Most Nations and Peoples Are Jew-Wise; Only Whites Are Not and It Took the Holocaust to Get Us to This Place

Polar Bear: You’re damn right about America. I believe Satanic Jews dominate the Illuminati. These Satanic Jews likely hate religious Jews. So indeed not every Jew gets the check. I don’t believe the SJ’s can be as overt in the Middle East and Asia.

Jews wear the pants in the West; Chinese acknowledge this fact. Jews are at least belly dancing and putting on their Geisha face to entice royals further east. A Saudi prince or hook-nose Japanese royal may be more inclined to bend the knee.

They might make alliance with them, but Saudis and Japanese will never allow themselves to get cucked by the Jews like we did. Arabs and Japanese are 100% Jew-wise. Really, everyone except Europeans is Jew-wise. Arabs. South Asians. Russians, etc. Central Asians. Africans. SE Asians. NE Asians.

Literally nobody on Earth puts up with shit from the Jews like in the West do, and it took the Holocaust for us to get cucked like this. We cucked ourselves out of extreme guilt because regardless of our terrible behavior, we are ultimately good people.

Americans are Jewcucked and Deserve Every Bit of Exploitation and Abuse We Get from These People

Polar Bear: I think NWO members have to listen to Jews on some level. Waters become murkier when you get into the higher levels. Asians are more independent than White Gentiles, that’s for sure.

First of all, there is no Jewish Central Control that controls the whole world. Obviously a lot of Jews would love that to be true, but it just isn’t. There is no worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Every Jew doesn’t get a check from Jewish Central Control every month. Yes, Jews in the West have a lot of money and power. Wealthy and powerful Jews really like to throw their weight around, Bill Gates style. You will be assimilated to American Jews. Resistance is futile

But on a worldwide scale, Jews have a Hell of a lot less power than everyone thinks they do.

Chinese are not NWO members. They don’t give a flying fuck about Jews. Neither do Arabs, Muslims, Russians, Black Africans, SE Asians. Lots of people on Earth don’t give a flying fuck about Jews, don’t particularly like them, and are certainly not in hock or slaves to their bullshit. You think rich Arabs and Muslims listen to Jews? LOL. You think rich Poles and Russians listen to Jews and their crap? LOL.

Contrary to popular lie, you don’t have to suck up to Jews and kiss their ass to survive and make it in this world. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world don’t really like Jews very much, could care less about them, and certainly laugh if you said they had to obey them.

The Jews have the West (mostly the US and UK) by the balls because we let them do this to us and because we like Jews blackmailing us to do their bidding. When it comes to Jews, US Gentile Whites are utterly pathetic. Stockholm Syndrome all the way. We love our oppressors who blackmail us and we let them take over our whole damn system, while we cheered all the time. We deserve to have our asses owned by Jews. Fuck us harder, Jews! Harder, harder, harder, dammit!

Any sane people is somewhat anti-Semitic. If you’re not at least a bit anti-Semitic, you’re partly crazy because you don’t care about your own self and letting other people pathetically own your worthless ass.

Americans gave up their mild anti-Semitism, and look what happened. The Jews owned us lock, stock, and barrel! We are total masochistic subs when it comes to the Jews, and Jews are our sadistic doms. We can’t get enough of their abuse.

The only solution to this mess is for Americans to become somewhat more anti-Semitic, like all sane people the world over. It’ll never happen though because Americans, like my parents, are Jew-lovin’ fools!

I’d cry but I am actually laughing because we’re so stupid about Jews that we deserve all the fucking we got by these people.

LOL @ American Jewcucks!

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Cultural Left

You are an idiotic moron who claims to be Left but is a blatant rightwing White Supremacist with ego issues who posts crap all the time about ‘races’ and other such shit. I hope your blog gets taken down permanently!

I had to edit this for style because this guy is apparently not capable of writing the English language properly.

I’ve been getting bonehead comments like this from Cultural Leftards for many years now.

There’s the old chestnut about me being a rightwinger. Ok, then why do I always vote for Democrats. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you paid me, and it’s been this way since I started voting long ago. How come I absolutely despise all Republicans and other rightwingers such as Libertarians? How come I don’t even like most Democrats because I consider them too rightwing?

Also, could someone please show me a rightwing group anywhere in the US that I could join, please? Because I’ve looked around at rightwing groups in the US and even at various formations on the Net and in other countries and I can’t see any rightwing ideologies that I am interested in at all. Except maybe Russian conservatism or Putinism but the problem with that is that Russian conservatism is to the left of the US Democratic Party.

If I despise all rightwing ideologies, how could I be a rightwinger? Am I part of some ideology that has only me as a member? I’ve had this standing offer out there for a while now, and none of these losers has ever taken me up on this offer.

Whatever. This is in reference to this article. The article is titled What Did Africans Look Like 40-45,000 YBP? I noticed that that article caused this shithead to blow a few blood vessels, so I went and checked it out to how racist and White Supremacist and rightwing and evil it was because it must be all those things if this dipshit says it is, right?

Well, I went over and read through the whole thing. It is a discussion of human races and ethnic groups from an anthropological sense from the point of view of what their skulls look like. Perfectly legitimate subject. It does refer to several large races called Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids. It also refers to races such as Negritos, Papuans, Khoisan, and Pygmies. All of these are absolutely human races.

