Alt Left: Why I Hate the Judicial System So Much

I despise cops, DA’s, courts, jails, prisons, probation officers and the whole vile, despicable system.

Of the above, I think I hate DA’s most of all. I also really hate federal police, even the FBI. The FBI is not cool at all. If they just focused on arresting very bad criminals it would be one thing. But they undertake blatantly political prosecutions all the time, indicting foreign citizens on US charges solely for further US foreign policy, as these are citizens of the countries who we say are enemies.

Check out COINTELPRO if you think the FBI is ok. And they never stopped doing that either. They said they shut it down, but it’s really still going on but underground. In these cases, the government pursued blatantly political prosecutions of US dissidents all the way up executing them (check out Fred Hampton). The FBI also covers up for the crimes that the CIA commits on US soil, including homicide.

Yes, I know we need the people above sometimes to protect us from criminals who actually harm us, but we have far too many laws, and 70% of them should be wiped off the books. Every year there is a whole slate of new laws on the books to criminalize more and more of our lives. They’ve already made half of normal daily life illegal. I guess that’s not enough as they aren’t satisfied.

The government needs to butt the Hell out of our lives, in particular our sex lives. Far too much of our normal sex lives is open to prosecution by the judicial system. That’s ridiculous. What business is it of theirs? I feel that for most problems (70% of laws) people simply ought to be left to sort out their problems on their own. Why are police involved in interpersonal disputes between one person and another? What business is this of the state’s? Butt out.

In particular, many of those either do not victimize anyone or is quite dubious that the “victim” was harmed in the slightest bit by the crime.

In some cases, the “victim” is the government or society. Excuse me. I never realized that “the government” or “society” was a human being! Did “the government” or “society” get PTSD as a result of this crime against it? Did it need therapy for decades as a result of the crime? No? Then why is this even a law in the first place.

In this sense, I am quasi-Libertarian, though I do want to keep many laws on the books, far more than the Libertarians do. I particularly do not agree with complete decriminalization of drug laws and a complete deregulation of business or the capitalists. And this would also be the Alt Left position. We are in a sense Left-Libertarians.

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: 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: Praise for the Conservative Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: A Conversation about the Plague Called Modern Feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn't Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.
It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!
Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.
Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.
Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!
So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.
You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.
A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.
In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.
Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.
Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.
To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.
Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.
This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

The Strange Links Between Antisemites and Rightwing Zionists

Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.
In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies.
I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon.
You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe.
British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O
ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around.
Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg.
Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum.
The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between.
The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality.
There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals.
They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones.
The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks).
The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such.
All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades.
On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only.
The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human.
There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data.
Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews.
Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew).
A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish.
Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah.
North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them.
The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers.
People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans.
I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.

Amazon Is Out to Kill Your Business (and Your Job)

Here.
I am starting to think that this company is an out and out menace. Their CEO Jeff Bezos is a real piece of crap, a radical rightwing Libertarian like so many awful IT CEO’s.
But worst is that Amazon’s model is apparently to replace every business in US and become a single corporation, WorldCo apparently, that has a monopoly on most business in the US and maybe later on the world.
No matter what your business is in the US, Amazon probably has you in its sights sooner or later.
Amazon is a menace.
 
 
 

How Those Hip, Groovy, Cool IT Capitalists Are Actually Some of the Worst Capitalists Ever

There was this idea that the Internet capitalists were somehow going to be different from the rest of the capitalists. The Internet guys were cool, hip, groovy and right on.
The truth is that the IT capitalists have actually turned out to be some of the worst capitalists of them all!
The brick and mortar model is far better for consumers than horrific ecommerce, where consumer abuse is the name of the game, and customer service is a nonexistent concept.
Ever noticed that if you ever have a problem with a product, you can always take it back to the brick and mortar store and get the matter cleared up to your satisfaction? That’s customer service at the brick and mortar level. It’s almost always superb because in brick and mortar, the customer is always right.
Because ecommerce has severed the face to face ties that humanize and create the great customer service model at the brick mortar level, the motto in ecommerce is the customer is always a sucker to be milked, ripped off, and hung out to dry. Ever tried to get your money back on software? I have. Suppose your software simply does not work. It’s happened to me. Too bad there are no refunds! I mean maybe there are refunds, but good luck getting one because all software companies have destroyed the notion of customer service. There simply is no customer service desk at most IT corporations. There’s no such thing.

A Rogue’s Gallery of IT CEO’s

Look at the examples.
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, and a truly horrible human being. Amazon’s corporate culture is one of the worst in the US and for the life of me, I do not know why anyone would work at this modern day IT salt mine there unless they were a masochist. Bezos orders all higher level employees to be at each other throats all the time, and everyone is trying to backstab and sabotage everyone else so they can steal that person’s job.
Quite a few people said that working for Amazon ruined their mental and physical health. The warehouse workers are horrifically abused, worked like whipped pack animals and forced to work in sweltering heat until they collapse. They are poorly paid and are frankly some of the worst-treated workers in America today. Psychopath Bezos delights in this dog eat dog law of the jungle atmosphere, as he feels that this is what has driven his company’s success. That’s dubious to me. At any rate, what of the human tool?
Bill Gates’ behavior when running his corporation was about as sociopathic as any career criminal.
(((Steve Ballmer))), his second in command, is an obvious psychopath and a terrifying man.
(((Ralph Ellison))), CEO of Oracle is an extreme narcissist and all-around lousy person. He’s basically a Libertarian like so many capitalists.
(((Mark Zuckerberg))) of Facebook out and out ripped off the idea for Facebook from a fellow college student he developed it with while never giving his partner a nickel.
If you study enough of these guys, you will notice how many of them stole their way to the top.
Microsoft stole just about every piece of software they ever developed. They violated endless patents. They cheated and backstabbed every single company that partnered with them. They tore up and violated every legal contract they ever signed. Bill Gates was the Ted Bundy of the IT corporate world.
Scott MacNealy, head of Sun Enterprises, was hero of the new geek Net culture. MacNealy slyly made use of monopoly law to go after Microsoft, and that was a very good thing. On the other hand, MacNealy was a Libertarian like so many capitalists, and it was clear to anyone that MacNealy was only anti-monopoly because a monopoly was ruining his business and would have loved nothing more than for Sun, victim of  monopoly, to become a monopoly itself and victimize its own rivals.
Even Steve Jobs was said to be an awful boss, a tyrant who terrorized all of his employees. He was an A-1 asshole of the first degree.
The founder of the Adultfriender dating site Andrew Conru ran an extremely amoral business, was an extreme psychopath and was hated by everyone who worked for him. His site, like most dating sites, is run on an organized crime model. For one thing, overbilling is standard practice and not an error. The FTC has issued at indictment against the company for systematic billing fraud. The overwhelming majority of dating sites and almost almost 100% of the sexually explicit ones are nothing but criminal enterprises run by organized crime masquerading as legitimate businesses. The vast majority of the CEO’s of dating sites belong in prison for fraud. The whole industry is incredibly enough run on an actual Fraud Model.
Former founder and CEO of Uber (((Travis Kalanick))) is a narcissistic psychopath and a sexist to boot. His corporate bro culture is horrible to their female employees, and the corporate environment is toxic and terrifying. Uber drivers are terribly abused, dishonestly called independent contractors, receive no benefits whatsoever, and are often paid below the minimum wage.
You could always boycott Uber and try Lyft, but Lyft is almost as bad as Uber.
Let’s hear it for the new sharing economy! Hip, hip, hooray!
Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, is a monster of a man with truly horrifying political views. He believes society should be ruled by an aristocratic elite, no doubt especially Internet billionaires, has a near-monarchical view of the state and displays a profound hatred for democracy, which he wants to phase out as it gets in the way of aristocratic royalist billionaire rule.
Elon Musk is no good. All you decent humans need to quit idolizing this capitalist POS right now. He’s the latest groovy businessman that everyone loves and idolizes.
He is very smart, this is true. He has some good ideas, this is true.
But have you seen how he runs his factories? Workers at his factories have long complained of severe abuse by management. The rot starts at the top with Musk and extends all the way down. They are poorly paid, seriously abused, and not allowed to from unions. Musk has arrogantly refused to even look at these problems and insists that they do not exist. He seems to have contempt for his own workers like so many capitalists. This guy is not the latest Tech Age groovy billionaire idol of humanity. He’s just another piece of crap capitalist like all the rest of them.
 

Anatomy of a Conservative Lie: China is a Capitalist Country

Conservatives and reactionaries keep saying that China has adopted capitalism. What a stupid joke that is. All conservatives lie, no exceptions. There is no such thing as an honest conservative. I have never met one in my life. Conservative ideology is based for the most part on lies, though some Libertarians are quite honest.
For the most part, conservatives lie like they breathe. Conservatives literally need to lie to live.
Let me tell you something.
China is one of the most Communist or socialist states on Earth today. Fully 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned, and it does extremely well. Much of the very high economic growth has come from the public sector.
How on Earth can conservatives say that China is capitalist when 45% of the economy is state-owned? How ludicrous. But realize that all public firms in China operate on the profit model. They all compete with each other, so you have a steel mill run by one city competing with a steel mill run by another city. Many of the fastest growing industries are run at the municipality level.
China’s fully state-owned firms also do very well. In fact, they do so well that Republicans say that China’s public firms are “not fair” because American capitalist corporations can’t compete against them! The reason is that China’s firms get subsidies from the state. Poor capitalist corporations! They’re too inefficient to compete against Communist state owned firms. Poor babies!
Do conservatives realize that the state owns every single inch of land in China? How on Earth is that possible in a capitalist country? Capitalism is primarily based on the private ownership of land. No private ownership of land, no capitalism. Real simple.
I would also like to point out that the Chinese state spends an absolutely incredible amount of money on its people. Since 45% of the whole economy goes directly to the state, they have a lot of money to spend. And they spend it very wisely too. As I understand it, US capitalists believe in a minimal state, and there is nothing they hate more than state spending. Huge state spending is seen as wasteful tax and spend policies by all capitalists on Earth. Wherever you have massive state spending, you do not have a capitalist system. But I would like to thank conservative and reactionaries for praising China, the finest example of modern Communism!

