White Supremacists Are the Worst Whites and White SJW’s Are the Best Whites

The White Supremacists are actually highly degenerate and backwards Whites. They want to go back to the backwards, barbaric and frankly un-White behavior that we used to engage in and that the whole non-White world continues to engage in.

White liberals and Leftists, who bizarrely hate Whites, promote the best White behavior of all and in a sense are the best Whites of them. In fact, they are almost too good. They are the equivalent of the guilt-ridden neurotic who thinks they are the most terrible people on Earth when in fact they never do anything wrong and live their lives like saints.

The White Supremacists instead are like psychopaths and Cluster B types – they are the worst humans of all.

Alt Left: Bernie Sanders Politics Is Simply the Natural, Normal Everyday Politics of Parties That Run or Have Run Nearly Every Country on Earth

Jason: Well, we got a Marxist/Leninist trying to get the democrat nomination. Will he get snuffed out? Seems like Biden is getting all the states.

See how insane this country is? Jason is actually a liberal Democrat, and even he thinks that this everyday, banal social democrat Bernie Sanders is a Communist! If this is how liberal Democrats think, imagine in horror what conservative Republicans think of Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is absolutely not a Marxist-Leninist. He’s just a run of the mill social democrat. Do you realize that social democratic parties with philosophies exactly like Sanders’ have been running nearly every country on Earth for at least part of the last 50 years. And when they were not running the show, they were often the biggest opposition party.

Social democracy is simply the norm all over the world other than the US, Canada, and maybe Hong Kong and Singapore, though both places have massive public housing projects and in Singapore, all or almost all housing is owned by the state.

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it. Except for us and a few other freak countries, to everyone else, platforms like Sanders’ are simply the natural, normal platforms of most of their political parties.

In most of the world, even rightwing parties call  have words in the names of their parties like social, socialist, popular, progressive, labor, revolutionary, liberal, etc. A lot of the hardest rightwing parties of all literally call themselves social democrats and are members of the Social International. That’s because in almost every country on Earth except for this freakish weirdo land, you can’t win office without positioning yourself, even dishonestly, as some sort of a socialist or social democrat. Call yourself anything other than that, and you’re doomed to lose.

There Are Many Very Liberal Areas in the South

Polar Bear: You should leave the South. A # of Southern people I’ve met hate the South and left. Some even want it to burn down, which disgusts me. There are progressive areas in TN, Nashville for one. It feels a bit like the Hatfields and McCoys – progressive self-hating Southerners vs the old South.

Or at least move to a liberal big city, as the commenter suggested.

I went to Atlanta recently, and trust me, Jason would fit right in. Mostly liberals of one stripe or another, and most people, even Whites, vote Democrat. There is a huge hipster scene and in Five Points, you may be forgiven for thinking you are in San Fransisco by mistake.

There are transplanted Northerners everywhere, and there are hip, liberal Southerners from places like Mississippi and Alabama without a trace of a Southern accent who would not be out of place in any hipster paradise. I did some research and Atlanta is the 2rd most liberal metropolitan area in the US.

One thing I noticed though is that a lot of Whites who move to Atlanta from the North eventually turn rather racist against Blacks.

The women I was staying with, my girlfriend at the time, had come from Michigan and was a total antiracist when she showed up. Well, twenty years of living around Atlanta Blacks took care of that ideology.

I don’t think she was all that racist though because we often dealt with Blacks when we went out, and she was always very friendly and kind to them. Are hardcore anti-Black racists actually like that? I’m not sure if I am bothered. If they keep their racism to themselves, it’s just a thought crime, right? Why should anyone care if there’s no consequences flowing from their racist thoughts? I mean who cares? Let her think whatever the Hell she wants. When it translates into action is when we can start worrying.

I met a friend of hers, a guy from New York state who just seemed like your average hipster liberal, who said he was moving to Washington state. He seemed to have made a similar transformation. I asked him why he was moving, and he said, “Too many Gros, number One.” I’d never heard the word Gro (pronounced Grow) used before as racist slang, and for some reason I thought it was funny.

One of her roommates was a guy from Nicaragua. He was one odd bird – I believe he had Avoidant Personality Disorder – but he absolutely despised Blacks, and he was an extreme racist. You would be surprised at how many Hispanics are much worse anti-Black racists than your average White person is. The lack the shame that keeps a lot of us Whites from going over the edge. They don’t feel bad about being racist, whereas a lot of us Whites do.

Alt Left: Being a White Supremacist Who Is Liberal on Most Social and Economic Issues Is a Tough Cake to Bake

transformer: Robert, do you think progressive liberals can be liberal in their economic and social perspectives but still believe in White Supremacy? I think so.

There are definitely some. One of the early Alt-Leftists, Brandon Adamson, is like that. But his racism is awful mild, probably because he’s basically a liberal on everything but race.

And I am living with someone like that right now. Well, he is here 12 hours a day, let’s put it that way. But he’s now more of a Centrist.

The more they get into their racism, the more they seem to move to the Center. The liberal-Left is just not a friendly place to be for White racists. You are constantly seeing this “You Are Not Welcome Here” everywhere you go. It will be hard to make friends who share your views. You will only be able to make friends with other racists and most of them will be conservatives.

After a while, you just start drifting right. Most all antisemites drift Right too, even if they started on the Left. And a lot of Left antisemites convert to Islam. It’s very common.

Convert to Islam, start drifting Right, talk about “going beyond Left and Right,” “uniting the Left the and Right” and other 3rd Positionist stuff. And most are not liberal on all social stuff. I know a Marxist gay man who went that route, but he’s a social conservative on gay issues. He’s also one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. They end up this weird hybrid that I suppose could best be called 3rd Positionism or even Alt Left for that matter.

Why Does Everyone Engage in Black and White Thinking, Have No Insight, and Think They Are Perfect?

Polar Bear: I feel if you admit guilt or show vulnerability to them, they will latch on to you in agreement, “Yes, you should be ashamed,” and lick your tears. No uplifting or quarter given.”

A lot of people are like this. I’m living with one now. We have a lot of political arguments though we are both pretty much liberal/Left Democrats – he’s more of a Centrist Democrat though. It was the same thing with my father. He was a liberal Democrat and I was a leftwing/progressive/Leftist, but we fought about politics all the time. My Mom always shook her head and commented on how stupid it was:

But you both basically agree with each other!

As far as this person I am living with, I argue fairly. He doesn’t. He never gives in and never admits he’s wrong. You see, I admit that my side is wrong or bad sometimes. His side is always 100% good. The people against him are always 100% bad. But with me, I might say my side is 70% good. And I will often admit that my guys do bad things, and I will come right out and say so. Whenever I do that, he jumps all over me, and does this:

I feel if you admit guilt or show vulnerability to them, they will latch on to you in agreement, “Yes, you should be ashamed,” and lick your tears.

If you admit your side is even 1% wrong, you basically lost the argument because their side is 0% wrong!

And this person went to university and even got a Masters Degree. He criticizes black and white thinking and says most people don’t engage in critical thinking. But he uses black and white thinking all the time and doesn’t engage in critical thinking.

He has absolutely zero insight.

My father was the same way. Zero insight. My sister too. No insight and she’s always right and never wrong. My NPD brother is the same. No insight at all, though oddly enough, he’s the only one who might have some. He goes into these “NPD depressions” sometimes, and in those periods, he gets quite down on himself. And my other sibling is the same. My Mom does have some insight but not a tremendous amount. She sort of thinks she’s perfect.

And to this person, the US government is always right, 100% of the time. US foreign policy is always 100% right. He never criticizes it, and when he does, he does so in a very soft voice and acts like he’s ashamed.

My Mom is a liberal Democrat, and she is exactly the same. Supports US foreign policy 100%, and acts ashamed, quiet, or embarrassed when she opposes it.

Americans are so weird. What’s wrong with Americans and US foreign policy? My Dad was the same way. He was a very liberal Democrat, but he always supported US foreign policy. He did oppose the Vietnam War though, and he criticized the overthrow of Allende. But he was quiet about the Allende overthrow, like he was embarrassed or ashamed to feel that way (see above).

He swore by Time Magazine, a rightwing publication. But he and everyone else I know describe rightwing Time Magazine as centrist, saying it resembles liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats.

My father, a super-liberal Democrat, swore by rightwing Time Magazine and described it as Centrist! All of these people are only liberal on domestic policies, and even there, the Republicans always wrong because they’re 100% evil, and the Democrats are always, always right because they are 100% good.

If I ever agree with anything Republicans do (which I do sometimes because I am not an ideologue kook like everyone else), the person I’m living with asks, “So you’re going to vote for Trump now?” Like it’s not possible to absolutely despise Trump but actually agree on a few of his policies? Totally black and white thinking. If I agree with one thing Trump did, that means I’m going to vote for Trump! See how they think?

Why Do I Talk So Much about Black People, Jews, Indians, Etc. on Here?

A lot of people want to know this. The fact is that I am absolutely fascinated by racial issues! And I’m also a race realist for better or for worse. At the very least I would like to point out that at the moment there are some serious behavioral differences among races, ethnic groups, and religious people. I’m not saying what caused it. I’m just saying it’s there.

But you can’t say that nowadays because everyone’s a dindu. Everyone except for straight White men that is. We’re pure evil.

So my task as a race realist is to try to look at race realism (and ethnic, religious and for that matter gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity realism) in a liberal, progressive, or even Leftist light. Now a lot of people would say that’s impossible and that by being a race realist, I am automatically a rightwinger, conservative, reactionary, Rightist, or fascist.

I am absolutely fascinated by Jews! In a way, I am obsessed with them but not in the way that Judeophiles and anti-Semites are. I’m not in either category.

And keep in mind that I was going to convert to Judaism recently! Obviously I’m a huge antisemite if I was going to convert! I had a Jewish girlfriend and I told her I wanted to convert and she was going to help me. I have no idea why I wanted to convert. Probably just to be perverse. Or to stick it to all the idiots screaming antisemite at me.

My Mom was flustered:

Mom: Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Nobody wants to convert to Judaism. If you go to a rabbi and tell him you want to convert, he will look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Why on Earth do you want to be a Jew?” It’s like no sane person would actually want to be a Jew.

Me: I don’t know, Mom. I just want to be a Jew. Xxxxx is Jewish and I want to convert for her. She’s going to help me convert.

Mom: Well, another thing. You’re going to get a lot of prejudice. A lot of people are going to hate you. There will be discrimination. You want to be discriminated against? Why?

Me: I don’t care about discrimination, Mom. A lot people act like they hate me anyway. So not much will change.

(Shakes her head like I’m out of my mind.)

I am also absolutely fascinated by antisemitism. I had no negative feelings towards Jews at all until I was 44, and I started to find out what they were really like. But I had been around them most of my life. Now that I look back, they were pretty typically Jewish, but for some reason that never bothered me at the time.

I was always mystified. “Why on Earth to people hate the Jews?” I simply couldn’t figure it out. We were brought up in this silly Judeophilic family. Both of my parents had grown up with Jews and had many Jewish friends. Every time the subject of Jews came up, my parents acted like they were the greatest thing since Kleenex. They got these huge smiles on their faces, and it was like the Jews were some sort of super-race. Which of course is exactly what Jews think.

I still find antisemitism absolutely fascinating. I still wonder why on Earth people hate Jews. Why did they hate them in the past? Why did they hate them in Europe during World War 2? What did Jews act like back then?