The post makes no statements positive or negative about any of those groups. There is no White Supremacism, as nowhere do I try to imply that Whites or Caucasoids are superior to other groups.

I don’t even talk about superiority or inferiority. I just describe the races by looking at their skulls and comparing them. It also goes into how some ancient skulls looked. The post points out that all modern races, including Europids are modern, that is they all appeared in the last 15,000 years. It also talks about the Out of Africa movement of many of the Earth’s people.

First of all, White Supremacists as a rule all hate the Out of Africa theory because it basically states that White people came from niggers ha ha. Well, White folks just won’t have that. That’s just a bit too insulting, ok? A bridge too far.

Asians are a lot smarter. I pointed out once that all Asians came from Black people, and some Asian guy said, “So what? If you back far enough, we were all frogs.” I told my Mom and she said, “See? That shows you right there that Asians are smarter than White people.” She’s right.

Also White Supremacists really hate that model of an early Caucasian face because he doesn’t look White. Not to mention that he has a face that not even any mother could love. They claim that all Caucasian skulls look White for tens of thousands of years. White people be all ancient and shit! Not only that, but Whites wuz kangs! What’s next? We flew airplanes and developed nuclear power?

That article is about as utterly non-racist as an article about that subject can possibly be.

But you see, to the Cultural Left, if you write about race at all, especially if you suggest that there are different races of humans that have had different evolutionary trajectories, you are a vicious, evil, White Supremacist racist. Because apparently race doesn’t exist or some shit.

Well then, lets get rid of the hate crime laws then because if there’s no race, no one can be attacked on that basis, right?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of all civil rights and void all civil rights legal rulings. Since race doesn’t exist, no one needs to be protected against discrimination against something that doesn’t exist, right?

Let’s get rid of affirmative action and goals and all that crap because how can you have goals to fill X percent of positions in your company with this category or that of a nonexistent category?

Ready when you are, Cultural Left fucktards.

What Did Africans Look like 40-45,000 YBP?

Polar Bear: What’s your best guess on the 1/3 African? Khoisan maybe?

The commenter is referring to the genesis of the Caucasoid race in the Caucasus 40-45,000 YBP which was formed by an input of 2/3 Ancient “Chinese” and 1/3 Ancient Africans as per Stanford anthropologist Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking research.

Incidentally, this great man is now being attacked by antiracist morons because he had the temerity to suggest that such things as human races either exist or used to exist. This scientific fact is now banned by anti-science Cultural Left obscurantist “fundamentalists” who resemble the religious fundamentalists they hate more than they care to note.

The commenter is asking what the Ancient African component looked like, and then asks whether they looked like a Khoisanid type.

No one really knows the answer to this question because the Khoisan as a race are new. The Khoisan people go back 53,000 YBP, but before 10-15,000 YBP, they looked a lot different. But yes, those people were the ancestors of the Khoisanids.

Have you ever seen the reconstruction of the earliest Caucasian 35,000 YBP? He’s insanely ugly and he looks nothing like any type of modern Caucasoid. He doesn’t look like any modern race, but if anything, he looks somewhat Khoisanid. However, modern Khoisanids are rather attractive people, and this ancient Caucasian looks awful. I think when God was handing out looks, this guy thought God said books, and  he said “I prefer horror.”

I haven’t seen any reconstructions of these ancient Africans, so no one quite knows what they might have looked like.

But only the Khoisan and the Pygmies remain of those ancient Africans. However, the ancestors of the Khoisan probably didn’t look Khoisan, and we don’t know what the ancestors of the Pygmies looked like because the jungle consumes and reduces everything to raw soil, including human bones.

And keep in mind that at the time we went out of Africa 70,000 YBP, there were 40 different groups in Africa, and they were all extremely different from one another. We don’t know what any of those people looked like. An ancient skull from South Africa 35,000 YBP looks “Caucasoid.”

But this is just yet another case of the parallel development that I discussed in this post in which “Caucasoid” is a frequent property of human skulls whether of the Caucasoid race or not simply because the phenotypes available to man are only a small subset of all possible phenotypes.

Hence, “Mongoloid,” “Caucasoid,” and “African” phenotypes pop up regularly outside of those groups. To give an example, many Australoids appear “African.” This includes Negritos, and other Melanesians. Some Africans such as the Khoisan appear “Asian.” And on and on. Therefore we can’t tell just by looking at a human which of the 3-4 large human races that they belong to.

Only two of those 40 groups present in Africa when we left are among those that left Africa, and at one point, those two groups out of Africa groups suffered a mass extinction event to where they were reduced to 1,500-2,000 people, possibly due to the Toba Volcano eruption in India 73,000 YBP.

What’s interesting is that there were already modern humans in India a the time of this eruption, and this is earlier than the usual 60,000 YBP date for humans leaving Africa. That there were people already in India before the Out of Africa date shows that some humans left Africa even before the given date.

This reduction of a large population to a very small number via mass death is known as a bottleneck, and it is known that we non-African humans definitely went through an evolutionary bottleneck. Other species can also go through bottlenecks in their evolutionary history.

These bottlenecks, while devastating in terms of mass death, are often good on an evolutionary basis in terms of fitness. Often only the fittest survive these events in other words, leaving a more robust and adaptive population after the bottleneck.