No Conservatives Allowed on This Website!

We have had a few conservatives posting here in the past few days. These are US-style conservatives, which are the worst kind of all. US-style conservatives are absolutely banned from posting here in any way, shape or form.
Conservatism means different things in different countries, so conservatives from much of the rest of the world (except Latin America and the UK) can continue to post. Even Canadian conservatives can continue to post, as I do not mind them. It’s not conservatism itself that is so awful. Almost every country on Earth has people who call themselves conservatives, and there are conservative parties in almost every country on Earth. But being a conservative just about anywhere outside of the Americas is more or less an acceptable position for me. I probably won’t like their politics much, but I could at least look at them and say that this is an opposition I could live with.
US conservatives and their brethren in the UK, Latin America, the Philippines, Nepal and and Indonesia are quite a different beast.
I have to think hard about conservatives in Eastern Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. These fools had such a bad experience with Communism that they went 180 degrees in the other direction. I would have to see the positions of these conservative parties in those countries to see whether they would be OK or not.
Just to give you an example, Vladimir Putin is considered to be a right-winger, and his party United Russia advocates a politics called Russian Conservatism. Looking at the party’s platform, this is not only a conservatism that I could live with but one I might even vote for!
Conservatives in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and most other places in Asia are acceptable. The conservatives in the Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia can be rather awful, particularly in the nationalist sense, but I will not ban them.
I dislike Indian conservatives, but I will not ban them.
Conservatives from the Muslim World are all acceptable. In the Muslim World, conservatism just means religious and sometimes nationalist. I can live with that. Even the ones in Iran are orders of magnitude better than the US type.
Conservatives in the Arab World are acceptable. They are mostly just religious people.
Turkish conservatives are awful, but I will not ban them. They are just religious and a particularly awful type of nationalist.
African conservatives are OK.
Conservatives in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany,  the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania are sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad, but they are all acceptable here. Conservatism in Europe mostly means nationalism. I am actually rather fond of the conservative running Hungary, Orban. LePen conservatives leave something to be desired, but they are acceptable. They’re mostly just nationalists. Hell, I might even vote for Marine LePen! If it was down to LePen versus Macron, I would absolutely support LePen!
Conservatives from Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines are not OK. These are an “everything for the rich elite, nothing for anybody else” type of conservative. Some of them even hide under the labels of Socialist or even Communist.
The word conservative has no real inherent meaning. It means whatever people say it means.
Anyway, the conservatives in the US are pure garbage and recently they have become out and out fascists after moving in that direction for a long time. And a particularly horrible type of fascist at that, a Latin American/Filipino/Indonesian style fascist. I will not allow any US conservatives to post on this board. You all are lucky I even let you lurk here. That’s an idle threat as I can’t ban lurkers, but if they all stopped lurking, I would not mind frankly.
You all really ought to go back to the gutters you crawled out of.
PS This especially applies to Libertarians, the very worst of all the US conservative vermin. We shoot Libertarians on sight here, so you better watch out.
*This applies only to economic conservatives. If you are not an economic conservative, and your conservatism is only of the social variety or you are only conservative on race, religion, guns, law and order, respect for tradition, American nationalism, the military, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity issues, you can stay. I’m not crazy about some social conservatives, but I can live with them. I will probably even let patriotards post as long as they are not economic conservatives.
I am an American nationalist myself. I just don’t like patriotards. Of course, I very much dislike and even hate the country as it is right now, but I sure don’t want to make it worse! I have to live here too you now, and it might as well be as pleasant as possible as long I stay here.
I want what’s best for my country. I don’t want to harm this country or screw it over. That will be bad for me! And believe it or not, most US patriotards do not want what is best for the country! I have dreams of a greater and better America. It’s not impossible, but we will have to undergo some serious cultural changes. One of the reasons I am so against illegal immigration is because it is ruining my country and making this place even worse. Also illegal immigration is terrible for US workers and I am for the workers. I am against H-1B visas for the same reason – they are wrecking my country. IT workers are workers too, so they are my comrades. I want what is best for America and American workers.
I cannot live with economic conservatives. I like cancer way more than I like US conservatives. Cancer is much more decent and respectable.

Left-Libertarianism, Agorism, Counter-economics, etc. and the Alt Left

Generally I would say that there is no place at all for Libertarians of any stripe in the Alt Left, however, I recently ran across a fellow who wants to be Alt Left while linking to Libertarian sites. He says he is a Left-Libertarian into Agorism, counter-economics, etc. Well, I had to go and look those up, but what I came up with was that I am pretty dubious over all of this. First of all, this guy was linking to your typical rah-rah ultra-capitalist Libertarian webpages. Also Left-Libertarian heroes are people like the toxic (((Murray Rothbard))) and the naive but deluded (((Karl Hess))). They fall into the same individualist anarchist camp as Lysander Spooner and the rest of his poisonous ilk.
So how can there be individualist anarchists on the Left. I would say that there cannot be. An Individualist Anarchist Left seems like an oxymoron.
They get away from the, “Hey you guys are just anarcaps,” accusation by saying that they differ from Rothbardians in that the Rothbardians and Randists love capitalism, and Left Libertarians don’t (!?). Instead of loving capitalism, they love something called “the market.” I believe that is called a distinction without a difference. Weasel words.
They want to get rid of the state too. They throw out the same tired Libertardian arguments about how the only problem with capitalism is the involvement of the state in it. This results in something called crony capitalism, and getting the state out of the economy will “free the market” to do all its invisible hand magic tricks.
The problem is that all capitalism turns into crony capitalism in time. That is the nature of capitalism. Just as in all capitalism, the state ends up being taken over by the rich and the largest capitalists, nowadays called corporations. There’s no way to avoid that either. If you like capitalism, you have to settle for crony capitalism and bourgeois (rich and the corporate) rule. You can’t have capitalism without these things not because they are essential for capitalism to exist but because all capitalism develops these characteristics over time with the consistency of a nearly mathematical law.
Also they believe in something called voluntary transactions between members of the community. The whole idea that some poor Dalit peasant and the feudal landlord he rents land from in a debt slavery arrangement are entering into some voluntary transaction among equals must be some sort of a sick joke. Chomsky has made remarks on these lines.
Counter-economics sounds horrible. By this they mean that they venerate the Black Market. Actually, black markets cause nothing but endless problems and return almost no revenue to the state or society. They are almost literally poisonous, not to mention all the crime and violence that tends to go along with them.
Kevin Carson is a well known Left Libertarian, and while I feel that at his heart he is a good man, he is definitely one deluded fellow. I also feel that most of these guys have some sort of bizarre and near crazy hatred of this evil thing called “the state.” There is nothing wrong with the state per se. Sure, it gets taken over by the rich and corporations rending its role nearly moot, but that’s not a problem with the state as a formation, that’s a problem with capitalism.
Carson seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He is a good Leftist fellow, yet somehow he thinks that by doing away with the state, we will create some leftwing paradise. Which ain’t gonna happen. Do away with the state and you get Syria, Libya, Somalia, Mad Max and Road Warrior. You also get warlord rule because if the state won’t assume the reins of power, I assure you that some warlords will. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially a leadership vacuum.
I am quite suspicious of all of this Left Libertarian stuff, and I am wondering if there is a role for them in the Alt Left.

Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.
I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.
I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.
I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.
It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.
I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.
As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.
Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.
So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.
An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.
An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.
(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.
(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.
Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.
In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”
(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.
(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.
(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.
(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.
(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.
(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.
However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.
(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.
(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.

What is the Future of the Alt-Right/ Dark Enlightenment?

My Quora answer.
At this point, it can only grow. No one in the movement is going to leave, and obviously quite a few are going to join. All of the people appalled by them were never going to sign up anyway. They have a lot of publicity now and they will only get bigger in the future. A couple of other comments follow.

The question seems to be worded as though those things were synonyms. They are not. The Dark Enlightenment (DE) is a scientific critique on the fundamental premises of The (so-called) Enlightenment: specifically that human liberty and equality are unalloyed goods. Since it is obvious that human (racial, sexual, religious and ethnic) equality is patently false, and that liberty is not an unalloyed good (e.g., offering fertile opportunities for the rapacious to profiteer off the poor impulse control or future time orientation of others), the DE is not going to go away. While politically inconvenient truths about matters may be suppressed for a time (cf. heliocentrism), it is expensive and indeed a sign of collapsing legitimacy.
The “Alt-Right” has really come to mean the non-mainstream Dissident Right. It is a loose, often tumultuous, alliance of a wide variety of anti-progressive particularists—including paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, neoreactionaries, anarcho-capitalists, separatists, southern nationalists, white nationalists, ethnic nationalists, identitarians, and even a few national socialists. It has no essential nature, therefore, to conform to, no central control, and cannot act in a coherent manner.
Various arms of the Dissident Right have their own plans to create institutions, and propagate their ideas in various ways. Some seek power within the existing political structure. Others see themselves primarily as Samizdat organizers.
If the progressive neoliberal establishment continues to collapse both the psycho-social and economic health of Western nations, dissident movements of all sorts may be expected to continue to attract followers, financial backing, and a modicum of power.

An excellent overview of the Dark Enlightenment, although I suspect he is whitewashing it. From what I know about the Dark Enlightenment as envisioned by Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land, British “accelerationist” British philosopher, it is not something I want anything to do with. In fact, it seems like my and hopefully most of your worst nightmare. I would say that if the Alt Left is about anything, it is about Enlightenment values, so this would right away put us at odds for opposing the Dark Enlightenment.

Dim obscurity. While a few events recently have brought them to the front, their ideology is toxic to the majority of people, and that will lead to them back to the fringe. There’s no real future, especially as more and more people learn that “alt-right” is largely a synonym for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The new branding will not change the outcome.
I expect they’ll remain a nuisance online. But any sort of intellectual or cultural influence? Extremely unlikely.