Why were they hated and persecuted in Europe in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Early Middle Ages? Why on Earth did they get thrown out of 109 countries? How did Jews behave back then? What could they possibly have done to get tossed out of nation after nation? I’m baffled.

The antisemites will say it’s because Jews are pure evil. Well, I’m not buying that, sorry.

Everyone else will say that Jews were dindus who dindu nuffin, and everyone just picked on them for no reason at all and scapegoated them when bad times hit. For some reason this doesn’t resonate much with me, though this is the only view you are allowed to have, as it’s the only (((approved view))).

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s been to 109 bars in your city, and he gets thrown out of every bar for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Is he really getting thrown out for no reason at all? Yeah right.

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s lived in 109 cities and towns all over the world, and everywhere he goes, everyone hates him, and they get together and try to throw him out of town for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Yeah right. I’m sure you got thrown out for no reason, dude!

I also find Blacks fascinating. Unfortunately, I am also absolutely fascinated by anti-Black racism. Why do people hate Blacks? What’s the reason?  Its’ fascinating! Why, why, why, why? Racists will say it’s because Blacks are pure evil, but I’m not buying it.

Blacks and antiracists will say it’s because people hate them because they’re different and how they look. I’m not buying that either. Forget it. No one is innocent. Remember when Ronald Biggs said that? He was right.

They will say, like the Jews, that racism against Blacks is so unfathomable that it is basically a mental illness. You’d have to be crazy to hate Black people. The unspoken assumption here is that Black people are dindus who dindu nuffin because if they did do bad things, racism against them wouldn’t be completely insane. See?

Well, that definitely lets Black people off the hook, but I’m not buying it. I’ve been observing racism and racists for much of my life, and I assure you they’re not nuts. Racism is not a mental disorder in any of the DSM’s, though there were efforts by antiracist clinicians to get it into DSM-5. The American Psychiatric Association found this so ridiculous that I don’t believe they even bothered to discuss it.

And they talked about some pretty weird stuff like Hebephilia, a preference for pubescent-aged minors. The APA agreed that Hebephilia was absolutely not a mental disorder. Not only that but they said it wasn’t even abnormal. It was perfectly normal to get aroused by minors of that age. Now if they won’t list Hebephilia for Chrissake, how the Hell are they going to list racism? They’re not, because racists aren’t nuts.

Sure, some crazy people are racists, but it’s not the racism that’s making them nuts. More like the other way around.

Now you might think I am letting racists off the hook, right? Nope, not at all. To me, racism is not a mental illness. It’s not a question of sane vs. crazy. Neither is psychopathy. I don’t buy that psychopaths are nuts either. Forget it.

Instead racism and psychopathy are questions of good versus evil.

Psychopaths aren’t nuts, they’re just bad, or evil if you will. And racists aren’t nuts either. I see racism as a moral question. I believe that true, pure, hardcore racism is bad. It’s like a sin. Racists are acting bad. It’s like a form of evil. It’s not nuts to hate a whole race of humans, but to me it does seem wrong. As in morally wrong.

If you do that, you’re bad. You’re a bad person, at least in a sense. Now a lot of us are bad people to one degree or another. I’m not here to moralfag on people. But it’s better to be more good than bad. And if you are racist, you are being bad in that sense. If you want to be good instead, quit hating whole races.

Now I have no idea why, but Black  people will not accept that racism is a form of evil or bad behavior. Nope, it has to be a form of insanity. This is possibly because if you say racism is bad or evil, it implies that the racist has some valid reason to feel this way, but it’s more that he needs to control himself and act good instead of bad.

The race question in the US, like the Jewish Question, is completely insane. You’re either a hardcore racist where you hate Blacks and think they are evil, in which case you are a White Supremacist, White Nationalist, or just a racist. That seems like a crazy position, and I don’t like to go to boards like that. I don’t like to see all that hate against Blacks. It’s upsetting.

Ok, so overt extreme racism bothers you. Good for you. That means you have to take the other default position, which is that Blacks are dindus, everybody’s always picking on them, and all of the many problems of the Black community are 100% due to White racism and not even 1% the fault of Blacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were true? But it’s not. It’s just not.

Well, those are your two positions.

Pick your poison. I’d like to choose a position halfway in between, sort of the Bill Cosby/Pat Moynihan position. Cosby argues that Black culture is the part of almost all Black problems. Those Blacks who are creating these problems are simply part of a bad culture. This culture causes them to act bad and do bad things.

I’ll go along with that. But if I do, I get tossed out of the second group (antis) and into the first group, the White Supremacists. Who I frankly despise.

So that’s what I am trying to do here. Work out a position on Jews, Blacks, and everyone and everything else that is opposed to the extremism of both the Left and the Right. Call it the Realism position.

So I’m Rightwing, Eh? LOL

Well, I’m just not. All of these people who keep screaming at me and insisting that I’m on the Right, I have a question for you. Please point out one single rightwing movement anywhere in the US that I would be ok in. One, just one. All I ask is one. Throw up some and I will go check them out.

Because frankly, I hate, hate, hate, hate conservatives and conservatism, especially the US branch. I don’t mind pure social conservatives that much, but I dislike the US Republican social conservatives. They’re horrible.

If you can’t find one single rightwing movement that I don’t absolutely hate, how can you say that I am a Rightist? Am I part of some movement of one or something?

I’ve never been a part of conservatism. I go to the site of any strand of US conservatism, and I scrunch up my face in disgust. That’s if I’m not pounding the screen. Because I’m liberal/Left on most things. Probably 80-85% of issues. I’d rather eat a bullet than vote Republican or for any US rightwing party. I can’t stand to go to any conservative website because I get angry so  quickly that I have to leave.

On the other hand, the liberal/Left have always been my people. I mean like my whole life. And they still are. I go to Left/liberal websites, and I think “these are my people.” It gets a bit weird with Western Communists and anarchists because they are so radical and so far left and especially so ultra-SJW.

But still a lot of what Communists and some of the anarchists say resonates with me. It’s like we are on the spectrum, but they are just going further on the spectrum than I am. Nevertheless, they all hate my guts, and I get immediately banned from any anarchist or Communist group that I try to post in. Like, instantly. After like two posts.

And I’m telling you: I haven’t changed one bit. The world changed, not me. My social values are exactly the same now as they were in the 1970’s and 1980’s – in fact, I am more culturally liberal than I was back then! I’ve gone further to the left on culture in the last 30 years or so.

But while I stand still, the crazy train called Clown World keeps racing by me at the station, refusing to pick me up. I wouldn’t get on anyway. I’m still waiting for the 1990’s PC Version. But that train never comes. I sit at the station waiting for it forever and ever as the days turn into nights, and the train never shows up. But like a fool, I keep waiting. Waiting for nothing. Waiting for Godot.

You see, there were really a couple of waves of PC or Political Correctness. The first big wave was in the 1990’s with gay marriage and whatnot.  That’s the wave that I am still a part of!

But the problem is that the world has shifted so much that if you are a 1996 Cultural Left type, you’re now a Nazi! They move the goalposts every year, and you have to go a little bit more insane every year to keep up with them. Well, I don’t feel like going crazy. Or getting more crazy than I already am.

There was another huge wave of Political Correctness, more properly called SJWism. It probably started sometime in the 2010’s, but I am not completely sure. I know that we had a lot of them in the 2000’s, too. It is this new wave and this new wave only that I am opposed to. I’m not against the Cultural Left. I’m just against this new radical Cultural Left. Instead I want to go back to the PC culture of the 1990’s. But if I want to do that, I’m a Nazi.

And most people don’t realize it, but these SJW fucktards were around even in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Only difference was that back then almost everyone hated their guts. There were more in the 1980’s, but not much more. Most were self-described Marxists.

The ones in the 1970’s were just radicals, often sexual radicals. They were “ultra-groovy.” A lot of them were into weird sex stuff like threeways, group sex, orgies, and especially male bisexuality. Even among most liberals, we were seriously turned off by these people who were “too cool for school.”

Permanent Ban from Twit (Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I got a temporary ban from Twit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Standard Antisemitism Is Rightwing and Has Nothing to Offer Me or Any Other Liberal or Progressive Person

Other than the role of Israel in US politics and foreign policy, which is truly malign, as far as any other beefs against Jews that antisemites have, I’m not really into them. Those arguments just don’t resonate with me. I don’t particularly care what Jews do in my country outside of the Israel thing. Who cares!

Antisemitism is rightwing anyway. I get annoyed at Jews’ bullshit, and I like to talk about how they annoy me, but that’s not a matter of hatred. I don’t hate annoying people. They’re not contemptible; they’re just annoying. Two different things.

But as far as the Jews’ bullshit, games, and scams, that’s just them being silly.  All of the rest of us are morons for falling for these silly ethnic games they are playing on us. And if we are falling for their crap, oh well. We deserve whatever we get.

I’m not into Jews’ Endless Victim trip, which is really just Jewish Identity Politics. And I’ll bash Jewish IP on here like I bash any other IP. But I bash all retarded IP’s. Jewish IP isn’t anymore idiotic and nonsensical than all the others. All the IP’s are really the same at the end of the day.

Anyway I don’t hate professional victims. I just think they are complete idiots, and I laugh at them. What sort of a moron spends his whole life wailing about what a victim he is? I hate to use the word, but that’s what a loser does. So all the victim addicts are losers in a sense. They lack the basic pride needed to love themselves enough to not fall into the pathetic victim trap.

Now if your people really are getting fucked over, ok, well, you don’t have much choice. The victim role has been shoved upon you, and owning it is just facing facts.

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

I will go over the standard anti-Semitic line as it has been forged for the last 150 years or so, but first I will discuss other things. Prior to that, antisemitism was based on other things.

Some were silly things like Jews killed Jesus. Except Jesus himself was a Jew, and Christians are literally worshiping this Jewish dude as their hero, but never mind that. It’s really sad how many Jews were probably killed for this BS.

Another silly reason was that Jews refused to convert to Christianity. I don’t understand why that’s important at all much, less a reason to kill a man. Obviously this doesn’t resonate with me.

Others were tragic lies like Jews being accused of poisoning village wells during the plague. That’s just made-up BS; it’s not even true. Sadly, many Jews were murdered for this nasty lie.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were often persecuted due to being the visible face of feudal rule. No one saw the feudal lords. The only face of feudal rule your average serf saw were Jewish tax collectors.

Logically, Jews tended to get killed when the usual peasant rebellions took place, except they pretty much deserved it for collecting taxes for the lords, although the Jewish women, children,  old men, and those who were not working for the lords should have been spared. Anti-Jewish pogroms were very ugly things. You don’t even want to know the details.

The modern form of antisemitism is a racial antisemitism which was founded by a German man named Marr in the 1870’s  who founded the Anti-Semitic League. Yep, that’s where we get the term that everyone likes to take apart as being irrational.

Except words and phrases get to be irrational in terms of etymology. Does “You’re pulling my leg literally mean that?” No? Ok, then why say it? In Spanish, you say, “You’re pulling my hair?” Does that make any more sense? Of course not. See what I mean? Words and phrases don’t have to literally make sense. They only have to mean whatever the people who use them say that they mean. #1 rule of a subfield of Linguistics called Semantics.