The Preposterous Altaic Controversy, or the Failure of Empiricism and Growth of Faith-Based Dogmatism in Modern Linguistics

Polar Bear: Interesting how North Chinese Mongol types made it down to Korea.

Yes, and keep in mind that that same group on the shores of Shandong Peninsula also became the Japanese. They were together as some sort of Proto-Japanese-Koreans as early as 8,000 YBP. That finding is controversial though because it is based on Altaic Theory and a paper by noted Altaicist Martine Robeets of the Max Plank Institute in Switzerland.

Although Altaic is as obvious a language family as Algonquian, for some reason, a group of fanatics have attacked the idea and have now turned it into the “crazy theory.”

However, I did a recent survey of Altaic linguists, and 73% of them support some form of Altaic Theory. The loudmouths are the 27% minority, and they are running the show.

General Linguistics despises Altaic Theory, it is now an ojbect of ridicule, and if you believe in Altaic you are regarded as a super-kook. I think most linguists are just going along with the fanatics due to peer pressure. Peer pressure is extreme in my field. It’s as bad an 8th grade playground, especially when they are under the cover of anonymity like the losers on the Bad Linguistics Reddit. They’re such cowards that they won’t even tell us their names.

I think the peer pressure and bullying of the erudite by the ignorant obscurantists has gotten so bad that if you said you believed in Altaic, you might have a hard time getting hired at a university nowadays.

Anti-Altaic fanaticism has come out of the US. This is unfortunate and it is because the US is the center of the linguistic scholarly universe. US linguists act as arrogant American exceptionalist “linguistic imperialists of the US hegemon” in the same way that US politics revolves around the arrogant American exceptionalist Deep State theorists promoting the US Empire and the US as the hegemon or dictator of the world.

That most of these linguists are actually on the Left while spouting the worst conservatism and reaction is even more pathetic, but it makes sense if one sees the modern Cultural Left as actually a backwards, reactionary, throwback movement.

As an example, the Cultural Left is now the Sex-Hating Left, the Victorian Left, the Comstockian Left, the Prude Left. Conservatives are more sex-positive than your average dour, sour-faced, turd-in-the-punchbowl, party-pooping Cultural Leftist.

Problem with this is that like American foreign policy know-it-all dimwits, US linguist know-it-all dimwits leading the charge against Altaic overwhelmingly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about Altaic Theory. They’re just going along with crowd, and following the bully-boys, throwing rocks and calling names at the designated victims, the Altaicists. Like I said above, it’s 8th grade all over again.

It’s pathetic, especially if you realize that these are grown men and not pubescent children engaging in such theatrics and over the top histrionics.

As an example, the Wikipedia article on Altaic has been completely ruined by these fanatics, and it stands now more as a monument to know-nothingism in the social sciences than to any sort of actual empiricism. It’s a sad day when we linguists join the rest of the social “science” crowd in their war against facts and truth in favor of ideology being led by ideologues masquerading as scientists.

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

As a result of this “virus pandemic” of ignorant anti-Altaicism coming out of the land of the free, a large majority of linguists reject Altaic Theory. I might point out that this stupidity virus didn’t spread too far across the pond.

European linguists still generally believe in Altaic, though most don’t know it well. I have seen these poor sods wander into linguistic debates shaking their heads wondering why the Hell Altaic is even controversial at all, when it’s really about as easily proven as Uto-Aztecan. They’re dumbfounded.

So this ignorance epidemic is a lot less contagious than we first feared. The anti-Altaic virus is not particularly harmful for those who catch it. The coarse is mild but very long-lasting. The only notable symptom is being reduced to drooling, screeching, straitjacket cases whenever the word Altaic is mentioned. The prognosis is good, but some might be cooking a heart attack or stroke if they don’t calm down soon.

Please note though that my research has proven that among those who specialize in Altaic,  the overwhelming majority (73%) support Altaic. I have my research written up in notes, and I really need to put it into an article. Let me know if any of you readers want me to write this up.

The Hmong-Mien Homeland and Occasional Blue Eyed Blond Haired Babies among the Asian Hmong

Polar Bear: I wonder if Hmong ruled before Han. I have no clue but Ancient Hmong were said to have many fair heads, which is an interesting visual.

The Hmong never ruled the Han.

But if you go back far enough, the Hmong go ultimately back to Xinjiang long ago, the home of the Uighurs. I recall that Queera post the poster linked to the other day claiming that the Hmong homeland was in the Yangtze River Valley, but anthropological studies imply that they were in Xinjiang before then.

I know this because I read a thorough 300-page ethnography about the Hmong written in 1953, and it went over the homeland issue extensively from an anthropological point of view.

I believe Xinjiang was much wetter back then. It has since very much dried out. I read a report of a British expedition to Xinjiang around 1906 and it was fascinating. Even back then, Xinjiang was seriously drying up. I’m not quite sure the reason. Since then, it’s gotten even worse. There are vast lakes there that are dry or drying up, along with a lot of dry of intermittent watercourses.

The Uighurs are half Caucasian and half Asian, even split. Some look as White as I do; others look Chinese. There has long been mixing between Caucasoids and Mongoloids in this part of the world, going way, way back even 15-20,000 YBP.