This fellow seems to feel that the Alt Right will become a collapsing star and black hole of hatred and nihilism after burning so bright after a brief flash in the spotlight and the camera clicks. I am not so sure about that. How many Alt Righters will say, “Whoa, this movement is neo-Nazi! I never knew that. I’m out of here!” About zero. Everyone involved in this movement knows exactly what it is all about and none of them are taking off. I assume that there are quite a few newbies out there who would love to sign up. They ain’t going away anytime soon I am afraid.

Alan Greenspan the Libertarian Ayn Rand Acolyte Who Wrecked America

And for all you anti-Semites out there who like to see Jews as society wreckers, yes, Alan Greenspan is a Jew. Sort of a Murray Rothbard (Jew), Frederick Hayek (Jew), Ludwig Von Mises (Jew), Ayn Rand (Jew), Milton Freedman (Jew), Jeffrey Sacks (Jew) type, but a Jew nonetheless. What that has to do with anything, I have no idea, but I know that Libertarianism, like Neoconservatism, is a largely Jewish philosophy or at least a movement that was birthed by Jews, like a number of other 20th Century movements. Now what Libertarianism has to do with the Jews or how it benefits the Jews, I have no idea.
I do know that Jews are radicals. They are always trying to upset the apple cart or redraw the circle no matter where they are on Earth. They’re sort of “born revolutionaries” people with “fanaticism in their hearts” as both Cicero and Voltaire noted.
Kevin MacDonald also noted that Jews tended to be attracted to extreme, radical, or revolutionary movements and that Jewish politics tended to be characterized by a sort of fanaticism. This was noted over a century ago in the ghettos of Galicia. Those Jews were dirt poor, but they were still susceptible to fanatical politics usually cooked up by rabbis and then driven to greater and greater extremes by people fanning the flames. There was also a tremendous amount of “totalitarian” peer pressure applied (calling people self-haters) such that most Jews, even those leery of the Fanaticism Du Jour, eventually were brought into line.
Jews are also sort of born rebels, which may be the same thing as born revolutionaries.
As a Jewish girlfriend told me when I suggested that,

Yes, we are always rebelling. We rebel, the rebellion gets crushed, lots of us get killed, we don’t learn our lesson and then later we do it again, and the cycle repeats.

Jews were staging revolutions as far back as 2,000 years ago with the wild and fanatical Maccabee Revolt and the even more fanatical, suicidal vicious and brutal Bar Khokba Revolt.
From the Net:

The Warning” – Alan Greenspan’s deployment of Ayn Rand’s version of Austrian School objectivism, libertarianism, and its catastrophic moving aside of regulation.
Very few people wanted to take him on because he knew so much more than they did and if he didn’t he certainly appeared to. Alan Greenspan was looked-upon as the great Wizard – nobody understood what he said, but he said it in such a way that everybody bought it.
It started back in the Ford Administration.
Alan Greenspan was a financial consultant who was hired by Gerald Ford, first to be head of his council on economic advisors in the 1970’s

…he had made himself rich on Wall Street and embraced an unusual guru…Any Rand.
Greenspan is a disciple. She is the great champion of government as a destructive force that just gets in the way.
Rand, “I am opposed to all forms of control, I am for laissez-faire, I am for a completely free unregulated economy…let me put it briefly, I am for the separation of state and economics.”
He had a very clear ideology. His philosophy was in the form of what would be called “libertarianism”
Those who do well prosper, those who do not fail and the market clears the transactions.
It was a philosophy made to order for Ronald Reagan.
“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” – Reagan
in 1987, Reagan made Greenspan the most powerful banker in the world.

Greenspan was a believer in Ayn Rand, a believer in free market, a little bit curious for a central banker because what is central banking? It’s a massive intervention in the market, setting interest rates.
Greenspan worried about the contradiction, he knew that he was sworn to abide many laws of the land which he believed to be wrong…“I had long since made up my mind to engage in reforms of capitalism as an insider, rather than as a critical pamphleteer.”
He intended to do as little as he could in terms of regulation and he proceeded to do just that.
…The Chairman of The Federal Reserve (a regulatory body that now had at its head a Chairman opening its gates)

When Clinton was elected, he asked Alan Greenspan to stay-on.
Clinton also announced that he would “ask Robert Rubin to serve as the assistant to the President for economic policy.”
The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton’s administration: The act did away with the separation of commercial and private banking – allowing investment bankers to use private money, to gamble with the money of private citizens.

Rubin was the best known financier at that point because he had run the legendary Goldman-Sachs.
Bob Rubin was Clinton’s emissary to Wall street and Clinton placed a great deal of trust in Bob Rubin’s knowledge of financial markets and financial regulation.
He had an enormous amount of credibility because he was a business success; and Democratic administrations always seemed to worship people who could excel in business.
And at the White House and as Treasury Secretary, Rubin found an “unlikely” ally.

Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan had very similar views on Wall Street: it boiled-down to ‘the less regulation the better’
Rubin populated the White House with a network of free market true believers; including Timothy Geitner and Larry Summers.
“The market will take care of everything and regulation will be counter productive.”
Brooksley Born, regulatory interventionist:
Clinton was presented with the opportunity to hire market interventionist Brooksley Born as Attorney General of The US but hired Janet Reno instead. He is said not to have hired Born because he found her “boring.”
Born was given a role of running the obscure CFTC (Commodities and Futures Trading Commission) …. from there she remained a representative of regulation and was invited by Greenspan to lunch.
It didn’t take long for Born to realize that she and Chairman Greenspan were not going to see eye to eye.
He said something to the effect of, “Brooksley, we are never going to agree on fraud.”
She said, “well what do you mean?”
He said, “You probably think there should be rules against it.”
She said, “Well, yes, I do.”
He said, “You know, I think the market will figure it out, and take care of the fraudsters.”
Brooksely Born, as a derivatives expert, saw the catastrophe ahead and tried to challenge this and Rubin told her that she “didn’t understand the law”
SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt had been personally lobbied to shut Born down in her challenge to this.
And then it was Alan Greenspan’s turn:
He was adamant that this was a serious mistake, that it would cause significant damage to the financial services market and that she should stop.
Rubin, Greenspan, Levitt attack..
They were believed by Congress, 90% of whom did not know what a derivative is, they only knew that these (((guys))) seem very smart and they say that if we do this it will be a disaster.

Born responds, “we’re trying to protect the money of the American public, which is at risk in these markets.”
She had no support anywhere.
They banish her powers.
In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis it would be hoped that people would see what went wrong and say, “let’s fix it”…but…it may well be that we’ve passed that critical moment and the necessary reforms will be much more difficult to come by.

Born concludes, “I think we will have continuing dangers from these markets and we will have repeats of the financial crisis of 2008 ..they may differ in details but there will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap, over and over until we learn from experience.

Robert Stark, Rabbit, & Alex von Goldstein talk about Radical Centrism, Cultural Elitism, & Gore Vidal

Here.
Great new show. It looks like Rabbit of the AltLeft website will be one of Stark’s regular guest-hosts now, so it looks like Stark’s show is becoming at least in part an Alt Left (and Radical Center, see below) site in addition to being the Alt Right site that it has long been known as. I don’t think Stark himself is all that Alt Right. He seemed too sane and liberal, I have known the guy a long time, and and he was never a very racist guy a far as I could tell. Stark is still Alt Right I think, but he leans more towards the Radical Center wing and maybe even towards the Alt Left sometimes.
Rabbit sort of has his own wing of the Alt Left as opposed to my wing. Rabbit is more into pro-White stuff and race and he doesn’t really care about the Cultural Left. It’s not that he’s a Cultural Left guy himself, but I think it is more than he just doesn’t care about feminism, gay politics, and whatnot. But Rabbit would surely reject modern anti-racism as should any sane person frankly.
Rabbit associates with open White nationalists on radio shows and honestly could even be seen as one himself, although he’s probably the nicest WN I’ve ever met. He seems to be somewhat lined up with Greg Johnson’s West Coast White Nationalism. If you don’t know what it is, go research it as I do not have time to get into it here.
Johnson is definitely a hardcore White nationalist. He’s also openly gay. And now there’s Milo. And Jack Donovan’s been here a while. What’s with all these gays being attracted to the Alt Right? Color me somewhat disturbed. There’s been a nasty reaction to the gay bar that’s opened up on the Alt Right. I listened to a very scary Nazi type woman do a podcast on Bathhouse White Nationalism, ranting on and on about faggots and queers and this and that. She was smart as Hell and funny as barrel of ticks, but she left me with a disturbed taste on my lips. I almost wanted some Scope.
My wing is more explicitly about economics and maybe even more Left in that sense. Contrary to popular lie, I really don’t care about race stuff or pro-White stuff.
Someone needs to explain to me why race of all things is the most important issue facing our society today. I don’t get it. Race is the thing I’m trying to spend most days trying not to think about, you know? It’s like “What the Hell you want to think about that for? At best it’s a sideshow and an ugly and often stupid one at that. Why shell out for the expensive ticket? And then there’s the other people in the audience all around you. I go to the fair to have fun, not to be terrified. I get enough of that in the quotidian grind as it is.
I am much more opposed to the Cultural Left. I am quite critical of feminism, gay politics, Baskin Robbins 31 different flavors of gender and the prosaic degeneracy of all the rest of the Cultural Left Freakshow, though I don’t think much of modern antiracism either. But I dislike modern antiracism more because it’s insipid, not because it’s the enemy. Violent opposition to modern antiracism seems cruel. It’s like beating up the retarded. There’s so dumb I almost very sorry for them.
About the show, I think Bay Area Guy and maybe also Dota came up with the idea of the Radical Center. Ann Sterzinger has also talked about the Radical Center a lot.
Topics include:
Rabbit’s Alt Left and how it’s similar to Radical Centrism.
How Radical Centrism relates to the Alt Right, which is a big tent movement for people who oppose political correctness and mass immigration but includes people with more Left and Center views.
How Radical Centrism can adopt the issues abandoned by the Left in favor of globalism and open borders (ex. civil liberties, the environment, workers rights, and anti-war).
How the left opposed the Brexit which stripped the world’s 400 richest people of $127 billion.
The Horseshoe Theory, and how the Radical Center is the part of the horseshoe drifting in nothingness.
Implementing Radical Centrism politically and which demographic groups it could appeal to.
Where Radical Centrism overlaps with the Left, Right, and Libertarianism.
What is the role of government vs. individual liberty.
Capitalism and how it can produce innovation but is disruptive when unfettered without zoning laws, environmental protection, protectionism, and financial regulation.
White liberal utopias such as Portland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado, how they relate to the Alt Left, and how they contrast with “conservative” run regions such as Texas.
Pan-Secessionism and how it can offer every ideology and group self-determination.
Gore Vidal as a Radical Center/Alt Left Icon.
Gore Vidal’s controversial statements on issues including immigration, race, WWII, Roman Polanski, Ruby Ridge, and how he corresponded with Timothy McVeigh.
Gore Vidal’s cultural elitism.
Gore Vidal’s novels.
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome.
The importance of cultural elitism.
How our society has a hierarchy based on wealth and celebrity status  rather than cultural elitism.