Oddly enough, Marr had previously married and divorced three separate wives, all Jewish. Hell, that’s probably why he hated Jews right there, ha ha. The general argument of these “new antisemites” or “modern antisemites” was that Jews are anti-nationalists and basically traitors to the homeland. I’m not sure how valid that argument was or is. The Dreyfus Affair is a case in point of this argument.

A lot of Jews fought nobly in World War 1. During Kristallnacht, many Jews put on their WW1 uniforms and went out and stood in front of their shops to try to protect them on the grounds that people would respect the fact that they were patriots. It didn’t work. They got beat up and their stores got burned down anyway. That’s so sad.

There was an argument that a lot of Jews tried to get out of World War 2, but I’m not sure how valid that is. That’s rather low if they did considering that in Europe anyway, we fought on their behalf.

But my father had two close Jewish friends who he met during World War 2.

One man served in the Pacific with my father in Okinawa and then went to China with him after the war. That trip to China was one of the peaks of my father’s life. He talked about it a lot. It was like this wild adventure.

Another served on the European front in Italy and then in Germany with the Liberation. He was there when the death camps were liberated. The US military said that Jewish soldiers didn’t have to go see the death camps if they didn’t want to, but my father’s friend went anyway. It was bad, real bad. No words to describe how bad it was. So two of my father’s Jewish friends served in the war. Doesn’t sound like a lot of them got out of it.

Later, other forms of rightwing antisemitism formed in the 20th Century with these basic arguments.

  1. Jews are Communists and Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution that killed 90 million billion zillion gazillion Russian Christians!!

This one is funny. I supported the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m practically a Goddamned Commie. Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution? Ha ha, thank you very much, Jews! Jews are a bunch of Commies? It’s not true anyway but if it’s true, thank you very much, Jews!

2. Jews push racemixing and are trying to genocide the White race. There’s actually some truth to this. Jews in the US have indeed been trying to make Whites a minority in the US,  or at least some of them have. Some of them have anyway. As one Jew said, “When we get Whites down below 50%, a Nazi government can never come to rise in the US.” See what they are doing? It’s all about self-preservation. They’re not just doing it be evil.

I don’t particularly care about this either than to note that the Jews are engaging in sleazy double standards as usual.

1. Jews all have to marry other Jews and no mixing is allowed or they go extinct.

2. But Whites need panmixia!

So promote racial fidelity for your own group while promoting racial suicide and mixture for  your enemies. Sleazy. But hey, that’s the way they are.

I figure that if Whites are so stupid as to be conned by this by pissant little tribe of humans called Jews (who are no more important than any other pissant tribe like Chechens, Burushaski, Dinka, Tuareg, or what have you) then we deserve whatever they con us into. I have no sympathy for morons. And if we Whites want to mix away and go extinct out of own own free will, which is apparently the case, well then, that’s own choice.

3. Jews promote racial hatred against Whites,  make Whites out to be the bad guys, and promote non-Whites as glorious, perfect people while promoting Whites as devils. Well, that’s awful rich of the Jews to do that considering that they’re obviously White themselves, except they lie as usual and say they’re not.

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

We’re not White (though we are), and we are non-Whites (except we’re not) along with the glorious Browns, Blacks, and Yellows, all fighting the evil White oppressor (which is actually us because we’re White). Except that Jews won’t date or marry these glorious non-Whites they throw themselves in with. Hell, they won’t even live in the same neighborhood with them.

It doesn’t even make sense logically, but a lot of Jewish arguments are like that.

So, more Jewish scamming, double standards, tribal thinking  – the usual crap. But this game is so stupid. I mean if we Whites really cared, we could probably raise a fuss about all this anti-White hatred, except the Jews and their non-White pals call us Nazis when we Whites ask people to please, pretty please not be racist against us.

Well, the Jews are definitely playing a real low game here all right, but I don’t particularly care about White-bashing and anti-White racism. I hardly deal with it, and I just laugh at any non-White who acts racist towards me because, I hate to say it, I actually do feel superior to them deep down inside at that point when they are bashing my race.

But I can see why any racially aware White person, certainly a White nationalist, would have a huge beef against Jews. They have a right to that beef because from these Whites’ POV, Jews are definitely screwing over their people.

Except I’m not a racially aware White or a White nationalist, so I don’t care.

4. Jews promote civil rights, feminism, gay rights, tranny rights, and all sorts of other civil rights stuff to weaken the moral fiber of White society so the Jews can take over and out-compete the Whites. Well, all of those movements were good ideas at least in  theory, so good on the Jews. And I doubt if they did it to weaken us. They probably just did it out of a strong sense of social justice, which Jews have had for a long time now, and that is very noble of them.

The argument also says that Jews promote these divide and conquer movements among Whites while sparing their own kind. Well, that’s not true. Jewish society is full of some of the worst feminists of them all. And it didn’t use to be, but gay and lesbian Jews are on just about every corner. I assume there are plenty of Jewish trannies too, as Jews seem to go in for anything sexually perverse for some reason.

But then you have (((George Soros))) who goes around to White Gentile countries promoting all of these rights moments, including a truly insane feminist group called Femen, which is his baby. Femen is raising the usual Hell that femikooks anywhere raise, mostly in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when Femen tried to set up a chapter in Israel, (((Soros))) refused to fund it.

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

White Gentile societies need the most divisive radical feminism to turn the men and women against each other (Why do they need this?), while we Jews wouldn’t dare subject our own people to this divisive bullshit.

Ok, this is the sort of thing that the Elders of Zion do in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Promote all this junk for their enemies to divide them while sparing their own kind.

So congratulations Mr. (((Soros)))! You succeeded in being a living example of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes of all! In fact, you appear to have walked right out of the pages of the Protocols, one of the most anti-Jewish books ever written! Brilliant!

Jews act out the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes and then they are shocked! Shocked! When antisemitism logically follows that. They create antisemitism, then they scream and yell about it. That’s dumb, but that’s not a reason to hate them. That’s just these foolish Jews bringing in down on themselves. Why should I hate someone for being self-destructive?

In general, I don’t care that Jews push all these SJW movements, but Mr. (((Soros)))’ behavior is extremely uncool. At any rate, (((Soros))) is not even good for the Jews. The guy’s a one man Antisemitism Manufacturing Plant in the form of a human.

Another thing I want to point out is that the SJW’s are on autopilot now. I doubt if feminism, gay rights, civil rights, tranny rights, and whatever else rights need Jews to push their causes anymore. All the US Jews could take off for Israel or the moon tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that these movements would charge right ahead. That’s because the leadership and bases of these movements is swarming with Gentiles.

5. Jews own the media. Yeah, they do, sort of. And they took it over on purpose. Not to be evil but to protect themselves. And the consequence of this Jewish media is…? What? Other than the Israel-firster stuff, not much.

Further, I do not think the media needs Jews anymore either. The other day, I saw a Canadian paper formerly owned by (((Izzy Asper))), an Israel-firster billionaire who was also a real ratfuck, as you might expect. The paper, The  National Post, is now run by Gentiles.

Well, if you go read that paper, you would think that (((Asper))) never left because the paper reads exactly like it did when (((Asper))) ran it. Still a full-blown Israel-firster paper, but now the Israel-firster articles are all written by Gentiles!

I have seen other papers go from Jewish to Gentile ownership, and not one single thing changes. So I think there is just a “media elite” politics in North America which is shared by all owners, editors, and writers for the MSM, Jews and  Gentiles both. They both push wild SJWism, bash Whites, uphold non-Whites as glorious, and are fanatical Israel-firsters.

6. Jews own Hollywood. Yes, and? Granted, it’s not very democratic, but Hollywood is not nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Many directors and producers now are Gentiles. The Jews still own a lot of the studios, but Gentiles have been forming their own studios lately – Coppola is an excellent example.

Supposedly Jews use Hollywood movies and TV (which is still very Jewish, granted) to push the same stuff – SJWism, anti-White propaganda, reverence for glorious non-Whites, etc. Except Hollywood doesn’t really go along with the Israel-firster stuff, and a number of directors don’t even go along with US imperialism.

And once again, the Gentile directors and producers push all the same themes that the Jewish ones do.  There is a Hollywood elite that has a similar politics shared by both  Jews and Gentiles.

7. Jews make porn. They do. But there are an awful lot of Gentiles making porn now too, right? The industry used to be extremely Jewish in the 1970’s and 80’s – now it is much less so.

But let’s try a thought experiment. All the  US Jews take off for Israel, the moon, Atlantis, wherever. No more Jews. You think the porn industry will go under? Hell no. All the outlets owned by sleazy Jews will be immediately taken over by sleazy Gentiles. Isn’t that obvious? And the Gentiles in porn push all the same sleazy crap: racemixing, Blacks cucking Whites, or whatever.

7. Jews are aggressive, rude, tight, and don’t like non-Jews. A lot of them are. This is particularly the case with the Orthodox and Super Jews like you find in Israel. The more “Jewish” the person is, the more they act in this “Jewy” way. The more assimilated the Jew is, the less they act that way. A lot of Jewish men can definitely be pretty aggressive. The women seem to be less so. After all, they are females.

But that’s not really important. Anyway, exactly how many people actually hate Jews because they are like this? Hell, I know wild Judeophiles who laugh and openly admit that the Jews are obnoxious. And these are people who love Jews.

I’ve also read thousands of antisemites on the web over the years. I haven’t found one yet who actually hated Jews because a lot of them are not real nice. So few if any people are actual antisemites for that reason. I’m sure Jews will call these people antisemites, but they all everyone that.

As far as my opinion goes, at the end of the day, this is just not important. That’s just the petty sociological behavior of a single ethnic group.

Lots of ethnic groups have funny ways of behaving, both good and bad. In many cases, ethnic behavior isn’t important as long as they don’t break the law or seriously disrupt society. Being annoying is nothing. I’m not going to hate some whole race of humans because a lot of them act annoying. That’s a petty issue. It’s hardly a reason to hate a whole ethnic group or race. I imagine most people who feel that Jews act this way feel the same way.

It should be clear now that standard antisemitism is rightwing and has always been rightwing. There’s nothing here for liberals, Leftists, or progressive people.

Alt Left: Tammy Wynette, “Stand by Your Man”

Tammy Wynette, “Stand by Your Man,” from 1968! One of the greatest country songs ever written!

Lyrics, simple but just perfect:

Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You’ll have bad times
And he’ll have good times
Doin’ things that you don’t understand
But if you love him you’ll forgive him
Even though he’s hard to understand
And if you love him oh be proud of him
‘Cause after all he’s just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Tammy Wynette,  “Stand by Your Man” Live. A bit later in her career.

She wasn’t very famous before this, but after this, she was a superstar.

Tammy once said:

I spent 15 minutes writing this song and an entire lifetime defending it.

Exactly.

And isn’t that why this song is just so great?

In 2010, this song was selected by the Library of Congress to add to the National Recording Registry, for songs that “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” In other words, that Registry is for the greatest songs ever written in America!

The Alt Left officially endorses this song, by the way. After all, we are the “Conservative Left” – liberals and Leftists who are at least somewhat conservative on social issues. I’m sure feminists hate the idea of this song, but they can go pound sand! I never knew how great this song was before.

Like most Leftists, I hated this song because it was anti-feminist and oppressed women and all that crap. It was a song for Republican social conservatives. Except it’s not and it wasn’t.

But that was before I had a few girlfriends who actually, literally, stood by their man, meaning me, that is. One was Jewish! Would you expect a Jewish woman to do that? Well, who knows?