This is the “Caucasoid” in Siberians and Amerindians. It’s not really Caucasoid genes. It’s ancient Caucasoid ancestry, and those ancient Caucasoids in that part of the world didn’t look like White people. As best we can tell, they looked like the Amerindians of the Washington coast. So ancient Caucasoids didn’t look like us. They had a Mongoloid appearance.

Keep in mind that the Tocharians, a certainly-Caucasoid Indo-European group, also lived in this area. Remember the mummies that have been found in this part of the world dating back thousands of years? A number of them have been found with blond and red hair, and their genes indicate that a number also had blue eyes.

Yes, any Hmong will tell you that a very Caucasoid looking baby will at times pop up in the Hmong world, the legacy of some old recessive gene no doubt. There are many stories of blond, blue-eyed Hmong babies, and I actually have some pictures of some of them that I can put up if you wish.

I asked the Hmong I knew whether these people had recent Caucasoid ancestry, and they were adamant that they were pure Hmong. So this is an ancient trace of Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixing in the Proto-Hmong-Mien homeland of Xinjiang thousands of years ago.

Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Southern and Northern Chinese: How to Tell Them Apart

How the Hell would I know? They’re all just a bunch of gooks to me! J/k. Don’t report me to SJW  Central Control please!

SHI: One should just go with a Vietnamese or Northern Chinese girl if you’re craving a Korean. Can’t tell the difference anyway.

SHI is a connoisseur of women, and I am more like a common sewer when it comes to women, but I will respect his judgement nevertheless.

Northern Chinese look very much like Koreans, and I very much doubt if there is a good way to sort them out. Koreans do have very prominent high cheekbones. That’s their Mongolian heritage as they pretty much came from Mongolia long ago. They along with the Japanese settled on the northeast coast of China in the Shandong area 7-8,000 years ago (believe it or not) and stayed there for many years. See recent excellent work by Martine Robeets on this.

The Koreans may have moved in from there 3-5,000 YBP, and Japanese invaded Japan in a huge wave 2,300 YBP. These people were called the Yayoi. The Yayoi are actually thought to have moved first from Shandong to Korea and then south from Korea to Japan a couple thousand years ago. But Northern Chinese and Mongolians are more or less the same thing.

The Japanese came from this same Mongolian stock, but they bred in so deeply with the Ainu that they definitely look different from Koreans. But they both also look quite similar, and it’s not easy to tell them apart either. In addition, there are a lot of mixed Japanese-Koreans in Japan. They’re almost a cliche.

Viets definitely look different from either Japanese or Koreans. They are also full of Chinese, but they are full of Cantonese Southern Chinese (“the barbarians” as the Northern Chinese refer to them), and Southern Chinese look a lot different from Northern Chinese.

Viets are a mixture of a more Austroloid type exemplified by the Montagnard tribesmen (look at a photo of them sometime). Actually the Montagnards are more like Australoids transitioning to Mongoloids or early SE Asians. Completed modern SE Asians are Mongoloids with some lingering traces of their Australoid heritage.

2,300 years ago, a huge wave of Southern Chinese conquerors spread through Vietnam and thoroughly bred in with the population. Nevertheless there was a Chinese minority in Vietnam in recent who tended to run the businesses (as usual). They were quite persecuted after the Communists took over, and most of them fled as boat people.

Were the First Residents of America Caucasoids?

Jason: David Duke I think was putting forth some theory where Whites were the original inhabitants of the New World – HA HA. O.K., any credibility in this?

Nope. It’s based on a willful misinterpretation of the Kennewick Man from 9,000 YBP in Washington state.

His features were sometimes called Caucasoid but actually he plots closest to people called Moriori, a Maori subgroup exterminated by the Maori. They were sort of a more Melanesianized version of the Maori. Read up on the saga on the Moriori for a parable about the perils of pacifism.

Beyond that, he plots close to the Ainu, which is probably a better model. The Ainu have a notorious “Caucasoid” appearance and were long  thought to be Ancient Norwegians who got lost in Siberia when one of their dogsled races went off-course and ended up in Nippon and got stranded there with their palms up in the air not knowing where they were, how they got there, or what to do. Well, at least they still had access to salted fish!

The original Japanese were reportedly these little people who somewhat resembled some sort of Northeast Asian Negritos. As is usual for the Negritos, the Ainu who showed up 14,000 YBP promptly Holocausted them.

Ancient Negrito types also seem to be the ancient peoples of Southeast Asia, Southern China and the Philippines. This is where Black nationalist dipshits get their ideas that the original Chinese were Black people. Yeah, Chinese were niggas and shee-it! Right along with we wuz kangs. I don’t think so.

So ancient Negrito types may have been generalized across the southeastern part of Asia long ago. They persist today in the Andaman Islands, Thailand as the Orang Asli and to some extent the Senoi, Malaysia as the Mani, and the Philippines as the Agta. There are also said to be Negrito types in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Wherever they exist, the non-Negritos tend to turn into Nazis and Shoah the Negritos. The strong shall rule the weak, you know.

Ainu might be considered Paleoasians. There is a ready explanation for the Caucasoid appearance. In my opinion, some Australoids (such as the Ainu) and Australoid-Paleoasian mixes such as Polynesians definitely look Caucasoid. Polynesians are a mix of Paleoasian Taiwanese aborigines (who already look Caucasoid) and Melanesian, with an extra Melanesian dose in the case of the archaic Moriori above.