Mill, Friedman, Hobbes and the Jews

Latest from Judith Mirville. She is pretty hard to understand, but I can generally understand what she is talking about if I sit back and think about it a bit. She really pushes my brain to its limits, and I love that.

You, Robert, think that with Jewish Libertarians, America has reached the very bottom of the pit : No, you are dead wrong, Libertarians are just at Ground Zero.

Political attitudes can be dispatched among not two but three main categories in a surprising neat way:

Some take pretext of the pursuit of the common good or some form of abstract general good to justify their existence. That is the case with most brands of socialism and also of advanced liberalism such as John Stuart Mill’s. Some Jews, actually a great plurarity of the most vocal ones, not only identify with that attitude but go as far as to define the whole Jewish phenomenon as a kind of vanguard of Humanity’s long march towards a better future.

Some others take pretext of the pursuit of their own personal good only together with that of a certain limited group they identify with as necessary allies as the motivation for their existence at the expense of any others it maybe necessary to destroy or exploit for the advancement of one’s personal good without any concern for any kind of common good in the belief that either such a common good doesn’t exist (as Margaret Thatcher loved to state) or that it will care for itself all the better that way.

In this way the greatest common good cannot but result from the unleashing of as many combined egoisms as possible as the Philosophers of 18th Enlightenment Movement loved to state or more recently Milton Friedman.

Some other Jews that have been more conspicuous as cult figures so as to occupy the limelight identify their Jewishness strongly with that attitude, and may go as far as to define the Jewish condition as the the entitlement to use others and the whole world for one’s own personal good.

The debate seems to have happened only between these two categories, the Left and the Right, and more and more to the advantage of the egoistical Right with the years passing in America, against the backdrop of an external world that is just getting more and more fed up with such a superpower caring only for itself and its holy place Israel.

But this is leaving a third term out of the equation: many other people, far more numerous than we think, vie for the destruction of others and the pursuit of the degradation of their surrounding world as the one sole proof of their worth in their own eyes, of having any worth as human beings, of their very being alive.

They will pursue the defeat of others even at the expense of their own victory; they will kill and make suffer even if it might mean more misery or sure death for themselves, confident as they are that such an attitude guarantees the best survival rate by the very sexual pleasure of crushing as much other beings “for the hell of it”, and makes one capable of developing occult powers stronger than the physical law themselves.

They pursue no common good since they believe the Universe is perfect as it is as the battleground of the war of every being against all other beings for the absolute power of life and death over all other beings, a living being being nothing else than a spark of will to destroy other beings to put forth its own genes.

Such people believe that the greater good, or better said God’s work creating new forms of life through the agency of warring genes, will result from the synthesis of all malevolences of everyone against everyone and especially against the deserters of the grand game of life, the prideful and deluded socialists that hope for another better universe and the lazy and lustful libertarians that think the universe to be a hotel they are entitled to.

This attitude is prevalent in many cultures.

It is prevalent as a rule among Blacks, who seem to be biologically programmed to behave that way or at least to be governed by such an elite of Butt Naked and Idi Amins to the point they will respect none other.

It is also prevalent in India especially within the framework of the Shaivite religion that is very coincidental in its formulation with the theses of sociobiology and see in God none other principle than of ruthlessness of everyone against his neighbor as the sole guarantee the cosmic order will work.

But the primitive Jewish religion (not the Talmud, which many consider decadent as it is too heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Roman law and Boy Scout style do-gooder attitudes more generally tempered by just a little dosage of egoism and tribal indifference for the outsiders) had and still has the best, simplest and most mathematical formulation ever, which is to be found among Jewish vitalists within the fold of psychoanalysis and sexual liberation based on the unleashing of instincts.

Jews Created Libertarianism

These are the heroes of Libertarianism, and they are all Jews. The thing in the upper left is an entity called Ayn Rand. Supposedly it was human, but I doubt it. I believe the Henry Kissinger looking creature on the lower left is called Murray Rothbard. On the right, I have no idea. They look like a couple of Jews to me. Apparently these are two of the leading lights of Libertarianism,male "midwives" who birthed this monstrosity from the Devil's womb.
Another movement, another bunch of Jews. Yawn. These are the heroes of Libertarianism, and they are all Jews. The thing in the upper left is an entity called Ayn Rand. Supposedly it was human, but I doubt it. I believe the Henry Kissinger looking creature on the lower left is called Murray Rothbard. On the right, I have no idea. They just look like a couple of Jews to me. Apparently these are two of the leading lights of Libertarianism, male “midwives” who birthed this monstrosity from the Devil’s womb.

The rogue’s gallery of the fathers and mothers of Libertarianism. On the right are Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Bonus points for the Juden on the left.

Antisemites like to make a big deal out of this stuff. Jews created Communism. Ok. And then Jews created Libertarianism. Ok. And for that matter, they created a whole lot of other movements that are rather over the map. This is all apparently some part of some big planned out Jew Plot.

Supposedly there’s some sort of “Jewish reason” that Jews created Communism. And another “Jewish reason” that they created Libertarianism. And all these “Jewish reasons” that they created all these other movements. Well, God-damn. These Jews are creating a veritable Rube Goldberg contraption of movements!

Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Communism. Most Communists probably think anarcraps should be shot. I believe I concur. No, actually, I don’t think they should be shot. I just think they should be killed.

Libertarians say Commies are the enemy. And it is certainly an honor to be hated by such people.

True, both movements have attracted a lot of Jews, but Communism attracted more.

I am having a very hard time seeing the Jewy Plots and how they are all connected. It doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Antisemites say this was all coordinated at Jew Central Control or someplace like that. What sense does that make?

None of this makes much sense. Sure I suppose typically there is something in it for the Jews but if Communism and Libertarianism are both great for the Jews, you have to figure that probably just about anything can be construed as good for the Jews.

I would just say “Jews create movements.” There is something messianic about these people that makes them want to run about and create political movements here and there. I suppose if you want to start a new political movement, just hire a bunch of Jews and pay them to put it together for you and get it off the ground.

Antisemites don’t make a lot of sense. There’s Jews here, Jews there, Jews everywhere. Look out! There’s one over there! He’s flying towards you! Duck, quick! There’s a Jew around the next corner, better watch your step! Whatever you do, don’t look under your bed. There’s a Jew there!

That type of conspiracy theory is just dumb.

Anarcho-Capitalism

That’s what this idiot is. They’re called anarcaps, but I call them anarcraps.

This Stefan Molyneux is an anarcrap. They’re supposed to be groovy and granola and health food and hipster and cool and with-it because they have “anarchist” in their names, but the vast majority of anarchists hate them and won’t even speak to them, which is the right plan.

Famous author Neal Stephenson is another anarcrap. That is why I refuse to read any of his “great literature.”

If I had my way, I’d put all the anarcraps in Hell. No wait, they already are there. In that case, set them on fire, ISIS-style.

You First, Stefan

Just do it, Steven. Trust me. You will not be missed!
Just do it, Stefan. Trust me. You will not be missed! What’s holding you back, Steve? I am so sorry that you can’t follow through on your words. If there’s anything I can do to help you commit suicide, please email me and I will see what I can do for you. Ok?

What do you know about Stefan Molyneux?

I thought he was very interesting at first because he’s so groovy and with-it nowadays, but this radical Libertarian website was linking to him, and I thought, “Whoa Nelly! Hold your horses!” I immediately became extremely suspicious of him, so I went to look at his videos and got even more confused and suspicious, so I went to Wikipedia. Turns out he is a very carefully hidden reactionary Libertarian fuck disguised a vegetarian, organic, holistic, New Age Leftist. He quotes Mao, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, Micheal Aflaq, Enver Hoxha, and Saddam, and he’s about as rightwing as the Koch Brothers.

Clever, Stefan clever!

Just like the NDASP calling themselves “socialist” to trick progressive people into supporting a reactionary agenda! Way to co-opt.

He’s just another reactionary Libertarian just like all the rest of them. Why is this guy some special snowflake? Because he’s groovy and eats granola? Come on. Pull your head out, people.

Eric Margolis on Russia and Syria

Here.

Fantastic radio show, unfortunately from a Libertarian-aligned station, Scott Horton, but oh well, beggars can’t be choosers.

So I will just ignore this guy’s retarded Libertarianism and focus on the positive.

Margolis says many an interesting thing in this broadcast. I can vouch for most of it except:

Israeli support for ISIS: unverified.

Qatari support for ISIS: unverified.

Saudi support for ISIS: formerly true, at the moment uncertain.

NATO instigators that exploded the early Syrian protests, probably with sniper rifles: unverified, but I’ve heard the rumors.

US, French and UK special forces on the ground in Syria carrying out attacks on Assad’s army: unverified, but shocking if true.

All the rest is pretty much straight up true. Why is Russia enemy #1? They would not roll over and obey the US. Instead they declared their independence from America. So Russia’s got to be taken out for that uppity behavior.

Why are we so nuts about getting rid of Assad?

Because from the US’ POV,  the whole anti-Assad, Syrian Civil War project is about taking out Iran. Get rid of Syria and screw Iran by getting rid of one of her main allies.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan apparently all want to either sock a blow to Iran or just take out Assad because he’s Shia.

Turkey probably wants him out because he’s Shia; I am not sure if they care about Iran.

France and the UK are probably on the blow to Iran side.