The feeling of having a woman who will stand by your side through thick and thin and especially to live her life through yours is one of the greatest highs a man can experience in this life. Better than sex. Better than love. Well, it’s love with an extra helping of chocolate syrup on top, let’s put it that way. But what a syrup that is!

The strange thing is that a woman who truly loves you actually wants to be like this. She wants to stand by her man. She wants to live her life through you. She wants to be dead jealous of you.

I had one girlfriend who was so jealous of me that she used to say, “I will cut a bitch! No woman is getting near my man!” Stand by your man!

She told me she had a tattoo on her ankle, and I told her I didn’t like tattoos. She immediately resolved to remove the tattoo! If my man wants my tattoo off, it’s coming off! Stand by your man!

Hey, I like that! She wants to dress you in the morning, pick your clothes and cologne, watch you shave, iron your shirts, and listen intently to how your day went when you come home. Stand by your man!

I think most of you men on here really do want a “stand by your man” woman. Trust me, there’s no better kind.

This must be a deep-rooted need in women, in tandem with femininity, submission, a need to be dominated, ferocious jealousy in keeping other women away from her prized man. It’s got to be genetic.

If you have ever seen a woman dissolve into femininity (often because she is madly in love with you or very turned on by you sexually) you will see that she seems to melt in place right there. You can tell that she’s in her special place; she’s hitting her sweet spot. Deep down inside, this is where most women truly long to be.

Feminism is a lie. It tells women that femininity is evil and oppressive. Like Hell it is. It’s the life blood of womankind. Take it away and they go nuts. Look at modern women. Look at how nuts they are. They’re having their femininity taken away from them. Of course they’re going nuts. How else would they act? They think this is what they want because feminism lied to them and told them that and believed and fell for it. Of course it was a lie.

Once again, the Cultural Left goes to bat against Nature and the weight of 200,000 years. And once again, Mother Nature on the mound mows down another row of the Left’s pathetic pinch-hitters.

Mother Nature 200,000,  Cultural Left 0.

Alt Left: Final Score – Nature: 200,000, Cultural Left: 0

Tradition exists for a reason. Tradition is the human behavior, morals, norms, values, and wisdom that have withstood the test of time.

Our ancestors were experimenting. Experimenting with human nature and the human condition. Trying to figure out how to run society in the best way possible, given our nature. Tradition is the stuff that was proven to have worked over centuries.

The new stuff that the Cultural Left throws in the face of tradition is the stuff that tradition always maintained didn’t work, a notion they came to no doubt by trial and error. The human experiments, social engineering and wars against nature go on.

This is one great thing I love about conservatism. Classically, conservatism has noticed the endless social experiments of the Cultural Left dubiously. “Ok,” the conservatives said. “You all go off and do your experiments. Just leave us out of it, ok? And hey, after you do it, let us know how it goes, ok?”  But now they’re dragging everyone else along for the ride. We’re donkeys and their pulling us by these damned bridles they forced on us. As usual, it’s not working.

In a sense they are noble, these starry-eyed people of the Cultural Left. These are people who see the ways of nature as limited and backwards. They long for a better world, an engineered one, crafted with pure human intelligence and spirit, adorned with slogans, and enforced with the usual goodhearted social bullying. But one thought is important: these are people who dream of a better world.

These things go on for a bit, and then the reaction sets in, and everyone throws up their hands and wonders why humans keep going backwards. But they’re not going backwards. They’re going home.

You can go to the far ends of the Earth, run as far and hard as you can to escape from the cruel finality of nature, you wake up in Timbuktu, Bangkok, or the heart of Amazon, and it hits you. The crushing disappointment, as heavy as a heart attack. There, rising with the sun to the east, greeting you so horribly, is that fatal reminder: wherever you go on Earth, you’re always back at home. Your home called Nature.

Alt Left: What’s Behind California’s High Housing Costs and High Rates of Homelessness, Poverty, and Welfare Use?

Tulio: Hey RL, just a bit off topic, I was recently reading that California when adjusted for cost of living has the highest poverty rate in the country and that it also has the most welfare recipients.

The Right has been going nuts in the Trump era bashing California and called it a failed 3rd World state that looks the way it does because it’s controlled by Democrats. A lot of that is of course hyperbole, but there is a lot of struggle in California.

I’ve always found this argument a bit specious because there are 15 or so other states where Democrats control the governorship and legislature that don’t have the same quality of life problems. The Right will ignore of course that the majority of high-poverty states are red states.

But there is a question I’m wondering. Is the demographic change of California from majority White to now mostly Latino the reason for these economic problems? It stands to reason that if most of your demographic change is coming from immigrants of a poor country, it will make your state a poorer place.

And this has nothing to do with people voting Democratic per se. If tomorrow 10 million Central Americans immigrated to Nebraska I’m sure you’d see similar issues emerge.

Good question.  This is an excellent hypothesis, actually. I just don’t think there is much of anything to it.

High Cost of Housing: The Secret Behind All of the Problems

The adjusted poverty rate is due to the high cost of housing. Everything else flows from that. What are we supposed to do about it? This is a problem of capitalism. Explain what the state is supposed to do about this housing problem.

I mean we are trying to do a lot of things but the money’s not available for a total solution to the problem. Also our solutions are running into a lot of NIMBYism.

The Homeless Cataclysm

We are fairly kind to our homeless here, so other states kindly put their homeless on buses to California, especially cities like San Francisco. We are trying to deal with this homeless problem as best as we can. What are we supposed to do? The homeless problem is also tied into the housing problem.

Problems of Penal System Reform

The problem is also drugs. Face it, a lot of the homeless are mentally ill or alcohol or drug addicted. They can’t work even if they wanted to. We have decriminalized a lot of drug use here and we released a lot of inmates and reduced a lot of crimes from felonies to  misdemeanors. Also our jails and prisons are badly overcrowded. Hence a lot fewer minor offenders are getting locked up and a lot of them are just roaming the streets instead.

Problems of Drug Decriminalization or Legalization

Everyone says we ought to decrim drug use and I have always tended to agree. But this is what you end up with when you do that. In Seattle, they look the other way on minor drug use and possession, hence there is a huge amount of open drug possession, use, and dealing, a lot of it right out in the open and associated with the homeless.

The drug of choice is often methamphetamine, which can make you act pretty crazy. So you have these crazed meth heads roaming around the streets scaring everyone, certain streets no-go zones due to open drug use, homeless everywhere, even sleeping on sidewalks  where you have to step over them, and rampant crime, mostly petty thievery from stores as addicts steal like crazy to get money for their habits.

I am at a loss to do about any of these problems, sorry. I just want to throw up my hands.

What’s Wrong with Social Programs?

So we have a lot of welfare? Big deal. That’s the state trying to deal with the poverty problem. Good for the state! Keep in mind that to these guys, everything is welfare: Section 8, Food Stamps, Disability, Workman’s Comp, reduced utility bills, on and on.

Serious Limits on What a Mere State Can Do about These Things

We are a very liberal state with a very liberal Legislature that cares a lot about these problems, but they are beyond the scope of the state government to deal with, much less fix. But we are trying our best. Ask these Republicans what we ought to be doing instead.

I don’t think changing from a majority White state to a majority Hispanic state has much to do with it. There is a lot of poverty, here but there is also a lot of wealth. Keep in mind that California has the 8th largest economy on Earth, higher than the vast majority of actual countries. And we’re not even a country. We are just a state.

At My Age, There are Tens of Millions of American Humans Who I Am Never Allowed to Even Speak To

Polar Bear: Key words “hot” and “young”. In certain areas of the modern West, young and hot are off limits to old White men. You’re welcome to a young homely girl or a hot older woman. But combine young and hot and that’s something sacred. A Time to Kill, “now imagine the innocent victim was White”. Today it’s, “Now imagine the innocent victim is young and hot!

Yeah, it’s been going this way for some time now.  Every year it gets worse and worse. Young women and high school girls – forget it. I can’t even say hello, hi, or the most basic things to them. If I do, they look at me like, “How dare you even fucking speak to me! I cannot believe you are even talking to me! I’m going to call the cops!”

Also I am not allowed to even look at a lot of them. Every year, as I get older, young women and teenage girls get more and more hateful. Their hatred of me is almost at psychotic levels now. Maybe I should just quit talking to them unless I get a real go-ahead.

The other day I was in a Starbucks waiting in line, and this female, looked like a high school girl, was after me. We were waiting and waiting. I walked over to her and said, “Hurry up and wait, huh?” She acted like, “How dare you even try to fucking talk to me! I’m calling the police!”

This bullshit is all new. I don’t ever flirt with any girls or even young women in general unless they give me a go-ahead, which almost never happens. I just comment on the weather or the most basic things. I have not flirted with any of these girls or young women who gave me this attitude. I just said something like, “Hello.”

But increasingly they act like I have no right on Earth to talk to them or even in many cases, to look at them! Some are outraged that I even dare to look at them! They act like they are going to call the police for me looking at them.

Unfortunately, most of the other Normie shitheads in my society seem to agree with these hostile little twats, these children, these bratty little  babies.

When I was growing up it was never like this. Adults walked up to us and talked to us constantly. We spent a good part of our time with adults, mostly adult men of course. Adult women didn’t really talk to us very much. But adult men would walk right up and talk to us all the time.

We often went on trips to the beach, fishing, or backpacking with adults, generally adult men. Those men taught us how to be men! I worry that these boys growing up nowadays are going to grow up with zero exposure to adult male role models, and the results are going to be catastrophic.

Back in the day, an adult man or even women could walk up to any kid, especially a teenager, and start talking to them.

Even if an older man talked to high school or college girls, if the stupid little twats complained, everyone, I mean everyone, all women included, would ask, “Well what did he say? What did he do?” As long as he just talked about the weather and didn’t say or do anything sexual, the adults would basically tell the little twat to shut the fuck up.

Somehow now adults cannot talk to kids or even teenagers, or, if you are an older adult, even young adults, ever. There’s no way this is going to end well. Minors are always assisted in learning the roles of life and growing up by adults of both sexes. Now this is all banned except for the parents, who may be just one parent (a woman) in a lot of cases.

I blame these feminist cunts from Hell for all of this crap, along with conservatives, especially femiservitives. But a lot of liberals are on this Pedophile Mass Hysteria too. The whole thing is so ridiculous and absurd, I don’t know what to even say.

The whole idea that there are tens of millions of human beings in my own nation who I am not allowed to make the most innocuous comment to without getting accused of “harassment” is absolutely insane and bizarre.

Alt Left: Why the Liberal View of Black Pathologies Is Not Only Wrong But Leads Us Nowhere

I shouldn’t have to justify myself for speaking of the pathologies of the Black race. Whip out any list of statistics that we keep on important human behaviors. It’s sad. Blacks lag in most of the good things and are vastly overrepresented in a lot of bad things. I’m not racist for saying that. You can go look up the figures you want if you don’t believe me. A few examples:

Black rates of:

Murder                        8X White rate

Robbery                       10X White rate

Rape                          6X White rate.

Children born to single Moms: 3X White rate

We could really go on and on here but I don’t feel  like rubbing it in or kicking a man while he’s down. I’m simply pointing out that looking at obvious, uncontroversial statistics, we have a lot of problems with Black people in our society.