I have seen the same Australoid-Asian mix (really the basis for Paleoasians) in Timor and Cambodia. In both cases, the Caucasoid appearance was stark. This is probably just parallel development. Consider that of all the possible facial structures of man, probably only a small subset of those is available to us as humans.

Our small subset consists of “types” such as “African, “Asian,” “Caucasoid,” “Australoid,” and “Capoid.” Capoids are Hottentots, Bushmen, or the Khoisan. The Amerindians combine “Asian” and “Caucasoid” types. Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians combine “Australoid” and “Asian” types, at times resulting coincidentally in an accidental “Caucasoid” type.

Since there only a small subset of types available to us, various combinations will result in  “Asian” or “Caucasoid” types, etc. purely by coincidence. You follow?

It’s also based on a theory called the Solutrean Theory that “Caucasoids” walked across the ice on the Atlantic Ocean to come to the US based on similarities between projectile points in France and the East Coast of the US ~14,000 YBP.

There was thought to be genetic evidence of the Solutrean Theory in the presence of an odd gene type in the Eastern US not found elsewhere. However, recent genetic studies concluded that this gene is now not thought to be related to the Ancient French, who probably already had good cooking even shortly after they walked out of their caves. A rundown of the matter is available on the Solutrean Theory article on Wikipedia.

The similarities in projectile points are now thought to be another case of parallel development, as perhaps projectile points like skulls also have only a subset of possible points available to humans.

Anyway, Europeans from 14,000 YBP may have looked more like Amerindians than modern Caucasoids. Modern Caucasoids are new, having sprung only in the last 15,000 years. I think the original models may have come out of Arab lands 12,000 YBP. So basically sand niggers were the first White people. Swallow that pill and choke on  it, Nordicists!

You can see some of what may be “ancient Caucasoids” in the South Indian Dravidians, the Mozabites (an odd-looking Berber group from Algeria), and the Suomi or Lapps (the oldest extant Caucasoids in Europe who date from 9,000 YBP and happen to have a somewhat Asian appearance).

White nationalist morons (all ethnic nationalists are morons – often dangerous morons) have taken up Kennewick Man as their own in addition  to the deprecated Solutrean Theory. This gives them their usual dose of solipsism, validation, and triumphalism which is the basis for all ethnic nationalism (and is also the raw material of the human ego not coincidentally).

It also enables them to play their beloved victim card where they were the original residents of the US until they got Shoahed by evil ancient Nazi Amerindians. Now they want their revenge and to take these lands as their own, except it’s a bit too late for that. They should have started on that 12 million illegal immigrants ago. By now it’s just another White Whale or doomed cause.

It also allows them to throw the Amerindians off their ill-deserved throne as First Americans and portrays them as vicious invaders, usurpers and of course Holocausters who probably murdered six gadzillion ancient American Caucasoids (who all looked just like David Duke) after they invaded over the Bering Strait and crashed down through the holes in the ice to reach our hallowed land.

What Race Are Latin American Mestizos?

Jason Muniz: Wouldn’t that include most mestizos since Native Americans have 1/3 West Eurasian ancestry? Mestizos basically have West Eurasian ancestry from both their European side as well as their Native American one. I guess it would depend on each individual mestizo.

Mestizos don’t have European ancestry from their Native American side. What do you mean? You mean that many Latin American Amerindians have some White in them? Well, ok, if that is what you are referring to, correct then

Well, down in Latin America, you are White if you are 75-85% White, so I would say that any Mestizos who are in that category would be White. Really, I would say that any mestizo with a mostly-White phenotype is pretty much White.

Most Argentines, Chileans, and Southern Brazilians are definitely White, that’s for sure. And a lot of the Latin American upper class is absolutely White.

Anymore than that though and we are getting into mixed race people like you have in the Stans. They’re not really members of any race. There are some people like that up in the Urals too and over in Siberia. They’re so mixed that it’s hard to tell if they are White or Asian.

In the West (the Urals) they look a lot more White, but they are “funny Whites” – very Asiatic looking. Over towards Siberia, they are a lot more Asiatic, but you can still see a lot of White in them. Uyghurs and people like that would be judged on an individual basis. If they look mostly White, they’re White. If they look mostly Asian, they’re Asian. And if they’re totally mixed in, they are just mixed-race.

Are Native Americans Caucasoids or Asiatics?

Jason Muniz: Yeah, I’m from the old site. No, I’ve been here before but I just don’t come often. I came this time to read any race-related articles. What do you think about this idea by “Monfret” concerning Native Americans being genetically and phenotypically Caucasoids as opposed to Asiatics?

Just looking at that already, I can tell you it’s not true.

They are absolutely Asiatics. However, of all the Asiatics, they are probably the closest to Caucasoids. Siberians are similar in that respect. Some Native Americans have skulls that look rather Caucasoid though, mostly some in the US. I’d have to see them plotted on a skull chart to see how they plot out to whether they are Asiatic or Caucasoid.

A commenter further down on the page is correct. He says that Native Americans plot somewhere between Asiatics and Caucasoids, but they are closer to Asiatics.

But there’s overlap. For instance, the Chukchi actually plot Caucasian on charts. Take a look at them. They look like Asian Inuit types. They live in far eastern Siberia. For that matter, some Berber populations plot Black genetically. But if you look at them, they are clearly more Caucasoid. The fact that there are White and Black Berbers (say, in Morocco) confuses things even further.