Israel surely wants to take out one of its worst enemies and also smash Iran by taking out Syria. Keep in mind that the Axis of Resistance is: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians and Iran. All of the rest of the Arabs surrendered to Israel a long time ago. Since 9-11, Israel’s been whispering in our Presidents’ ears, telling us to take out their enemies. And so we have, in Iraq and Libya and now working on Syria.

The lunatic multinational invasion of Yemen is all about crush Iran. Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan and Egypt are all in on the smash Iran Yemeni project.

Anyway if you want to figure out what’s going on in the world, this great interview is a good place to start.

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Bay Area and the Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism

Here.

Robert Stark talks to Bay Area-based blogger  Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

Robert Stark’s recent trip to San Francisco where he met up with Bay Area Guy at Union Square.
The Bay Area as a microcosm of American Society and how it combines both the best and worst of what America has to offer.
How the Bay Area represents American capitalism at its fullest.
How SF Is the second most unequal major city in America.
How despite it’s wealth and gentrification, SF has preserved much of the historic character of the City.
How the Bay Area has done a better job at wilderness conservation than Southern California.
The Racial Dynamics of the Bay Area..
San Francisco and The Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox.
How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice.
How the elites are Social Darwinists who pose as progressive humanitarians.
Andy Nowicki’s article The Patrick Bateman Right.
His thoughts on Donald Trump and why he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for President.
How the political ideal would be to combine the best aspects of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
His article The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism.
How the Left uses the language of American Exceptionalism to justify open borders and Cultural Leftism.
How America is exceptional at obesity, anti-intellectualism, and income income inequality.
How The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
Mark Ames’ Going Postal.

Amazon Is Evil

I have been hating Amazon.com for a very long time now, and for some very good reasons. Be assured that they deserve every microgram of my hatred. They earned it well.

Anyway, I always knew that Amazon sucked. It’s a prime example of just how shitty your typical dot.com capitalist enterprise is. There’s nothing hip or groovy about tech or net capitalists. Actually the sad truth is that most of them are much worse capitalists than typical brick and mortar businesses which at least tend to have very well done and arranged stores, excellent customer service, a fair returns policy and products that are not blatant ripoffs or scams. Further, most brick and mortar joints are not actual criminal enterprises.

The sad truth is that tech and net businesses tend to have shit products, zero return policy, either zero or horrific customer service, and catastrophically arranged stores that look like they were put together by little children. As if that were not enough, a lot of them (dating sites for example) are simply out and out organized crime.

The number of dot.com businesses that are actually criminal enterprises is simply stunning. The fault of this lies 100% with the Tech Scum themselves, as almost all of them are “Libertarians.” Being Libertards, their motto is “Don’t regulate the Internet!” So the Net is utterly unregulated. What happens when an industry goes totally unregulated? Wa-la! The criminals swarm in like termites! Duh!

So next time you get fleeced by some dot.com crook, thank the nearest Tech Scum Libertard hipster! Aren’t techy hipsters cool? They’re helping criminals loot your bank account! Is that groovy and hip and tats and piercings or what?!

Anyway, Amazon has always sucked, mostly because their store is complete and utter shit, and they can’t be bothered to even fix the damn thing so it functions at all because, you know, if they had a functioning and working store, then they wouldn’t be able to sell to you so cheap! Nothing illustrates the depravity and sleaze of that mindset better than Amazon.

Welcome to Future Shit, where store owners won’t even bother to arrange their stores for you and you won’t be able to find anything! But hey, having a non-functioning store will be so hipster and groovy and techy and future because you will get your products really cheap dude! That is if you can find them!

So anyway, I have always known that Amazon blows, to put it mildly. But it’s actually much worse than that.

It turns out that Amazon is much worse than shitty.

They are actually stone evil.

Welcome to the Workplace of the Future, brought to you by your nearest groovy hipster, where cubicle farms resemble the factories of the 1890’s! Back to the Future!

Really, Amazon is to business as Roosh is to PUA. Roosh is Amazon. Amazon is Roosh. They’re both sociopathic. They both suck. They’re both evil. They are both widely loved by fools who worship psychopaths as the rock stars of the new millennium.

They’re the Future.

Roosh is the Future of Dating.

And…

Amazon is the Future of Business.

I don’t have much more to say except maybe pray you don’t live long enough to see much of this World O’Shit. I’ll be checking out in 30 years if I’m lucky, and I’ll see you all later then. I won’t be missing this damn planet for one second, thank you very much!

Ukrainian Nationalism is Nazism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYwMVSlAGs
Pretty much all Ukie nationalists are Nazis. It is simply a National Socialist movement. What is odd is that some of these Nazis are Jews! The presence of Jews is odd but not extremely unusual. I have always said that Israel was a National Socialist country. National Socialism can unfold in any country. Anyone is susceptible to it, and National Socialism need not be anti-Semitic though it often is. As we can see, in Israel we have a wildly philosemitic National Socialist movement. In the place of the Jews are the Arabs. More than an anti-Semitic movement, this Ukie nationalism is more of an anti-Russian National Socialist movement, with the Russians substituted for Jews.
There are indeed some liberal-Leftists in Ukraine, but their failure has been profound. They are not necessarily Nazis themselves, but they are also extremely Russophobic, and they support the Nazis by not criticizing them. They support them with their silence. The Trotskyite sectarians, of course, refuse to discuss Ukrainian Nazism at all, and instead focus all of their rage on their favorite enemy – the “Stalinists.”
The Libertarian-anarchist grouping has not been much better. Many marched in the Nazi Euromaidan protests, and a number of anarchists have even joined overtly Nazi battalions like the Azov Battalion to fight in the Donbass. Many Libertarians have lent strong support to the new Nazi government.
This represents a scene we see all to often – the utter collapse of the Left in the face of an extremely popular ultranationalist movement in their land. This is truly pitiful. The Ukrainian Left have a lot to be ashamed of. I will exempt the Communist Party of the Ukraine from my criticism. They have suffered greatly during this war, many comrades have been killed, arrested, beaten or tortured. Party headquarters have been burned down and otherwise destroyed. The party itself has recently been outlawed. Of course this shows the regime’s true colors. The first thing fascist movements do when they take power is attack and outlaw the CP. History has proven this well.

Computer Software Capitalists Are Some of the Worst Capitalists of All

There is the mistaken belief, promoted by dishonest magazines like Wired, that there is something cool or hip about these new corporations, the IT corporations. This goes along with a reverent portrayal of the coders in the software industry as some sort of ultra-hipster type workers. I got fooled by this for a long time until I did a lot of reading, especially of the horrible Wired Magazine, and I came to realize that there was nothing cool or hip about these folks at all, and in fact they were just capitalists like any other.
They hate the working class, low income and poor people…They are really just Republicans with groovy clothes, cool haircuts, tattoos, piercings and other neato hipster attire. In fact they are actually much worse than your average US capitalist because many American capitalists, especially the Old Money types like George Bush Sr., always believe in a sort of noblesse oblige towards the rest of society. They were not ostentatious, and it was considered rude to flaunt money or even to talk about it. I have met millionaires from this group who had complete respect for working class and even poor people and had no sense of snobbery or elitism at all.
When the New Money folks came in, all that went out the door. Gratuitous waste of and flaunting of money is in. Light your cigar with a burning 100 bill, the one you just sniffed a line of cocaine with. Bragging is cool. Showing off is cool. Contempt towards working class, poor and low income people is hip ever since Ronald Reagan decreed it was when he created the new and more monstrous Republican Party. This new party is not your father’s Republican Party.
As an example of the callousness of these new software capitalists, we can note that many of them are engineering or STEM types. STEM type males do not show their feelings much and some are almost on the autistic spectrum. Engineer types have always been conservative, and STEM males are overly male and typically highly lacking in empathy as excessively male phenotypes seem to be. Hence the correlation between STEM types, the software industry and Libertarianism, probably one of the most evil, cruel, callous and non-empathetic forms of socioeconomic systems ever designed by man.
The God of these phony hipsters is a man named Bill Gates. Let us examine him.
Bill Gates is probably one of the evil businessmen in the US today. Microsoft tore up the contract of every company they partnered with, and then they stole their stuff. Almost all of their products are made of stolen tech. They backstabbed and betrayed everyone they ever did business with. Most Microsoft partners have sued Microsoft at one point or another.
And the whole time Microsoft has existed, they were always an illegal monopoly. I believe they are probably still an illegal monopoly, but I would need to check on that. The government’s lawsuit against Microsoft was settled on terms ridiculously favorable to the company. Illegal monopolies are illegal in the USA.
Microsoft destroyed the computer industry by forcing everyone to use their crap products when we could have had a choice of using the best product available like with any other product.
The software industry operates on the monopoly model, and the software scum are the only capitalists who actually force you to use their products. There is no other product that I can think of where you are actually forced to use the product of one particular company, and you don’t have a choice of a number of competing products to choose from. That is an evil that I will hold against them until the day I die
The US software capitalists are some of the worst capitalists in the US. The Internet capitalists (the dotcommers) are not far behind.
What have the software capitalists given us?
1. Forced upgrade. You are actually forced to buy the newer model and get rid of the old one. Can you think of one other product for which this is true?
2. Forced product use. These are some of the only capitalists who actually force you to use their products because of the natural monopoly nature of the industry.
3. Refusal to cooperate with other products. Software products refuse to work with each other and often try to sabotage each other’s products when installed on the same computer. One application will try to sabotage another application, or an OS will try to sabotage an application. If you put competing applications on your system, they will often attack each other.
Imagine if Ford cars would only go on “Ford roads.” If you wanted to drive “Ford roads,” you had to buy a Ford. If you drove any other car on the road, the road would attack your tires and try to destroy them or the car would not be able to drive on the road at all without causing damage or a very unpleasant drive. This is what the world would look like if other capitalists were as wicked as the software capitalists.
4. The total destruction of the concept of customer service and help lines. Most other industries still have various help lines, and most brick and mortar businesses have excellent customer service. Software customer service is often nonexistent. When it exists at all, they often charge you per incident, and it’s crap anyway even when you buy it. When the customer service is not nonexistent or crap, then it’s often downright evil. For software customer service, you have a choice between nonexistent, crap and evil products. Some choice.
5. Destruction of human jobs. The software industry has tried to destroy as many human jobs as possible. The notion of automated service where you call a company and instead of talking to a human being, you talk to a stupid robot that can’t understand you was an actual creation of the software industry. Now this lousy “no human beings” model of “customer service” has been adopted by a number of other crappy corporations.
I personally have all sorts of tricks up my sleeve to use in order to talk to an actual human being when I deal with these automated systems. The only way to get any sort of service is to deal with a human because the robots are still too stupid. It is also very insulting to call an enterprise on the phone and be rudely forced to speak to a robot instead of a human being. It is as if they are saying that you are not good enough to speak to a human, instead you are so unworthy that you deserve only to speak with a machine.
Computer software companies are so evil that I want all computer software to go open source. That way you will not be forced to use anyone’s product, and everything will be easily fixed. In addition, open source in general will destroy the software industry profit model. They can still make money – I understand that Open Office and Firefox are profitable – but they will have to be forced to make money by being decent companies instead of the equivalent of corporate serial killers.
The software companies had their chance to be good businesspeople, and they blew it. Instead they turned into one of the most evil industries in recent memory.
Death to the Software industry!
With Open Source, we can destroy this evil industry once and for all!