Now that we hopefully have that out of the way,  we get to the meat of this post: what exactly is causing these pathologies?

Mostly I blame Black people for these problems. Look: What’s the reason for  these pathologies?

Three choices:

  1. Evil racists forced a lot of Black people to act terrible.
  2. Bad Black genes make a lot of Black people inherently messed up and dangerous.
  3. Lousy Black culture causes a lot of Black people to act awful.

I reject #1. There’s simply no evidence whatsoever that it’s true. The evidence against this theory is as big as a mountain.

I don’t feel like supporting #2 at the moment, though there might be something to it. Anyway, genes are not destiny.

I’ll take Door #3. But when I do that, I am an evil racist. See?

The only acceptable answer is #1. Project the blame over on Whites, blame Whites for all of this, and wage forever wars against racism that never end because bad Black behavior never ends. The theory says that if Blacks act bad, it’s racism that’s doing it. And Blacks will keep acting bad. As long as they do, there will, by this theory, be a horrible racism problem in the US. Which we need a forever war against.

But what if the theory is wrong? What if it’s not racism that is causing the problem? Then the endless wars on racism are worthless. We are using the wrong cure for the problem. That never fixes anything.

Even if you cannot observe the racism in society (we are getting there), there always must be horrific racism even if it’s invisible. Bad Black behavior proves that. Nowadays you can’t see a lot of anti-Black racism. But it’s obviously still horribly there. Black behavior proves it.

So we get all these theories to explain the obvious racism. How can there be racism if we can’t even see it anymore? Well, it must be invisible. It’s must be “structural racism.” The structures themselves are horribly racist, but we can’t really see it. They just are.

Then there’s all this invisible racism. Turns out Whites have racist minds even if they don’t act racist. Well, those racist thoughts of White people are forcing Blacks to act bad. So White people are thought criminals and need to start thinking differently.

Not much obvious discrimination and hate? Well then, that must be invisible too. It can’t be seen because it’s at the micro level. Hence we have microaggressions. Every little tiny micro-behavior hurts Blacks and makes them act bad.

Well, no matter how many wars on microaggressions and structural racism we wage, they will never go away, since as long as Black people act bad, these invisible racisms will still be there. So we are waging a forever war against something we can’t see, isn’t even causing the problem in the first place, and will always be there, no matter how hard we fight it.

On Niggermania, Chimpout, and Other Racist Humor Sites

Apparently laughing at racist jokes makes you a racist. I don’t know about that. I mean some awful humor is really funny, right?

The guys at Niggermania and Chimpout are basically awful people. And everyone on there is damned racist. To any Black people on this site – trust me, they are not your friends!

However, I did used to go there for a while because they were so damned hilarious. I mean I might feel guilty for laughing, but that stuff was damned funny. Sure, a lot of it was cruel, but it wasn’t murderous or genocidal. They were mostly just ridiculing Blacks and definitely looking down on them. They regarded them as hilarious objects of derision.

However, the overall mood there was not particularly hateful in most of the humor forums. It seemed like they were laughing too hard at Blacks to get into really vicious and malicious hatred of them. Have you ever noticed that when people are rolling on the floor laughing, even if they are ridiculing someone, it seems hard for them to hate that person? Laughter seems to dissipate brutal hatred and vice versa.

Unless you are a gleaming-eyed sadist, it seems that you are either laughing or hating, but you can’t really do both to a full extent. The more you laugh, the more the truly vicious hatred seems to take a back seat. It’s like if you let that brutal hatred in, you wouldn’t be able to laugh so hard.

Also when you are laughing at someone, you aren’t taking them seriously. It order to destructively hate someone, it seems that you have to stop laughing about them and start to take them very seriously. Real  hatred is not a laughing matter. It’s serious stuff. Do you follow?

There was a feature called Nigger World Tour on one of those sites. I forget which. It’s not what you think. It’s a tour, travelogue, or guide to the Black countries of the world. And face it, a lot of them are pretty screwed up. That was one of the funniest things I’ve ever read.

Those sites are not White Supremacist. WN’s keep trying to join but the sites keep shooting them down by saying that they only dislike Blacks; they don’t dislike other races. There are quite a few non-White anti-Black racists on there. There are some Asians and Hispanics on there, and there is a rather shocking number of Indians on there. I get the feeling that Indians really don’t like Black people.

It feels bad to pity Black people, but it’s sad how many other races don’t like them. On the other hand, maybe that’s a warning sign that too many Black people don’t act real great. I mean where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

If only a couple of other groups hated Blacks, we could chalk it up to other things or unreason. But when the dislike extends to all sorts of different groups that don’t have much connection to each other, it’s hard to make the case that all of the animus is utterly irrational, which is the anti-racist line of course.

Racism in general is immoral for sure, but a lot of it is not entirely irrational. Do you blame Israeli Jews for hating Arabs? I am pro-Palestinian and I utterly despise Israel and don’t think much of the Jews who live there, but one must look at this fairly.

If you are a Jew and you live there, Arabs are people who are trying to murder you. I have a hard time not disliking people who want to murder me, sorry. I don’t care how much I deserve it. If you want to murder me and would definitely do it if you could get access to me and carry it out, I’m sorry. I’m going to hate y’all.

On those Black humor sites, I would laugh my ass off and then feel guilty. I do have a confession to make though, and I really hate to say it. It felt damn good to laugh at Black people. Now I don’t want to laugh at my Black friends because I like them, they act good, and I don’t like to belittle and ridicule my friends. Why did it feel good to laugh at anti-Black humor?

It’s like with women in the post recently. I’m a liberal. I’ve been a liberal my whole life. I’ve never felt a lot of overt hatred or dislike for Black people, even when I should have when I taught in the ghetto.

I used to joke that at the end of the school day, I was ready to join the KKK, but that wasn’t really true. Also most of the Black teachers and administrators were fine people. Even some of the Black kids were perfectly ok, especially in high school. The lower grades acted a lot worse.

But the hatred was mixed in with pity. I really got the feeling that some of the younger ones could not control themselves. There was one intelligent 10 year old boy who I kept having to discipline. I started to feel sorry for him after a bit because it seemed like he could not control his boisterousness and jack in the box activity. It seemed like there was something wrong with him, at least at that developmental state.

So why did laughing at those sites feel so damned good. As a liberal I am not allowed to feel much hatred, rage, or even anger at Black people. I simply don’t experience that, even when reading about vicious Black crimes. It’s like I’ve been immunized not to think that way.

But I am absorbing all of that tidal wave of bad Black behavior anyway. And apparently it’s been pissing me off, even though I don’t experience it much cognitively. I either suppress or even repress my rage. At any rate, I push it down inside of me, bury it. In psychology, some think that you don’t really bury anything. Instead you’re just putting a lid on a boiling pot.

Obviously any of your interred stuff tends to come out in dreams. But it can come out in other ways. Suppression and repression are like putting a lid on a pan of boiling water. You think you are going to stop the boiling action by capping it, but really all you do is delay it, and sooner or later, the suppressed boiling action bubbles over the lid of the pan.

After pushing all that anger down, I get exposed to this anti-Black humor, and all that bottled-up rage that I stored up as a liberal unable to express anger towards these people came pouring out. It felt very good, like a pack of rocks had been lifted from my shoulders. It was also a harmless outlet for this bottled-up anger because I won’t allow myself to express it in any other way.

I realize sites like this are wrong, but racist humor is like bullying and a lot of other unpleasant and probably permanent aspects of being human. It’s not going away. So what to do, then?

I thought hey, why don’t Blacks make sites like this making fun of us Whites in a similar way? As long as it wasn’t too vicious, I would  probably laugh at it. Paul Mooney’s humor is very anti-White, but I roll on the floor every time I hear him. He spears us Whites hard and deep, and damn if we don’t deserve it.

I haven’t been to those sites in a while, as I feel too guilty to go there.

Repost: The Scarlet Letter of Modern White Society

I can’t believe this was written nine years ago! This is a repost of an old post on this site that people are still commenting on in its new locale on this new site.

I am trying to think hard how I feel about this. There are definitely some White men who feel this way. They are racist but not obviously so. If you knew them you would not notice it. Also it seems that things have changed in the past nine years.

It’s still not common for White women who have Black boyfriends or husbands, but it’s becoming quite common for White women to have sex with Black men for some obvious reasons that you could figure out if you put on your thinking cap. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of stigma against White women at the very least having sex with Black men.

I live here in the barrio – hood, and it’s fairly common around here to see White or Hispanic women with Black men. They have often had kids with these men. The kids are mulattos. Further you see more and more mulatto adults aged 18-35 around here. Or maybe Hispanic-Black or Hispanic-Black-White, etc.

At least among the poor, this sort of thing is quite common. Poor people don’t seem to care much who they have kids with and anyway, and even the worst Black culture has a good reputation among a lot of poor Whites and Hispanics around here. Wiggers and spiggers (higgers?) are everywhere.

I remember when this was first published and tulio, a commenter, objected to the piece. What I am wondering is if it matters what sort of Black man the White woman is with. I was told that even normal racist Whites (there’s a normal, typical casual racism common to most older Whites) might say to his daughter, “If you bring a Black man home here, he better be Sidney Fucking Poitier!”

Most White families with accept a Black man like Mr. Poitier as a partner for their daughter. I would think that the Black men who we Whites see as acting more or less like us would be acceptable with a White woman.

But there is a sort of less civilized Black man who we really don’t want to see with our women. I think you catch my drift here. Anyway, if Tulio, Greg, or Phil want to get with a White woman, I don’t think most Whites would have a problem with that. If the guy looks like he’s straight outa Compton, it’s a whole new ballgame and probably most White families and White men will not be happy about that.

It’s not a red A but a red B that many White women must wear in White society. It means she dates Blacks, and to many White men, she’s no longer White. If you look White and you act White, you’re White. These women have broken the second rule. Though they look perfectly White, they no longer act White, so they have been expelled from Whiteness.

An Asian commenter who is upset about Asian women dating White men and abandoning their race was somewhat comforted when I told him that we White guys, to a lesser extent, deal with the same silliness from our women:

fpy: Rob, so you’re saying that a white woman will, if she’s going to outmarry, choose an unemployed ghetto hoodlum over an Asian guy who makes good money from a software engineering company?

Of course. But mostly she won’t marry him, she’ll just date and sleep with him. But she won’t give the Asian guy the time of day.

Don’t lose any sleep over it. Why do women do this? Because in some ways, women are lousy Just recognize that women are lousy in some ways, and accept it and that there is nothing you can do about it, and then you will be happier and start to feel a lot more peaceful.

What much of White society does, even White racial liberals, White liberals and White Leftists, is draw the line at White women who date Blacks. For a lot of White men, that’s a supreme violation, and White women who do that are excised from the White race. I know many White men who tell me that they will not touch a White women who they know has a thing for Blacks. In this way, even liberal White society is still quite racist.

I actually don’t mind this too much, but I don’t practice it myself. It’s OK because it disciplines our women. I think we should allow them to date tulio and Car Guy (commenters on the site) type Blacks no problem, but when it comes to the ubiquitous more or less Black thug/semi-thug type, the shunning is a great idea.

Most of these White guys don’t lose any sleep over the issue. They tell me, “I don’t care about White women who go with Blacks. It’s only a certain type, and most don’t do that. To me, those women are simply lost to us, and I won’t touch them, so they don’t worry me one bit.”

