anti-racist.
Most folks simply default to the PC position since that is the one that is socially sanctioned by society.
Truth is that both camps are pretty much nuts and neither one is an adequate way to talk about race. Ideally, the perfect camp would be in between the two. That is what I tried to do with Liberal Race Realism.
However, LRR failed. My posts about race in general get taken over by nasty, ugly Supremacists of differing breeds, and the comments section degenerated into ugly race wars, mostly about whose race is superior and whose race is inferior.
It appears the PC crowd may be right. People simply are not mature enough to talk about race without degenerating into horrible Supremacists of this type or that. So the PC crowd has decided to pretty much just ban the whole subject, which might be a good idea, as folks simply can’t seem to handle it.

Modern Identity Politics Is Insane

Hizzle writes:

I ask because your stance on illegal immigration and George Zimmerman is pretty heterodox for a Leftist, and it’s part of what drew me into your orbit (and could make more conservatives amenable to the economic Left). The less identity politics the Left plays, I believe, the more amenable people become to economic leftism (which I have no problems with).

I am Left on economics, and I am basically a liberal, but the modern Western Left is simply insane on Identity Politics. None of it makes any sense. All of these people are insane. Modern feminism is lunacy, but women do deserve equal rights. Thing is that here in the West, they already have them.
The Left is insane on the subject of race, first saying that there is no such thing as race (and violating modern science and common sense) and then saying that White people are evil and elevating Blacks and to a lesser extent Browns as permanent, bleeding, reeling victims of “White Supremacy” which has been fading for decades and now barely even exists.
I do not agree that Black folks are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Instead, they cause a ton of problems in America, most of which are 100% their fault and 0% anyone else’s fault. Racism doesn’t cause them to screw up like this; Blacks simply screw up, fail and act bad of their own ridiculous free will. They just choose to act terrible.
I do not agree that White people are evil.
I do not agree that mostly Blacks but also all non-Whites are reeling under horrific White Supremacy.
I do not even think racism is very important in modern America.
I do not think that women are brutally subjected to a Dictatorship of Patriarchy. It’s just not true anymore.
I do not agree that men and masculinity are evil, and women are all that.
I do not agree with female puritanism and a rejection of the sexual, which is the modern feminist agenda.
I do not agree with man-hating, political lesbianism, lesbian separatism and other forms of psychopathology if not outright lunacy.
As a radical environmentalist, the stupidest thing I can think of is flooding this country with millions more humans. Flooding millions of poor 3rd World peasants here is a terrible idea; they will just reproduce their failed 3rd World culture here in the US. 3rd World peasants and their offspring behave at a low level, cause a ton of problems, degrade functioning neighborhoods and cities, and cause an unholy mountain of gang and crime problems. They’re just lousy immigrants flat out.
I am very much uncertain of flooding the US with backwards, reactionary, ultra-racist Indians who come from the most failed state on Earth. They come from a poisonous culture, and most Indians come out of their culture poisoned by it to one degree or another. We let these poisoned people into our culture, and they will start to reproduce their poisoned culture here in the US.
Guest workers and illegal immigrants have caused massive job loss among Americans. Illegals nuked jobs for working class Americans, and now the guest workers are ruining the lives and livelihoods of countless upper middle class and even upper class American workers. I am pro-worker, and I say that mass immigration, especially guest workers and illegals, is a catastrophe for US workers.
This is a project of the US rich and corporate America designed to use low wage immigrants to destroy US workers and their unions, ruining the American middle class and even upper middle class. The US elite and corporations want to reproduce some sort of feudalist, caste-like society via mass immigration, and incredibly the Left is going along in this project.
The Left is on board with destroying working class, middle class and even upper middle class US workers by replacing them with foreign coolies and slaves. What we have here is a Left that is full of hatred for Western workers and pushes an anti-US worker project designed to destroy them.
George Zimmerman is a hero, period. He killed a Black thug. The Left and the antiracist nuts have long since left real equal rights behind and now all they do is push extreme racism and discrimination against Whites in addition to promoting and defending Black criminals. All of the recent Black and antiracist heroes have been criminals, often very evil young Black men.
The Left is basically cheering on Black crime. Black Marxists often see Black crime and rioting aa revolutionary acts of sticking it to the White man. That’s crap. Black people riot because too many of them act like a bunch of animals. Black people commit crime not because they are revolutionaries but because far too many of them are depraved, wicked, debased, sociopathic lumpen criminal-minded human beings who belong in jails and prisons and away from civilized humanity.
It is painful for me to rebel against Leftist dogma like this, but the truth is that the modern Left is simply insane in many ways. In rebelling against them and taking “rightwing” positions, I am simply being logical and rational. I look out at the world commonsensically and see what I see, then I develop my opinions based on reason and basic common sense, Right, Left, Center and all the rest of the political BS be damned.