Major Post: Alpha Game Rebuts My Roissy Takedown

Here.
I do not mind this Vox Day fellow so much (he is much better than the repugnant Roissy or even the less scary but still frightening Roosh), and although he doesn’t believe it, I am actually a reader of his site. And I even take notes. I am not so much of a Game Enemy as I am part of the Loyal Opposition.
He accuses me of not understanding Game, but I understand it very well.
My critique remains the same.
Obviously, according to Game Theory, 20% of men are going to monopolize most of the best women. These women will be content to share an Alpha’s harem. These 20% are the Alphas. They are attractive to most of the women most of the time.
60% of men are the Betas. Despite the despicable hatred in the PUAsphere for these salt of the Earth, sincamisas (shirtess ones), Ordinary Joe, guy next door types, Betas are average, ordinary men. They are attractive to some of the women some of the time, which is simply normal. In the past, due to religion and institutionalized marriage, almost all Betas married and had children. Now many are not. Nevertheless, most of the Beta types around me have a girlfriend or wife.
Omegas are the ~15% of men who are attractive to hardly any of the women almost all the time. The castaways and by-catch. Nevertheless, quite a few eventually marry or get a girlfriend.
According to almost all PUA sites, the only worthwhile men at all are the men who fall into the top 20% of all men. Since according the new system, the 20-60-20 rule is pretty much the way things go, the men who monopolize the best women and who are attractive to most of the women most of the time are the top 20% of men. These are the only worthwhile men in the whole world, PUA’s tell us. The other 80% are ridiculed and showered with spitting, frothing contempt on all PUA sites, but particular hatred is reserved for the Ordinary Man, the Regular Guy, the Beta.
So in a rigged system where only 20% of men can win and 80% must lose, the PUAsphere says that the only valuable men are the 20% winners, while the 80% losers (who must lose, now have you, no matter how hard they try, due to the rules of the game), are contemptible garbage virtually unworthy of life. Roissy is one of the worst offenders here. He constantly encourages his fawning street gang of sociopaths to pour contempt of the despicable Betas and anything resembling Beta behavior, whatever that is.
If Alphas are the men who rank 1-20 on the 1-100 scale, the low Alphas would be men who rank 13-20. High Betas would be men who rank 20-40 on the scale. According to Roissy’s commenters, even low Alphas and High Betas are disgusting failures to be mocked and jeered. I guess the only men who are worthwhile in society are the top 13% of all men. The other 87% are all untermenschen deserving of death.
All over this insane PUAsphere, we are told over and over that the only worthwhile women are the “top-notch” women, apparently those women who rank 9-10 on the scale of 1-10. Even 7’s and 8’s are hideous dogs that no man would give a second glance to. Acquiring any woman who is less than a model type means failure.
Realistically, 10% of women are in each category – 10% are 1’s, 10% are 2’s, 10% are 3’s, 10% are 10’s,  10% are 9’s,  10% are 8’s. Get it? On the 1-10 scale, only 10% of women fall into each category.
The only worthwhile women are the top 20% of hotties though, say PUA’s, and all the rest of them are ugly muglies. Any man who has a girlfriend or wife, or maybe even a date, who is less than a 9 is a complete loser, unworthy of even saying hello to.
All of this toxic nonsense reminds of me of rightwing economics, which honestly says that the only worthwhile members of society are the rich and the upper middle class (the top 20% wage earners) and all of the rest of us are filth, useless eaters, not even human beings, expendable.
Noting the comparison with rightwing economics, it is fascinating that almost all PUA’s are political reactionaries, although Roosh may be a more progressive guy.
This never made sense to me because all down through history, all the playboys have been liberal, progressive people. When I was growing up it was the same way. Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt were all liberal, progressive men and so were their magazines. Most of the players I knew growing up were leftwing hipsters of one sort or another with a joint, a surfboard or a pair of skis in one hand and an endlessly rotating series of hot babes in the other. They were my models, and this is how I lived my life as a young man as a surf bum – ski bum – pot dealer.
When I was growing up, conservatives were dorks, idiots, neckbeards, Omegas. They were “squares” – starched buttoned up clothes, voted for Nixon, refused to smoke weed, looked like they hadn’t shit in a month and of course could barely get laid, or if they could, they only got with equally square, uptight, lame rightwing chicks who most of us disparaged as “the square girls.”
Now it’s all turned around. The reactionaries are the wild playboys (Huh?). Liberals and hipsters are soft, wimpy feminist Betas.
So the whole universe got turned upside down in my lifetime.
Going back to economic analogy, in an unhinged, unregulated economy, 20% of men will be upper middle class (Alphas) and 20% will be lower class (Omegas). 60% will be some species of middle class (Betas). No matter how hard anyone tries, the outcome will always be like this. 20% will inevitably win, and 80% will inevitably lose.
Saying that only the upper middle class are really human, and the rest of us are failures is rightwing ruling class politics, but lo and behold, what economics does the PUAsphere push? This very same rightwing ruling class  economics, now called Libertarianism, in other words, Economic Game.
And just as I figured, Vox Day, who I previously thought was a decent guy (but I was suspicious as hardly any PUA’s are decent human beings) has authored a book on Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is the craziest of all the crazy Libertarian free market fundamentalist philosophies of economics. The Austrians are the most Libertarian of them all. Austrian Economics trends into Minarchism (Let’s Go Back and Live in the Middle Ages Economics), Anarchocapitalism (Somalia Uber Alles Economics) and other winner take all, loser die in the gutter, screw you, let em eat cake economic systems.
There is nothing special about economic systems like this. Read any book about 1700’s Europe. The rich were partying up while the cities were full of horrific slums, starving working people, and the worst of misery. Peasant and worker rebellions were regular occurrences.
So it turns out Vox Day is a serious asshole after all (the Austrians are on my list of “human beings I refuse to even speak to). He’s proposing winner take all, let em eat cake sexual economics, and he’s promoting (Who woulda thunk it?) winner take all, let em eat cake monetary economics.
Aren’t there any sites we can talk about this Game stuff while avoiding all these foul reactionaries?
You connecting the dots here? PUA’s say that only the 20% of us men who are winners, sexually or economically, have any value. The rest of us, the 80% who will lose no matter how hard we try because the game is rigged as all contests are towards those finishing towards first place, those finishing in the middle and those finishing at end, are worthless worms, failures, losers, men to be stomped into the ground like bugs on sight.
If they only advocated this it would be bad enough. But the PUAshphere is delusional. The PUAsphere more or less says all men can Alphas. All you need to do is read Roissy and buy all of Roosh’s books and videos (and I do mean all of them, don’t leave out even one of the $139.95 package) and you will get Game. Getting Game means becoming an Alpha. The unspoken (or maybe even  explicit) argument here is that all men can be Alphas if only they just try (and don’t forget to write Roosh that $150 check!).
In other words, all men can be in the top 20% of all of the men. All men can monopolize all of the best women. All men can be the top 20% of attractive men who get all the hot chicks. Are you laughing yet? It’s like Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average!
This post attempts to address this major complaint of mine, but honestly fails in that Vox Day doesn’t even answer my question. Many of the commenters get my point in one way or another though, and there are some superb comments on that thread. I hate to say it but this is one of the most intelligent and insightful threads I have read on a PUA site in a while.

Is Wikipedia a CIA/Deep State Project?

Nominay writes:

If the truth is blotted out, how do you come by it Robert? Have you tried editing the wiki entry with irrefutable sources, as to not have the revisions reversed so quickly? Is there independent media you can reach out to more to spread the word?