These guys simply expel these White women from the White race, move on, and don’t get all upset it. Maybe it’s something Asian guys should consider?

Truth is it’s a certain type of White women who likes Blacks. Obviously, she’s the polar opposite of the Jewish/Asian women selecting for Einsteins. The White woman who likes Blacks likes jock type guys. A lot of women like jocks. Blacks are the ultimate jocks. But a lot of White women don’t go for the jock type, so this interracial dating is somewhat limited.

Black guys go on and on about how much better they are in bed than White women and how they treat White women better. I think that’s a bunch of shit. How many different ways are there to penetrate a vagina? What’s involved? Is it some sort of an Olympic sport?

So I won’t grant them that one, plus for sure they don’t treat White women better. In general, they’re abusive, controlling, possessive, and super-aggro. Lot of sick chicks like that. That’s called a masochistic woman. Leave the sickos to their neuroses.

In deference to Black men’s egos, I will say that they are better than Whites in a couple of ways:

1. Sports! Yes, they’re the ultimate jocks, and if there were as many jobs in sports as there are in White collar jobs, Blacks guys would be cleaning up and living large, that is if they didn’t blow every paycheck as soon as it hit their palms. But give credit where it’s due.

2. Rap! Yep, Black men are the ultimate talkers and the world’s premier charmers and bullshitters. Women are pretty stupid (as in gullible), and they are always falling for charming liars and sweet-talkers. Black men probably tell White women what they want to hear. They talk the talk. Women like that. They fall for the talk, even if the guy’s an abusive semi-thug.

Also, a White woman is a jackpot for a Black man. Even an unattractive or fat one will be treated like a queen because he’s so happy to have her. Homely and fat White women are everywhere in White society.

Most White women in their teens and 20’s are going for the Alphas. The Alphas are ~15% of the White male population. They’re pretty much all taken, and by age 30, 85% of White women lost out. These women are too good for Beta White men. By now they’re furious at White men because these women could not score the Alpha.

Plus no matter how fat or homely they are, like all women, they want to be worshiped like Jackie Onassis. Most White guys, if they get with a fat or homely woman like this, will say, “Hey, you’re ugly! LOL! To make things even worse, you’re fat! LMAO! Now get over on that bed right now.” This is the painful and crushing truth, and if you are a fat or homely woman, you should expect to be treated this way. But being treated like this makes these women angry.

A Black guy will treat even fat and homely White women like they are angels fallen from Heaven.

Another thing going on here is revenge. I have a Yahoo group that is full of single adults. Many are middle aged.

At one point, the group was full of angry single middle-aged White women. They were furious at White men, livid with rage, and like most women, they didn’t make sense.

They particularly hated macho White guys, and they took an ultra-feminist stance. They belittled, attacked, and castrated the White men in the group. Whole mobs of them engaged in regular episodes of what they called “ball-busting” of White men. They were also furious that White men were macho pigs who did not treat women right. Later I found out that a huge number of these women were dating Black men. Who, of course, treat them much worse than we do.

None of this female behavior makes much sense, but women are unfathomable in the best of times.

Alt Left: Some Dynamics of Black and White Cultures in the US – Culture Clash and Hellscapes

Blacks will never understand White feelings towards them because they did not grow up in our culture. If Blacks grew up in White culture, and yes, it is absolutely a thing despite what the White self-haters say, Blacks would have figured this out a long time ago. More than anything else, it is a set of values. Fairly strict and serious values, not as serious as the Asians, but pretty damned serious, especially with very strict rules about politeness, appropriate behavior, and whatnot.

If you consistently go below the bar in White culture, people will get in your face, scream and  yell at you, cause huge scenes in public. Scenes in public are outrageous in White culture and either mean someone is deranged or someone is in horrible violation of codes.

If you consistently violate the moral rules of White culture like 50% of Blacks routinely do, in White society, you will literally be thrown out of restaurants, stores, and homes, and people will make big scenes when they do it.

People will even start retaliating against you – throwing rocks at you, stealing your stuff, vandalizing your property. Someone might leave dogshit on your front porch. And you are cruising for a bruising too. You simply going to get hit if you keep this up.

For this reason, there are multitude of things that “You just don’t do!” in this nonexistent White culture of ours. A lot of the time it is too strict. I was fired from a job for taking a sick day on the 10th day of a new job. The response from the depraved Normie faggot boss who fired me: “You just don’t do that! You just don’t do that!” But I was sick.

Whites do not look at “Black culture” because there is no such thing. There are various Black cultures here in the US, maybe 20-30 of them. Quite a few are functional. Alpha has shown me this and I am very thankful to her for that. I will be indebted to her for this for the rest of my life.

But there are certain Black cultures, mostly urban and modern, which fall into the rubric of ghetto or low class Black cultures. Perhaps 50% of Blacks live in cultures of this type.

They are different but they all have certain things in common. In these cultures the sort of behavior that will very quickly make you persona non-grata in any White community is done habitually, casually, on a daily basis without a thought in the world. And that’s when they are acting pretty good.

When they are acting bad, which is very regularly, their behavior is off the charts menacing, criminal, dangerous and often deranged, unfathomable, or simply insane.

In White communities, we don’t deal with much open criminal behavior. Armed robbery and homicides are rare. We feel safe most of the time. We usually don’t feel menaced except by a few psychos and punks who everyone hates.

Black cultures in the US have six times more crime and eight times more violent crime than White  societies. You can’t expect Whites to not notice or react to discrepancies like that! But if we notice it we’re evil!

Blacks never grew up in our White culture, so they will never understand what sort of otherworldly violations of our moral and politeness cultural rules so many Blacks engage in as automatically as breathing.

Further, those of us who are liberal are concerned. Bad Black culture mostly impacts Black people. Antiracists literally don’t care about how these cultures holocaust their own Black communities because even to acknowledge this fact is racist in and of itself. For these Blacks, mention of the facts above are all bad PR, so it’s like the problems are not even there.

Blacks get their pride and ego hurt by the truths of Black culture and behavior, so they shut it all down, deny that these truths exist, project the bad Black behavior onto Whites, and claim that Whites are the awful, criminal, evil people. This stuff is Psychology 100.

But we White liberals care so much more than antiracist types about the devastating effects of Black cultures on Black people themselves than antiracists do. To us it looks like a Holocaust. We see how many Blacks are horribly victimized, damaged, traumatized, assaulted, robbed, beat up, shot at, and even murdered by their own culture. Our sympathy is with these Black victims.

Antiracists literally do not care about these victims because to acknowledge them hurts their feelings, so it’s off the table. Fighting evil racism is more important that acknowledging the truths about Black cultures and showing sympathy for these urban battlefields full of wounded and killed Blacks that their own culture causes. Fighting racism is more important than the Holocaust of Black victims of their own cultures.

We want to help the victims. We want to ameliorate the problem. We look out there and see Black society at large as a clusterfuck, a public health crisis (the Black victims are actually a public health crisis in and of themselves), and near warzones. You can’t expect liberals not to be concerned with literal warzones as bad as Iraq in our big cities.

Mostly this does not affect us because we are not victimized by it. 90% of the victims are Black. We care about these people – care much more than antiracists. It breaks our hearts.

We are appalled. And we are shocked. Shocked that these conditions exist in our society. It’s a black eye and an embarrassment.

Because this is a clusterfuck and a holocaust of Black people, some liberals care. It’s obvious that there are problems here.

This caring means we are literally evil.

We are not pessimists. We do not think this situation is genetically doomed. We are trying to figure out why it happens and make some suggestions for improving this matter – in order to save Black lives, preserve Black bodies, make Black cities livable, and to keep so many Blacks from being victimized.

And for this, the antiracists condemns us. Why? It’s embarrassing. It hurts their egos. It’s humiliating.

Well, we care more about helping all those Black victims than we about the hurt egos of antiracists, sorry about that.

Alt Left: I Guess Gay Marriage Wasn’t Enough

All right, this is just stupid.

You knew the Cultural Left would never stop with just gay marriage, right? Of course you did. Well, here ya go. This woman wants to marry two guys at once because these three adults all live together and all fuck each other. The two men both fuck the women and both of the guys fuck each other too.

Both of those guys look pretty damn faggy even though they are apparently bisexual. I got some news for you: I’ve known quite a few bisexual men. Bisexual men are often pretty faggy. They’re a lot more effeminate than straight men but in general not as effeminate as gay men.  And some are just straight up full-on masculine.

Most of them are basically just straight guys with a mild interest in men that they indulge in on a lark or as a perversion or kink. A lot of others definitely lean gay. And there are quite a few young gay men, even in the Current Year, who continue to hide under a false “bisexual” label. I’ve worked with a couple of them as a counselor.

In addition, there do appear to be some men who are “pure bisexuals” with a strong interest in both men and women. They’re usually not all that faggy but they can be a bit “soft.” A lot of them are studs who rack up scores of female lays. Some have three figure lay counts. Sometimes I wonder if their bisexuality is just a byproduct of their general hypersexuality.

Anyway guys, you don’t want to hang around with bisexual men. Like gay men, they never leave you alone, never stop trying to fuck you, and never take no for an answer. They’re like the guys the #metoo women complain about who don’t understand the meaning of no.

What sort of a woman is actually turned on by faggy gay and bisexual men? I will never understand this.

The Alt Left is for liberals and Leftists who think the perverse situation above in addition to being nonsense is something that should never be legally (or I would argue socially) sanctioned.

We probably do not have a lot to worry about because long term menage a trois’ – either two men and one woman, or more commonly two women and one man – are notoriously unstable and tend to last only a short while before blowing up, often with a lot of drama. Our culture hasn’t perfected the Mormon or Arab polygamy style yet.

Alt Left: Transsexual Insanity

An example of transsexual insanity.

All right, I confess that I prefer women with pussies or vaginas over women with dicks or penises. Even though women with penises/dicks don’t even exist. I still say that even if they did exist, I give thumbs down to that. If I wanted to fuck humans with cocks, I’d go gay or bi.

A woman with a cock just isn’t a woman to me, sorry. It’s like those drawings you got when you were a kid, “There is something wrong with this picture? Can you spot it?” I can. It’s the woman with the dick. That’s in the picture, and yeah there’s something seriously wrong with that.

If you wan to know what the Alt Left is about, the Alt Left is for liberals and Leftists who think this quote above is ridiculous nonsense.

Alt Left: Banned from Alternet Again

Actually not banned but a lot of my posts got removed. I think I set it off with a post about the Brock Turner rape case along the lines of my post earlier. Then the commenter went through and vindictively removed every single comment I had made that way no matter what I said.

I have a hard time imaging a liberal man being so emotional, but liberal-Left “men” are hardly even real men anymore. They’re humans with male bodies who think and feel like women. They’re actually much worse than women themselves because at least women and nice to look, you can fuck them, and the sensible ones can be quite a bit of fun. There’s no benefit to the male feminist at all. He’s a pussy, a cuck and a gender traitor all at once. Hang ’em high!

On the other hand it may well have been a woman because that emo vindictiveness – removing every post I made just to be a cunt – is classic female behavior. An enraged woman is as good as blind. And the last time I got banned was for criticizing the Epstein case and calling the “victims” things like “little teen whores” which is precisely what those junior strumpets were.

Moderator is probably a feminist woman.