The author is correct that ancient Caucasoids look Native American. A Caucasoid skull in Europe from 20,000 YBP plots closer to the Makah Indians of Washington state than to anything else. The Makah look Asiatic. So if you go back 20,000 years, Caucasoid skulls in Europe do look “Asiatic.’

But keep in mind that all human races are new. None go back further than 15,000 years. So before that, we are getting into races that just don’t exist anymore. Comparing nonexistent races to present ones is problematic to say the least.

Repost: Caucasian Nationalism – A New Movement

Ha ha, this old post is so worth a repost. It was published 5 1/2 years ago! As you can see, it is totally not serious at all. The whole post is a big joke, written with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Have fun, boyos.

I just created this movement because no one else did. I did it because it is so dumb I do not expect anyone to join. It’s called Caucasian Nationalism.

I figure if you are going to be a racist, you may as well hate the fewest number of people possible.

I don’t have a breakdown on the population of humanity by race, but being a Caucasian Nationalist will possibly allow you to love as many as 1/3 of all humans as brothers. You won’t like the other 2/3, but most of them have big lips or squinty eyes anyway, so why would you want to like them in the first place?

Compare this to Nordicists who hate anyone not a Viking, Arab nationalists who hate the 97% of humanity who’s not a towel-head, and Orthodox Jews who hate 99.7% of humanity because they aren’t Hebes.

I advocate for the cause of all Caucasians everywhere, including Jews, Indians, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. You need to be over 50% to get in.

If you have less than 50%, we will still pause a moment in your presence to bow before the Great White Man within you. That goes for US Blacks, Hispanics, Mongolians, Ethiopians, Altai, Uighurs, most US Amerindians and possibly Siberians.It is true that we will cleave off from a large section of humanity, but that is ok.

For the Asians, we will just fuck their women and take over their laundromats, and if the men object, we won’t care about these inscrutable yellow girly-men because they are skinny, wimpy, nearsighted, and weak, and we will kick their asses. If they try to defend themselves with martial arts, we will just respond with firearms.

For the Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians, there is not much to do. They all live on islands, and Caucasians mostly don’t dig islands. Abos are pretty much history anyway, so no worries. Polynesians will be offered jobs playing steel guitar and dancing in our tiki restaurants.

Melanesians and Micronesians barely exist to us, and are too messed up to attack us, so we will let them catch rays on their beaches and leave us alone. No one even knows what a Papuan is.

For American Indians, if they are 51% or more White, they are in. Ok, that takes care of most of them right here. For the rest, we have not yet decided, but we will accept applications as White Man’s Squaw and for performing in our traveling cowboy and Indian shows. Other than that, they are sort of hopeless too, except for their casinos, but at any rate, they are not a threat.

If they ever get uppity and ornery, we will just mass-ship alcohol into their regions and get them all drunk like we did to the Chinese in the Opium War.

US Blacks will need to supply proof of at least 51% White ancestry to get in. The ones that don’t cut it, we will let them work as entertainers for our shows. We will also allow them to cook and wait tables for us in our fried chicken and rib joints. Other than that, we don’t have to worry much about them. Many US Blacks are too busy drinking, taking drugs, listening to gangsta rap, and murdering each other to bother us anyway.

Mestizos will need to submit applications to see whether or not they are over 50% White. If they are, they are in like Flynn. Too much Indian, the door. If they don’t dig it, they can go pray to the dead Aztec Gods and cast spells on us with their fake witches.

We beat ’em many times in the past, and it was usually a 15-0 wipe-out on our side. They barely got to third base. They will never get off the couch to rise again, and most are too overweight to do so anyway.

We don’t regard Amerindians, even with White admixture, as a serious threat to us. That they are considered a threat to entire nations is one of today’s best jokes. If they ever really rise up like Sendero, we will have to deal. Watchful waiting.

At first I thought that this was a brand-new movement, but unfortunately, one of the most horrible people on Earth, Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network, supports it too (although he wishes to excise all Jews and kill them). I’m a horrible person too, but I suspect that Linder has crossed the boundary of horribleness.

When I read that he was a pan-Caucasianist (except for the Jews), I had to respect him, or at least .0001% of him (like when I heard the Night Stalker loved cats). He wants to kill off a good portion of humanity, but at least he’s not a Nordicist, and he wants to save the East Indians, the Arabs and the Ainu. I felt there was a tiny speck of magnanimity amongst that black vision of his.

There is a very serious problem with Caucasian Nationalism. First of all, many of these folks will refuse to admit to being Caucasian. Others insist they are White, but no one else will believe them.

Tell a Malian they are White, and they will hug you and agree, but no one else will think they are. Jews truly despise the idea of being White, but they hate shvartzes even more, and Jews are certainly not Chinese.

Tell a Moroccan he is White, and he will embrace you, pack a bowl of hash for you in the waterpipe, invite you to marry his cousin, and start shouting about how the Berbers were the original humans. Tell a Pashtun he is White, and he will run up to you, kiss you on the cheek, invite you in for tea in the men’s room, and regale you with tales of being the original Aryans.