Editing Wikipedia is hopeless. Wikipedia is basically a project of the US Deep State and US imperialism. Whether Deep State entities control Wikipedia or not is not important. What is important is that the editors of Wikipedia are deeply aligned ideologically to the US Deep State, the US Foreign Policy elite and especially to US imperialism. That doesn’t mean that Wikipedia is a project of the CIA, but it might as well be. If the CIA owned Wikipedia outright, the articles would not look 1% different from what they are now, since Wikipedia’s editors support the CIA view of society. Wikipedia has been a fanatically reactionary from the very starts. My friends who were early editors said that almost all of the top Wikipedians are “Libertarians.” The Libertarian bias is extremely strong on any article having anything to do with economics. Jimmy Wales is an extreme Libertarian, a diabolical monster of a man as all Libertarians are. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, this millionaire Hannibal fulminated about how the government should not have spent one penny or moved one man to help save people or clean up the mess in New O themrleans. Everyone was just supposed to fend for themselves. Of course this was pretty much the response of the somewhat Libertarian Bush Administration. So you see Wikipedia has been a fanatically reactionary institution since its earliest days. Wales also, like all reactionaries, has deep ties to Zionism and ultra-wealthy Zionist circles in America. He has appeared at pro-Israel fundraisers where he helps raise money alongside his uber-rich Jewish pals.
I am pretty good at analyzing a lot of different sources and figuring out what it truth and what is lies. The truth is not that hard to come by. Just assume that the US and allied world media is lying to you a good part of the time, especially about certain things, and go on from there. Mostly just quit reading the paper. Quit reading newsmagazines. Turn off the news on TV or the radio. Get all your information from Truth sites on the Net in the Alternative Media.
There are lots of writers out there who write stuff along my lines. Quite a few have more hits than I do. It’s just that all of that is tiny compared to the MSM and the voices of the two big political parties. Most Americans are lined up either with the stupid Democrats or with the stupider Republicans. They simply parrot whatever lie the Democrats say or the bigger lie the Republicans say, depending on which side of the toast they spread their butter. The MSM more or less parrots the views of both of the parties in one way or another.
Since WW2, there has been a “bipartisan consensus” on foreign policy. The two parties agreed to the same basic contours of an imperialist, wicked foreign policy. The Democrats chose a somewhat milder version of imperialism while the Republicans chose a more extreme, hyper-militaristic version. Democrats are always being pushed into militaristic positions because Republicans always scream that Democrats are weak because they hesitate when the Republican order them to slaughter thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. Not wanting to massacre tens of thousands of people for any no good reason means you are weak. The % of Americans who believe in this sociopathic “whoever murders the most is strongest; whoever hesitates to slaughter tens of thousands of humans is weak” is very high – tens of thousands of mostly conservative Americans believe in this “the biggest murderers and the best people” philosophy.
Bottom line is most Americans really don’t care about foreign policy, but what little they do know is generally a repetition of extreme brainwashing by the Deep State. Persons deeply interested in US foreign policy are usually hopelessly brainwashed by the Deep State as the more US media you partake in, the crazier and more brainwashed you get and the fewer facts you know and the more lies you believe to be true.

Roissy's Stupid PUA Site

Mr. Subservive:

Robert Stark is a real piece of work. He just got his ass handed to him by Roissy.

As if I care if Roissy, Tool of all Tools, hands anyone’s ass to anyone.
Roissy’s site is truly horrifying, and the man is a monster. He’s the biggest asshole in the known universe. Most of his commenters are orbiting him hoping to bask in the narcissistic glow he gives off. They are also trying to be an even bigger asshole than Roissy, and that’s probably not even possible. I mean not physically possible. I mean there is probably a law of physics that prevents any man from being a bigger dick than Roissy.
That Roissy is in his early 40’s (?) is particularly pathetic. No man should still be this angry and especially this mean that far into life.
By age 40, almost all humans have been kicked in the ass about a million times that they finally figured out that their shit stinks after all. Most normal levels of narcissism tend to fade around age 40.
By that I mean that it is normally for a teenage boy to be narcissistic. Many to most young men in their 20’s, especially the more successful ones, are insufferably arrogant assholes. In serious cases, the dickheadedness extends into the 30’s. Certainly there are a lot of extremely huge headed men from age 30-33 or so. I figure from age 33-40, this sort of thing slows down somewhat.
By age 40, there aren’t a whole lot of showboats anymore. Everyone’s been humbled one too many times. The only remaining narcissists after age 40 are the real hardcores, the true, pure pathological narcissists.
Roissy’s still got an ego bigger than the planet Jupiter, and he’s heading towards age 45. Massive red light. Roissy is severe narcissist. In fact, I suspect that Roissy, after reading him for years now, has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Don’t fret now. The Net is full of NPD’s. You can’t blog unless you are fairly narcissistic already anyway.
That site simply bristles with sheer meanness. The commenters are the same way. Would you actually go to a party full of cumdrunk assholes like that? Would you dare set foot in a bar full of hotheaded young fools like that? I wouldn’t. I don’t cotton much to assholes.
Roissy’s lesson from the very start has been penultimate narcissism.
Be Like Me.
Follow Roissy, Your Leader.
Imitate The Roissy God.
Bow At His Feet.
Read His Roissy-Biblical Tomes.
Breathe Deep In The Overwhelming Essence Of Sheer Roissyness.
Since Roissy is an asshole, his main lesson since he started has been teaching young men to be all the dick you can be. Be an asshole. Be like Roissy. So you have a Roissy column, a belching retch of ugliness, sadism and assholery, and then you have the comments following, where all the commenters try to see if they out-dick even Roissy. Hey! It’s an asshole contest already!
Roissy unfortunately has started to butt his nasty little head into the comments, splattering little drops of cruelty disguised as wisdom here or there. He has to pop up in the comments threads to show you he’s still alive and to frighten you. You read one of his articles, and you are aghast. “Please tell me this guy died after he wrote this!,” you think. “Please don’t tell me I have to share the planet with this Tool!”
Like those zombies in The Night of the Living Dead that can hardly be killed, he pops up like an evil little jack in the box in the comments. Each time we wince at his bile, our heart falls because humanity sinks a little bit lower with every scribble of Roissy’s.
This is a very disheartening website.
I wonder just how many older men hang out on these PUA sites? Seems like it’s mostly young testosterone addicts looking for a score from what I can tell. I would think 95% of older guys would be turned off sheer viciousness of the men on that site. As a man gets older, he’s supposed to purge himself of the angry young man bile. An angry older man is particularly sad case. He’s also a heart attack waiting to happen.
The premise of Roissy’s entire site is completely stupid. Granted, the His Dickness has granted us some bits of genius in the Alpha – Beta – Omega hierarchy, but mostly this was just telling everyone what we already knew anyway but hadn’t formulated properly. But credit where it’s due, and many geniuses (yes, Roissy is a genius) are utterly horrific human beings. Read their Wikipedia entries if you don’t believe me.
But Roissy even gets the Alpha – Beta game all messed up.
Look. This is the way it goes. Probably in any unglued society, the Alphas cannot possibly make up more than 15-20% of the males.
Let us suppose you had a society full of Roissy addicts who had all somehow managed to reach the pinnacle of Alphaness. It would not make sense. Because no society can be all Alpha Male (at least I do not think so). In Arab and Middle Eastern, Russian, Iberian, Latin American and Filipino society, sure, you have a huge % of men playing the “Alpha” game. They look and act like Alphas (especially in Arab and Middle Eastern culture).
But even here, the same 80-20 rule must apply. Suppose a hot woman, instead of being approached by one high-value (Alpha) man a day, is now being approached by five or six high-value Alpha men a day? What’s she going to do? Bang all the studs and whore it up? You kidding? The 80-20 rule, hard and fast, will continue to apply.
In a society where all of the men act like Alpha Males, females will simply pick off the top ~20%, the most Alpha of the Alphas and most Sigma of the Sigmas, relegate the rest of the regular Alphas to Beta, Delta or Gamma and toss the least Alpha of the Alphas (who are nevertheless very much Alpha men) to the Omega bin.
See how this works? In a culture where all the guys act like Omegas (some NE Asian cultures seem like this) the females will simply cream off the top 20%, the highest and most “Alpha” of the Omega Crew, and cock carousel them. The nerdiest of the nerds, the Omegas of Omegas, will get tossed back as by-catch. The vast majority of the Omegas, exhibiting normal levels of Omeganess, will be placed in the Betasphere.
The sheer insanity of Roissy’s site though, and really all of the lunatic PUAsphere (I include Roosh here too), is that the site is based on the insane premise that any man can be an Alpha/Sigma. All he has to do is try.
Nonsense! The pool of high-value men in any society will always be relegated to the top ~20% of men, the Alphas and Sigmas. There are probably no feral societies where this will not be true. It’s almost as good as the Law of Gravity.
Only 20% of us are going to win.
Only 20% of us can win.
Roissy’s site is horrifyingly cruel. They have set up a world where only 20% can win, and fully 80% most lose. These figures will never change no matter how hard anyone plays. How base can you get?
Maybe 20% of men are Alphas/Sigmas, and that number probably cannot increase no matter what. Probably ~15%? of men are tossed to the sexual round file, the sorrowful Omegas. There will probably always be ~15% Omegas no matter how hard anyone tries. And in between, 2/3 of all men, the vast majority of us living our lives of quiet desperation, jonesing for a vicarious thrill fix anywhere we can madly grab one, are doomed, nay, destined, to live the lives of the Beta Type.
60-70% of men in any society will have to fall into the Beta, Delta or Gamma categories. In any society where women roam free and undomesticated, this is how the chips will fall. The Betasphere, the Betas, Deltas and Gammas, are simply average men.
Regular men, everyday men, the guy next door, your Dad, your uncle, your brother, Gramps, your boss, your best friend from high school. Most of the males we straight men have loved most in our cut-short lives are simply ordinary Joes, fully undeserving of Roissy’s acidic spittle.
And what in God’s name is wrong with being an ordinary man among men? Precisely nothing.
Yet no personage is more reviled on Roissy’s moronic site, or Roosh’s, or any of the others, than this lowly Beta, our fathers and our sons, our brothers and our cousins, all of the men that make up our typical quotidian lives we tap out before we die – every one of these great ordinary men are treated with utter contempt on PUA sites, as if they are the lowest of contemptible worms.
This doesn’t make sense. It’s irrational in a game where 80% must lose by statistical law to hate the inevitable losers.
Someone has to win; someone has to lose.
Life goes on.
This, then, is the fatal flaw of the PUAsphere, the lunatic notion that any man can be Alpha or that all men can be Alphas, if only they would just try.
And every man on Earth can be rich, too? When everyone is a millionaire, $1 million and $1.69 would buy you a Slurpee at a 7-11.
Granted there are things to be learned from the most awful of people. And Roissy’s site is awash with what I might call ugly truths. The things about life that are so ugly and cruel and vicious, yet nevertheless so true that we cannot ignore them. On a lode-laden mountain, the ugliest, most dangerous, muddiest, most savage spring floods can bring forth some excellent nuggets worth a pretty penny.
Take what you want or need from these ugly sites, but don’t get caught up in the spite. And don’t forget to wear some face protection on PUA sites. The sheer malign hatred emanating off these sites can literally fly off the screen and pound your face. That stuff stings like acid.
One final note, that this cold-hearted sociopathic character known as Roissy has picked up the cruelest of economic philosophies, Libertarianism, should come as no surprise.
That he added a shocking and virulent form of White Nationalist racism against NAM’s to complement the generous helpings of misogyny he serves up is no shocker either.
Haters gotta hate. In mental health, one notion is that fear spreads. Someone starts out afraid of spiders, and the terror slowly spreads until they are nearly afraid of their shadow, so agoraphobic that and can barely go outside anymore. This is proven well enough to me anyway.
But if fear spreads, then it’s wicked brother Cain, hate, must spread too. People start out hating the guy who beat them at basketball, and eight years down the road, you’re got Eliot Rodger with a semi-auto mowing down blond hotties at the beach.