I’m trying real hard to decide who I hate more – American conservatives or American liberals. I really want to like the liberals because I basically am one from back before the movement got body-snatched, but they keep punching me in the face! And you hit a man enough times, and he might just start hitting back, you know. That’s just human nature.

Conservatives are fairly friendly but American conservatives are like…let me think of a good description…”retarded howling apes on PCP.” How’s that?

Blocked you, jackass. If you can’t figure out that “finger-banging” a woman when she has passed out and thus cannot give consent is rape, I don’t know what to say.

I never said he didn’t rape her. I just said it was difficult case. This guy is a flaming SJW faggot with his gay rainbow colors flying high for everyone to see and cheer on his glorious career in sodomy. I’m not against gay men if they were born that; in fact, I cheer them on. But I really hate SJW fags. They’re as bad as feminists or BLM or any of the rest of the Cultural Left scum.

A friend of mine is a bit of an Alt Left gay man. He’s my age. He calls himself a conservative but he’s actually a Marxist! He’s just a conservative Left type like me, left on economics but somewhat right on social issues. He calls these types “gay libbers” the old name for gay liberationists, the first name of the pro-gay movement in the West.

He also hates faggoty pride parades and all the rest of the in your face Gay IP disgusting nonsense. He says, “We gays all just need to get married and move to the suburbs and live just like all the regular normal people there.”

I cannot agree more with that statement.

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Alt Left: Nothing Worse Than a Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat sites I am banned from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Real Reason the Racist Right Won’t Shut Up about the B-W IQ Gap

I’ve been around this rightwing racists and their favorite science for a very long time now, and I know them extremely well. I have spent years on their forums and websites like American Renaissance, and in fact, I still comment there sometimes. I was for a time on an acquaintance basis with some of the top names in the field.

These were the “nice” suit and tie, classy racist types, and we emailed back and forth for a while. One thing I will tell about these people is that they are very classy. In all of our emailing, I did not hear nigger, spic, gook, or any other nasty racist slurs. The “nice racists” don’t talk like that. You see, they are too classy for that. But whether that makes them better people is debatable.

I won’t tell you any names because these people have become prominent now with Trump in office, and they are being called White Supremacists in the media and bashed to Kingdom Come.

Well, at the moment I would rather disassociate myself with White Supremacists for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is PR and covering my ass. Plus I don’t really believe in or resonate with that sort of yucky hardcore racism. It turns me off and it feels disgusting to even read it. It’s gross.

I read The Bell Curve and all the arguments against it. I know more about this question than probably anyone you will ever meet. I am acquainted with some of the top names in the intelligence field, and we communicate from time to time by email.

So trust me when I say that the text below describes 100% of the reasons why racist people, mostly Whites, love to jump all over the B-W IQ gap question, while the rest of us feel a bit queasy and nervous when we bring it up, as if we are being impolite (which we probably are).

These people have banners up on their websites about quests for the truth, how truth is the most important thing in science, and how all scientific truths must be examined. Well, they don’t really believe that. They are not involved in some dispassionate, non-biased, non-prejudicial search for the truth. There’s a very nasty political goal behind all of this perfectly valid yet uncomfortable science.

They really don’t give a damn about science at all. They just say they do because their race, the Whites, looks good when scientifically compared to a number of other races. So they get all sciency because the science gives them a shot of pride and boosts their chauvinism. If Whites had come out behind, these people, if they existed, would be bashing away at the science and talking about how biased it is.

The science here seems to uphold their nasty racism. Which why they suddenly love science so much!

But there’s more here than just vanity and prejudice. There is a very ugly politics lurking in back of this science. You see, these racists think that they can use this science, once it is proven mind you, to implement a variety of political projects that they are desperate to introduce. And it just so happens that all of those projects are hard rightwing conservative ideas.

Which is why, if you noticed, almost 100% of White nationalists and even garden-variety White racists are hard conservatives or Libertarians. Some of them go a lot further and say that when the B-W IQ gap question is decided in favor of genetics this will be the death of the Left.

So this is their ultimate weapon to destroy liberalism and the Left once and for all. Now personally, I don’t think even if this uncomfortable idea becomes a truth, it will destroy the Left. It will make our job harder, that’s for sure.

But one of the reasons that I founded the Alternative Left was to come up with a Left response to the uncomfortable scientific truths about race. In other words, what should be the agenda of the Left when it is determined that race is real and important (race realism)? What do we say? What do we do?

Below is a very nice summary from the Right that I found on the Internet about why the racist Right loves the B-W IQ gap thing so much. This is why they can’t stop talking about this rather rude question:

IQ differences between the races matters because it provides an alternative explanation for racial differences in education, income, social deviance, etc. that the Left would rather attribute to racism.

If IQ is primarily based on genetic factors, it also means that most Leftist policies such as affirmative action or racial quotas designed to “fight racism” are not going to be effective because they cannot close the IQ gap that is a primary cause of racial gaps in achievement.

Similarly, if low IQ is related to poverty, then Leftist welfare policies designed to “end poverty” will also be ineffective in the sense that they cannot boost the IQ that is the cause of the poverty. Thus IQ threatens the Left’s very mindset (i.e. racism explains everything) and the “problem solving” toolbox in trying to achieve their desired equality of results.

I will discuss this ugly politics which is what is really behind the racist Right pushing this controversy so hard in a post in the new future.  You hear them yelling, “Hey, we’re just unbiased scientists! Don’t be so mean!”? Well, just forget about that.

But trust me folks, this is what it’s all about. This is how the racist Right intends to use the science of race realism. Which leaves a very cynical and bitter taste in my mouth.

Alt Left: Who Are the Neoconservatives?

White nationalists say the neocons are just a bunch of Jews who go around the world meddling  in the foreign affairs of other countries, fighting wars for the Jews, and starting all sorts of other conflicts and aggressions. As with most things, it’s not completely true at all, but there is a kernel of truth there that the stereotype is based on.

It’s not true at all that all neocons are Jews, as neocons have now merged with Cold Warriors, Monroe Doctrine enforcers, and plain old US imperialists – in other words, the standard US militarized financial imperialism which constitutes our only observable foreign policy.

The neocons have now merged with the Cold Warriors who destroyed Central and South America in the 1980’s and 1990’s as part of a fight against Communism (which was really a fight against any sort of socialism in our hemisphere). Of course this militarized, belligerent, menacing, psychopathic US foreign policy is there simply to serve the interests of the US rich (mostly investors) and US corporations.

When you join the army, you are joining the Army of McDonalds and Microsoft, and you will fight and die for General Foods and Exxon. The Pentagon is simply the military arm of the US corporations. It’s their own private army. The US military hasn’t done anything good, decent, sensible, or non-psychopathic in a long time now.

You’re not fighting to defend American shores from aggressors. They never attack us anyway. But like all bullies, we constantly complain that the weaker nations we beat up on are always on the verge of attacking us. So neoconservatism in one form or another is now official US foreign policy of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Trump has thrown a wrench in that somewhat, as he is at heart an isolationist.

All of the Democratic candidates for President, even Sanders, are more or less neocons. So all of the liberals and Leftists in  the US government are actually neocons. All Republicans are obviously neocons, as the original neocons were Jewish conservative Democrats who converted to Republicanism under Reagan.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate I can think of who is not a neocon. Ro Khanna, a representative from Silicon Valley, is also not a neocon. And the much-hated Squad of Ayanna Pressly, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Omar Ilhan are not only not neocons, but they are openly critical of US imperialism.

Indeed the original neocons were absolutely very heavily Jewish, as they came out of early 1970’s Jewish pro-Vietnam War conservative Democrats around Scoop “The Senator from Boeing” Jackson. They were reacting against the  counterculture and the Democratic Party.

They saw the Democrats as being taken over by the Counterculture, who they saw as dirty, lazy, drug-taking, dissolute, promiscuous, poorly groomed and dressed, anti-Israel, pro-Soviet Communists and traitors. This was an  often older and definitely generation of Jewish men (really a bunch of squares) who were outraged by the Counterculture, particularly the important role that many of their fellow Jewish men (in other words, hipsters) had played in it.

The split between conservative and liberal Jews goes way back. Just looking at New York, the original Jews who came there were very poor, and they organized on a very pro-worker basis as proletarians and poor people.

They were very leftwing and in fact were responsible for much of the growth and prospering of the US Left for the last century.  This is why it is hard for US Leftists to get very antisemitic, despite constant blathering on the Right about “leftwing  antisemitism,” which for all intents and purposes, barely exists. Our movement has a huge debt to Jews for their important role in creating and nurturing it.

Most of them continued to be liberals, liberal Democrats at least, but a number of others were socialists and even Communists.  The blacklisted accused Communists of the 1950’s McCarthy hearings was significantly Jewish, as were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for spying for the USSR.

However, during this time, a smaller group of conservative Jews also arose. These were the landlord types in New York City who rented apartments to these poor leftwing Jewish workers.

A lot of the agitation of these leftwing Jews was around rents and abusive landlords and slumlords (in other words these very landlords among others), many of whom were also as noted Jewish, and these Jewish landlords were not too happy about the constant well-deserved lawsuits and complaints the Jewish leftwing tenants filed against them as owners of these buildings.

To this very day in fact, 70% of New York City government housing is often leased to Jews, that is when the Catholics have not gamed the market, in which case, they get 70% of that housing market. So you can see there is open ethnic warfare in the New York housing market between Catholics and Jews, both of whom have badly rigged and corrupted the system.

I hope all you Jews out there are proud of yourselves for engaging in ghetto ethnic warfare behavior. You can see why the assimilation of the Jews was a progressive project from the moment Napolean opened the gates of the ghettos and the blighted, ignorant, superstitious Jews staggered out into the light of real society. This is how they act when they’re not assimilated. And this is why Israel, by definition a land of unassimilated Jews, acts as awful as it does.

The archetypal figure for these rightwing Jews organized around this landlord class was the attorney Roy Cohn, a closeted homosexual who was also one of the nastiest American public figures of his time.

US Jews had never cared much about Israel, but the 1967 War threw all of that into stark focus, as the US Jews saw the existence of the Jewish state as threatened. US Jewish support for Israel skyrocketed after that war.

Like the Senator they crowded around, they backed strong military support for Israel, a massive arms buildup, and ramping up of the Cold War against the Soviet Union (some had been Trotskyites earlier, but the revelations about Stalin in the 1950’s ended that affair). They didn’t care much about social issues.

There is even an early publication from 1973, a monthly magazine, that is said to be the first neocon publication. They prospered under Reagan, hibernated and plotted secretly under Clinton, and grew much more bold under Bush when they plotted the Iraq War in 2003.

Anyway, White nationalists despise the neocons as what they see as a bunch of Jews forcing our government to meddle in the internal affairs of other lands and getting us into a lot of useless, unwinnable wars, many of which they refer to with some justification as “wars for the Jews.” And they don’t feel like fighting and dying for what they see as a bunch of muds anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy reading!

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

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

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

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

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

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter I – The New Working Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such policies should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III – Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter V – Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8chan Is Still Up

Here ya go, folks.

8chan.

And you can even see the notorious pol board which has everyone so up in arms.

pol/.

I’m not sure how many boards either 8chan or 4chan have. I thought at one time that 8chan has ~1,800 boards, but I could be wrong. The main thing is that there is no such far rightwing board called “8chan.” No such thing. 8chan, 4chan and the rest simply host scores or hundreds of boards ranging over every possible subject you can think of. All of the problems are coming from one of those boards, pol/, which stands for Politically Incorrect, not politics like Net “experts” say.