The real problem here is not one of identity; it’s more that so many of our Caucasian tribes hate each other so much they will never get together to join the movement, much less have each other over for tea. At the moment, many of them are busy massacring each other. This time-honored tradition is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Alt Left: Communism Is a Universal Movement Not Tied to Any Ethnicity

Communism appeals to all sorts of people on a basic level. Look at what Communism promises. It’s pretty clear that that’s something that a lot of humans would want, not any particular ethnicity or culture.

Polar Bear: NS Germany surely had a German spirit. Was Communism based on Russian farm culture or anything native? I often think it contrasts with warring Celtic tribes on the British Isles and Ireland. Maybe some of it is Slavic in nature.

I’m not sure. You know it took off in Mozambique, Grenada, Angola, Cuba, Afghanistan, China, Vietnam, Laos, Chile, Congo, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen too, right?

And they almost won in Peru, El Salvador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Colombia.

The CP was huge in Iraq – the  base of Moqtada Sadr’s movement is actually the old Iraqi CP! Most of Sadr’s followers and soldiers were former members of the Iraqi CP. It had huge memberships in Sadr City. Eurocoms were huge in France and Italy. The CP is in the ANC government in South Africa.

In addition, Communism  was very popular in Kazakhstan (Turkics), Tajikistan (Iranics), Uzbekistan (Turkics), Turkmenistan (Turkics), Kyrgyzstan (Turkics), Karelia, Mari-El and Udmurtia (Finno-Urigics), the Caucasus, Azerbaijan (Turkics), Armenia, among Siberian Turkics, Buryats (Mongolics), Tungusics, the Nivkhi (Japanese types), and the Chukchi (Inuit types).

I’m afraid there’s a little more to it than Slavicism. I do not believe it was ever very popular in Poland, the Baltics, Finland or Georgia though. Stalin once said that forcing Communism on the Poles was like putting a saddle on a cow.

Anyway, Marx was German and Engels was British. Rosa Luxembourg was German. Antonio Gramschi was Italian. Carlos Luis Mariategui and Edith Lagos were Peruvian. Manuel Marulanda Gabriel Garcia Marquez were Colombians. Gabriel Mistral was Chilean. Farbundo Marti and Roque Dalton were Salvadorans.

Augustino Sandino was Nicaraguan. Pablo Picasso was a Spaniard. Ho Chi Minh was Vietnamese. Mao Zedong was Chinese. Patrice Lumumba was Congolese. Samora Machel was Mozambican. Those are all very famous Communists who were non-Slavic.

We and our pals overthrew non-Commie Leftist nationalists in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Guyana, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Portugal, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. We and our pals tried unsuccessfully to overthrow them in a number of other places.

Communism has universal appeal. It is nothing less than the dream of a better world. That is why in a way I was sad when the Eastern bloc collapsed because what collapsed with it was that most beautiful dream.

The Latin American Left believed in the dream of a better world. And in Latin America, that is a dangerous thing.

– Alejandra, an Argentine ex-girlfriend

Australoids: The Ainu and the Earliest Amerindians and Caucasians

Peindish: If the Jomon arrived 15KYA, who were the inhabitants of Japan stretching back 30-40KYA?

It’s said this older population had haplogroup D and the newer Jomon group at around 15KYA had haplogroup C, but haplogroup is not a good indicator of race, since you can have a haplogroup of another part of the world and be 99.99% not of the other race.

The Ainu have legends of “Koropokkur,” describing them as very short people who fished for food and lived under butterbur leaves. Either this is some Negrito-like population or it’s the Nivkhs who were pushed by the Jomonese further north into Sakhalin.

What do you think?

Yes, I always thought they were some strange sort of Northern Negritos.

I think the Jomon showed up 13-14,000 YBP.

I don’t know about the prehistory of the Nivkhi. Are they short?

There is some recent data connecting the Nivkhi with some of the earlier Native American populations. It’s thought that the early ones could have come by boat across the Alaska coast down the Western Canadian coast to the Western US coast. They have a petrified shit in a cave in Oregon that is older than 14,300 YBP. That’s older than Clovis, so that’s interesting right there. The Clovis barrier is gone. Let’s just hang it up.

Also, those early people who were in the Americas around 10-12,000 YBP looked something like Negritos or Australoids at least in facial features. There are some remnants in the far south of Chile – the Yaghnan – and there were also some extinct groups in Baja California that were very primitive.

Kennewick Man found in Washington State from 9,000 YBP looks like an Ainu or a Maori, or more specifically, a Moriori, the more archaic and Australoid or Melanesian people who were exterminated so cruelly by the Maori ~1830’s-1840’s.

The Ainu are also Australoid facially. They are sort of a Northern Australoid. Look closely at them. Look at how much they look like Aborigines. Kennewick Man was said to look “Caucasoid,” but that is an illusion, as some Aborigines can look vaguely like this.

In particular, a cross between an Australoid and an Asian can look remarkably “Caucasoid.” Check out some of the Taiwan Aborigines or the Ainu for that matter. The Ainu also were long thought to be Caucasoid, but their genes are Asian, and their faces are actually Australoid. If you go back 9,000 YBP, almost everyone in Asia appears Australoid.

I believe a skull from the Caucasus from 33,000 YBP looks somewhat Australoid. That’s the funny looking bald headed guy that everyone was laughing about, as people were calling him the first Caucasian.

But he was the first Caucasians, the Caucasians having arisen 40-45,000 YBP via crossbreeding between 1/3 African population settled in Asia and 2/3 very early Chinese population that may have been quite Australoid. So Caucasians were created by 1/3 Black person and 2/3 Asian person. Most White Supremacists probably don’t want to hear that though ha ha.