Four False Ideas about Overpopulation

Steve is a left-leaning commenter who posted a video with a deceptive title that nevertheless has some interesting things to say about overpopulation – namely, the global birth rate is at replacement, all nations are trending downwards, and many 3rd World countries are trending towards replacement level also. Global population, instead of growing exponentially,  will instead hit 11 million around the year 2100 and will level off after that.
However, I disagree with the scientist who made this video that world overpopulation is therefore no big deal. This is simply a Pollyanna view of things.

This is in HD and the real title is ‘don’t panic- the truth about population’.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x175qup_bbc-this-world-don-t-panic-the-truth-about-population-h264-1280×720-aac-rmac_news

There are two sources of some very crazy views about overpopulation, one from the Right and one from the Left. A third view held by elites and even US liberals, is not much nuts as it is just wrong. The fourth view, which is portrayed in the Steve kindly linked to, is the most rational anti-overpopulation view of all. While certainly positive and hopeful, this view founders on the shoals of blind optimism.
. Hard rightwing economic liberals or Libertarians who believe that in order for capitalism to succeed, you need a population that grows forever. These nuts, one of whom is named Simon (some Jew, figures), offer the Netherlands as an example. As if the whole world could be as overpopulated as the Netherlands and still function!
The other nutcases are on the Left. These loons hate all talk of overpopulation because it shuns aside the causes of poverty, instead blaming poverty on poor people “having too many kids!” This is true to some extent, but it glosses over the fact that overpopulation is indeed a horrific problem in the Third World for many reasons, not least of which is the destruction of ecosystems, species and whatnot.
And many 3rd World countries are not the slightest bit overpopulated. For instance, Bolivia is not the slightest bit overpopulated. If anything, they are underpopulated. Bolivia is one of the most underpopulated places on Earth. Why are they so poor? Because income is distributed so poorly.
Others have high incomes but distribute wealth very poorly. For instance, Mexico, with a PCI of $15,000/yr, is a relatively wealthy country. Many nations with PCI’s like that are nice, modern and pleasant places to live. Not 3rd World at all. In fact, $15,000/yr is approaching 1st World incomes. Yet recently up to 50% of Mexicans lived in poverty, and 28% have no sewage treatment and presumably have no access to safe water either.
Mexico City’s slums are horrifying. There is so much shitting outside going on that there are tiny bits of toilet paper and shit floating around in the air of Mexico Shitty all the time. I call this phenomenon “shit air,” and I assume Mexico Shitty is not the only place where even the very air you breathe is literally full of shit.
The argument here is, “Mexico has too many people!” Actually they do not. California is more crowded than Mexico. Anyway, at $15,000 PCI there should be plenty to go around.
There is a third false view about the overpopulation problem. This view is not so much crazy as it is simply self-serving and false. One group (often Democratic Party liberals and liberal or elite types in other nations) likes to put all the blame for 3rd World poverty on poor people having too many babies. If you mention that Bolivia is actually underpopulated, you get a wild argument that, “They have too many kids!” Yet with such an underpopulated country, even a fairly high birthrate should not be a major problem. They do not wish to discuss distribution problems because presumably they don’t really support redistribution of income.
The other group (the Leftists) says that overpopulation is not a problem and anyway, saying 3rd Worlders have too many babies is racist. They also say that focusing on overpopulation takes away focus on income maldistribution, which is true.
The third group is simply insane. High birth rates? No problem, good for growth. Overpopulated countries? Cool, the better to grow your economy with, my dear. The whole world can easily be as overpopulated as the Netherlands with no issues whatsoever. This argument is so insane that there is no use refuting it.
These arguments are a bit circular. Poor people tend to have lots of kids. Telling them to stop making kids doesn’t really work. They rely on kids for labor and social security when they get old because the state has no elderly pension program. Until you distribute income better, you will never get low population growth. And as you stabilize incomes the way the loony Leftists want, the population naturally stabilizes anyway as women who have stable lives prefer not to have lots of children.
Really all four of these groups are just wrong.

  1. The whole world cannot live like the Netherlands. Explosive birth and growth rates are hardly good for growth. Look at Latin America, the Philippines, India and sub-Saharan Africa. Babies popping out all over the place. See any growth there? Of course not. Exploding population growth seems to coincide with mass poverty.
  2. Overpopulation is indeed a problem in many ways. If you are a blind Leftist and can’t see that, there’s no hope for you. You are simply an irrational ideologue.
  3. Maldistribution is indeed a problem and it needs to be fixed, whether you liberals like it or not. Income inequality is a terrible thing, and it causes a whole witches brew of problems in and of itself.
  4. It is very positive and hopeful that the world’s birth rate is at replacement level, the birth rate is trending down in most nations, and even 3rd World countries are now at or near replacement birth rates. Nevertheless, this rose colored glasses view glosses over the problem that 7.2 billion people is already far too many for our carrying capacity and is causing many problems in the world in and of itself to both human and nonhuman life and environments. If 7.2 billion is already disastrous, one can imagine how much worse 11 billion is going to be. This false view seems to be that “a positive trend equals a positive result.” That is very tempting thinking, but the more you think about it, the more you realize its fallacious nature.

Types in the Manosphere Part 2

A very nice site called Gunlord lists the various components of the Manosphere. In this piece, we will examine five of the sub-movements – Aspies, Men’s Rights, PUA’s, Child Custody Advocates and TFL’s or Incels.
Aspies: Supposedly think even non-Aspie men are women-lite. Not sure what this means, but apparently women are just too emo for Spock-type Aspies, and even non-Aspie men are way too emo for these stoic and rational STEM types. Never heard of one of these sites, but it has no appeal to me. I have no idea of their politics.
Men’s rights: The MRA guys. The Men’s Rights groups are fighting for equal rights for men, which on the surface seems pretty weird. A lot of these guys, like Paul Elam at A Voice for Men, are pretty misogynistic. His comments section is even worse.
One wonders why men even need equal rights, and the notion that we live in a Matriarchy instead of a Patriarchy is a bit bizarre. Sure, feminists are pushing women way past their demands for equality, and they are making some pretty lunatic demands that are starting to impinge on the type of world we men want to live in. But at the end of the day, MRA guys just strike me as silly. They are fighting for something that doesn’t need to be fought for (men’s equal rights) because it already exists. Politically, they are mostly Libertarian.
PUA’s: These are the much-maligned pickup artists. PUA’s  try to teach men “Game” in order to help them get women. At first this seems reasonable, and men have been doing this forever. I remember the How to Pick Up Girls books on sale in the 1970’s. There is a famous classic Latin book by a Roman author called On Love that is really How to Pick Up Girls 2000 years ago. Some of my friends bought these books and said they had good advice that worked pretty well in real life.
Obviously there are tricks of the trade. The wildest womanizers are not just regular guys. They have a whole fancy bag of tricks that they regularly use to seduce and bed woman after woman. If you want to be a playboy, “being yourself” won’t cut it. You’re going to need a toolset, and many of these tools straddle the fence of morality.
The problem is that what they teach you in Game is how to be a tool and an asshole. How to treat women like crap. How to more or less date rape women. How to fight against a “bitch shield” which seems rude. When I get a bitch shield, I walk away from the cunt. These guys hammer away at it with a battering ram like cops at a locked door.
A lot of the tricks are sleazy, disgusting and downright dishonest. I would not use these immoral methods no matter how many women they got me. A gentlemen, even an aging roue, should set some limits on his degeneracy. At some point, your behavior is so low that you are a scumbag. I am not interested in being a scumbag. PUA guys think being a scumbag is man’s highest calling.
These sites also engage in hypermasculinity where they all try to be more “Alpha” than everyone else. The PUA message is, “All guys need to become Alphas.” Except that will not work because in most societies, only maybe 15% of the males are true Alphas. Also real Alphas don’t go around yelling how Alpha they are and constantly starting fights for no reason with other men.
These sites have a very aggressive, super-macho air to them with a heavy atmosphere of misogyny, homophobia, aggression, hostility and even menace. When you read the comments sections, you might think you are at a Rapists Convention. They are full of contempt for male pussies, wussies, wimps, manginas and “Betas.” Hating Betas is particularly dumb as probably 70% of men are Betas by default anyway.
The biggest PUA guys come off like super jackasses, and reading them is very cringe-inducing.
PUA politics is not discussed a lot, but when it is, they tend to be Libertarians, although one of their biggest leaders, Roosh, is a fairly progressive guy.
Child custody rights advocates: These guys want to reform divorce and custody laws. As you might guess, they are all divorced and have kids. They lost a lot of money in the divorce, and the bitches won’t let them see the kid(s). These guys are often middle-aged and they are some of the angriest men in the whole Manosphere. They are on a jihad against their Wicked Witch of the West wives who really do represent all women.
These men like to go to jail voluntarily instead of paying child support and litigate endlessly in the courts. A few of them have staged events such as public suicides on courthouse steps. Such pathetic idiots, lauded as martyrs, are the heroes of the movement. This group of men is so angry at women that it is actually frightening to be on one of their forums. Threats of violence are common, and a lot of them collect weapons. This is a community of very angry older, often middle-aged, men who are two steps away from going postal. Politically, Republican Party to Libertarian.
Incels or TFL’s (True Forced Loneliness): I have already been over these types before in previous pieces. These poor sods are probably too upset to have any sort of politics at all. Eliot Rodger, famous incel mass shooter, was apparently a liberal Democrat, not that that means much except that their politics is probably all over the place and not very important anyway.