So really the whole problem is with one single board, which is indeed a White nationalist / White Supremacist / Nazi board.

There are some other boards like b/, which stands for Random. There are some Nazi and White Supremacist posters on there, but a lot of their enemies are on there too, and there are many people talking about things that have nothing to do with that subject. b/ is not some radical rightwing racist board. It’s just a board where anyone of any ideology or belief can post whatever the Hell they want to.

But there are other boards dealing with everything under the sun. In addition, there are quite a few Leftist or liberal boards, and they absolutely hate pol/ and want it shut down. But if you shut down 8chan, you shut down all those anti-fascist Leftist boards at the same time. Get it?

Even pol/ is rather misunderstood. Yes, posts have been made announcing attacks on there, but posts have also been made on Facebook announcing attacks. I suppose you can announce a coming attack anywhere you wish on the Internet.

All such posts are taken down by 8chan quickly, and this post was taken down 15 minutes after it was posted. 8chan also cooperates fully with law enforcement in terms of turning over IP’s of anyone doing anything seriously illegal on there. That was a condition of them staying up. 8chan is run by some guy in the Philippines who has no particular politics at all other than hating the government and an absolute commitment to free speech.

I saw the post that was taken down. There were several responses, all attacking the poster for his post announcing the attack. Most responses were saying “Hello FBI” or calling him a Fed.

There were a few pol/ threads after the attack that I looked over. Probably 80% of the responses were either condemning or criticizing the attacker or calling each other feds or Jews. ~20% were supporting it in some way or another, but often in a rather subtle way, like, “A Jew killed 20 Mexicans. I think I like Jews a lot more now.” This was based on a mistaken idea that the shooter was Jewish.

Criticisms of the attack included people saying that they opposed murder, that the shooter killed 20 “nobodies” when he should have been killing those responsible for replacing the White race, how stupid it was for a 21 year old White man to throw his whole life away on something this stupid, how this will backfire and just result in more deplatforming and and victories for the other side, how they should be trying to convince people of their argument rather than murdering people, etc.

There were a few posts saying, “Kill feds. Kill Jews. Kill Muds.” These posts were generally mass attacked as being posted by either feds or Jews.

Others were saying, “Hey look, we are in a war now whether you like it or not. You need to pick a side. You’re either with us or with our enemies.” These posts got a lot of criticism.

This wildly conflicted and somewhat subdued response was in marked contrast to Brandon Tarrant’s shooting at the mosque in New Zealand  which killed 47 Muslims. The pol/ response to that attack was wide cheers.

As you can see, the responses to these attacks even on the virulent pol/ board are all over the place, and the vast majority either condemn the attack or call other people feds.

8chan went down a few days ago, but then it came back up for a while. What you see now is a somewhat archived version of 8chan, as the last post on any board was 8 AM August 5, not quite 48 hours ago.

They will obviously come back just like The Daily Stormer did. Incidentally, the Daily Stormer has a new policy that anyone directly advocating violence gets an instant ban. It’s still a ferociously racist site, but it’s not openly calling for any violence.

To me shutting down these sites is a fool’s errand. These people are under the mistaken impression that you can kill an idea. It should be obvious to anyone that you cannot kill an idea.

Speaking philosophically, ideas are not even objects, a constant source of discussion in philosophy. So they’re not even real, actual things that you can see, hear, touch, hold in your hand, etc.

One wonders if ideas even exist at all. They are simply these nebulous things, not even objects, that float around in human brains, often going from brain to brain. They’re not even on the level of an electron or quark. We can actually see that those things exist on some level.

We have no idea if an idea even exists unless some human with a brain tells us it does. Can you see, hear, touch, or hold an idea in your hand? Nope. In fact it is very hard to tell if an idea even exists at all except that someone tells us they have one in their brain, and there’s no way to prove even that, as they could be lying.

I really want to know exactly how these people are going to go about killing an idea. Do they have machines that search inside the brains of all of us humans, machines that can spot all of these nebulous idea-things floating about in our heads, reading and decoding them, somehow isolating the bad ones, and then zapping the bad ones with some laser ray?

What else are they going to do? Are they going to put people in jail for having an idea? They can’t. Are they going to put people in jail for propagating an idea? They can’t do that either, thank God.

If they shut one site down, ten more will pop up. They will end up with an endless game of wack-a-mole. The sites will move to the Dark Web (when you go to Daily Stormer, you are going to the Dark Web), and there’s no way to shut down anything down there or even to tell who’s running any site or who anyone posting anything even is. Even the FBI can’t crack the Dark Web, as it’s un-crackable.

There are quite a few bulletin boards up all over the Net that support the Islamic State and other Islamist guerrilla groups. People working against these organizations have chosen to leave these sites up so the groups can be easily monitored. You enemy’s not going anywhere just because you want him gone, and the number one rule of warfare is to know your enemy. That goes all the way back to Sun Tzu.

How do you kill an idea? You don’t. But you can fight an idea, and no you don’t fight an idea by shutting down everyone who has it. You fight an idea by countering its message with the opposite message, one that points out that the idea is bad and wrong and that people should abandon it for those reasons.

If White nationalism and White Supremacism, particularly in their armed forms, are such terrible things (and I do think they are wrong), the people who hate these ideas need to forcefully make the case that these concepts and ideologies are wrong and bad and should be abandoned.

There’s another silly concept floating around. It’s the idea that these armed White nationalists want to start a race war. I’ve got some news for everyone. The guys on pol/ are right. It’s too late for that by a few years already. The war’s already here. It’s already on. It’s happening right now.

You can’t stop an existing entity from starting. Is it time to pick a side? Maybe so, or you can always go neutral. I will choose to oppose these maniacs because killing people because of their race, religion or ideology is just messed up. I don’t agree with the morality of it.

Alt Left: Is Anti-Semitism Leftwing or Rightwing?

Antisemitism has always been a rightwing, conservative, and even reactionary philosophy. Paranoid Jews who scream anti-Semite every ten minutes like to go on and on about leftwing anti-Semitism, but there’s never been much of it.

They usually lead off with Marx’s On the Jewish Question, supposedly an anti-Semitic work. Except that it isn’t. Marx as Jewish himself. His father was a rabbi for Chrissake.

And he was no self-hating Jew. He didn’t care about them one way or the other. The article is an attack on the Jewish religion in which he says Judaism essentially boils down to the worship of money. There’s a lot of truth to that statement.

The paranoid Jews then go on about anti-Semitism in the USSR, of which there was little. In fact, the penalty for anti-Semitism in the USSR was the death penalty. Yitzhak Rabin, former Israeli Prime Minister, said the USSR was the most Jew-friendly state ever. It was “anti-anti-Semitic” as he put it.

The Jewish accusations go into the lamentable Rootless Cosmopolitan campaigns of the early 1950’s, but these were set off by Zionists and not Jews. Nevertheless, they were anti-Semitic in effect.

Then they mention the Doctors’ Plot in which several of Stalin’s Jewish doctors were executed for planning to poison him to death. Jews have always maintained that this was an anti-Semitic frame-up. But there is good evidence that such a conspiracy not only existed but may have killed Stalin.

There have been a few other cases of Left anti-Semitism, but they’re mostly outliers.

The nonsense about Left anti-Semitism all comes from the pro-Israel crowd, heavily Jewish but also including many conservative Gentiles like Trumpian Republicanism.

You can certainly hate that shitty little country without hating the Jewish guy next door. I mean he has no involvement in Israel’s crimes. So he supports Israel? So what? So do 57% of Americans, overwhelmingly Gentiles. You can’t go around hating everyone who supports something unpleasant. You’ll die a hermit.

Conservatives from the 1920’s on traditionally opposed liberals, hated Communists, and were deeply worried about the modern movement which waged war on much of traditional family values in the West. An anti-Semite who does not go on and on about “Jewish Communists” or Jewish Bolsheviks is a rare bird.

These tropes are the leading edge of anti-Semitism to this very day, although anti-modernism and anti-liberalism are also very strong and are often tied together as a war against cultural liberalism, said to be a Jewish creation.

Anti-Semitism has always been conservative if not reactionary. There’s never been much in the way of Left anti-Semitism. Marx said a few things, but he was not an anti-Semite. The early anarchists had a few sharp words, but the Jews in the Pale had behaved badly for centuries, ruthlessly exploiting the Gentile peasants who lived there.

Anti-Semitism has a very long pedigree in Russia, and Russian Jews return the favor by being some of the worst Jews of them all. Many are simply criminals. The Russian Mafia was 1/3 Jewish when Jews were 3% of the population. Russian Jews delight in drinking Bloody Marys, toasting each other while proclaiming that they are drinking the blood of their Christian enemies. Nice people.

There was a temporary anti-Semitic phase in the USSR and Eastern Europe after Stalin died in the anti-rootless cosmopolitan campaigns. This had started even when Stalin was alive.

Stalin was not an anti-Semite – indeed, he had a Jewish wife – but he did crack down of Soviet Jews. People asked him why and he said, “But you do not understand. It is not that they are Jews. It is that they are all Zionists!”

The USSR supported Israel at the start, but Israel quickly turned to the West, and the USSR logically reacted badly to this. Many East European Jews, while forming significant parts of the postwar Communist regimes, also spied for the West against the Soviet bloc. The Israeli media crowed about this when it was revealed after 1989.

So Stalin had some reasons to be suspicious. And he may indeed have been poisoned, and if he was, it may indeed have been by his doctors, who were mostly Jews. You see Stalin’s anti-Zionist campaign had infuriated Soviet Jews.

The argument of the Doctors’ Plot in which Jewish doctors were accused of a plot to poison Stalin was that these doctors were doing this as revenge for Stalin’s anti-Zionist policies. Some of these doctors were executed.

It turns out they may have not gotten them all though because a good argument can be made that Stalin was later poisoned to death by his own physicians. The poisoners were said to be Jewish doctors.

There is some anti-Semitism on the Russian Left, especially in the Communist Party, but it just a symptom of a larger societal infection.

There are some anti-Semites on the Arab Left, which they try to disguise as anti-Zionism.

However, as one who was active in PFLP (an armed Palestinian Marxist group that fights Israel) circles in the US for a while, I can tell you that a lot of these people were simply anti-Semites. Granted Jews had not been very nice to their people, but their anti-Semitism was way out of line. For instance, most of the PFLP people I knew were Holocaust deniers.

There is a lot of anti-Israelism on the Left, especially the Western Left, but it’s more anti-Israelism than anti-Semitism.

I’m an Israel-hater myself. US Jews aren’t squatting in Palestine, so I don’t understand why they’re relevant to the Israel issue, except that they tend to support Israel, but most folks support their people anyway, so they can hardly be blamed.

There is little true anti-Semitism in the Western pro-Palestine movement. The people who run it are hard Leftists and people like that are very sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism.

The movement is heavily policed for anti-Semites, the most notorious of which are rooted out and tossed out of the movement. The Solidarity Campaign gets called anti-Semites 50,000 times a day anyway by hysterical Jews merely for being anti-Israel. No point adding to that and worse, giving their enemies ammo by moving into real deal anti-Semitism.

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

Jason Y writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more reason why SJW’s suck.

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

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

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

Alt Left: Teaching Little Children to Be Gay

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