Sure, Women Go With Conquerors but Usually Not with Genocidal Conquerors

Polar Bear: Women like the “winners,” from slave owners to invading NS Germans. We can’t un-close those legs. My point is being on top matters to women. This is a universal truth. When White women are invaded or conquered, it’s the same. To the victor go the spoils.

That may be so, PB, but the latest thinking is that for a variety of reasons, there was not a whole lot of slavemaster-slave sex going on, and what was going on was mostly with the house slaves. Even radical antiracist Black ultra-SJW’s are saying this, and if they’re saying it, it’s probably true because they’d be the last people on Earth to say that.

In truth, after the First Liberation (1865), 80% of Blacks were pure Black. No White genes at all. And the latest thinking is that a lot of the White genes that they did have went in during the last 20-30 years prior to the Civil War. You see, around 1830-1840, the plantation owners basically ran out of slaves. The slave trade itself was illegal and had ended ~1810, so they couldn’t import new ones.

What’s a slave owner to do? Simple, hire a bunch of those idle poor White men over there to work in the fields alongside the Blacks. And from 1835-1861, there were many Whites, almost all men, working in the fields alongside Blacks of both sexes.

A lot of these men were not married, and being dirt poor, they were not particularly racist. They got along quite well with the Black slaves. There was probably this attitude of, “Hey, we’re all fucked. We White men are fucked, and these Blacks slaves are fucked. None of us has a thing. Screw it.” There was a considerable amount of interracial sex between White men and Black women during this period.

If you consider that 80% of Blacks had no White in them in 1865, and almost 100% of true US Blacks now have an average of ~25% White in them, it’s quite obvious that there was a Hell of a lot of interracial sex going on from 1865  to the  present day.

In fact, Blacks were already heavily Whitened by the Second Liberation in 1964. And this was a period in which Blacks in the South lived under Jim Crow, and even Blacks  and West in the north lived under a lot of racial restrictions such as housing covenants, more or less legal if not mandatory discrimination in all sorts of ways, and sundown towns.

We had many sundown towns here in California. There are reportedly still a few sundown towns in the South. They are all-White towns of ~3,000 people in rural Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc. Apparently not a whole lot of Blacks are even keen on moving into those towns, so the sundown feature is not challenged.

Considering the extreme oppression that Blacks lived under in the South and to some extent elsewhere, it is quite amazing how much interracial sex went on in the century after the Civil War. And keep in mind that much of this sex was illegal, as miscegenation was against the law in many states.

Getting back to the original question, honestly, those slaves probably saw the slavemaster as more of an oppressor than a winner.

How many Jewish women got with Nazis? How many Palestinian women fuck Jewish men and vice versa? How many Kurdish women screw Turkish men? How many Hutu women got with Tutsi men? How many Carib women got with Columbus’ men? How many German women got with Russian men after 1945? How many Russian women got with German men after 1942?

People don’t dig genocide. They’re not into getting genocided. Sure, women get with conquerors in the modern era if the conquerors are relatively nice, especially if the war ends and the hostilities are all over. Most conquered women don’t get with genocidal killers of the other race.

Yes, a lot of German and Japanese women got with American men after the war, but we were not genocidal against Germans and Japanese. Especially after the war was over, there was not a whole lot of killing going on. There was some in Germany all right, in the camps where we put German POW’s, but those were soldiers, not everyday civilians.

Yes, some Frenchwomen got with Nazis, but the Nazis were not genocidal towards the French.

Indian women got with White men, but we were actually not genocidal towards their people, despite what you read. Most of the Indians died of disease, like at least 95% of them. The number of Indians killed by Whites was something like 7,000 in the whole history of the Indian wars.

Many Indian women in Latin America got with Spanish and Portuguese men, but the Spaniards were typically not genocidal. There was prejudice and discrimination but there was none at first when a lot of the genes went in.

Alt Left: Primitive Peoples Understood Teen Sexuality Far Better Than Modern Ones

If you study primitive peoples, you find that their traditional knowledge says this or that about whatever aspect of human biology or behavior. It’s based on their observations over centuries, knowledge of which traditionally rested with the elders. Hence why elders are so respected in these cultures.

And you will notice over and over that their traditional knowledge lines right up with what modern science, psychology, or medical science has discovered, except these folks figured this out way before science did. We think those people are stupid, but they’re not as dumb as you think.

An interesting sidelight. Many to most modern cultures have pretty insane attitudes about teenage sexuality or even the sexuality of young adults. Basically, it’s banned in most human cultures, and it’s even banned to a great extent in our own culture. My mother is still opposed to premarital sex to this very day. I’ve always been resentful of that, but that’s how she was brought up, so hey.

But if you study primitive cultures, you often find that they have very sane attitudes towards sex and young people. Typically, girls may start having sex at age 13-14 in most of these societies, and they often choose boys that age to have sex with.

However, they can choose older men, usually younger men but sometimes quite a bit older. In traditional Blackfoot culture, the typical initial marriage was between a 15 year old girl and a 35 year old man. I believe the world’s oldest man in the Current Year is a Somali man who is over 115 and recently acquired yet another wife, a 15 year old girl! Three cheers for the old dog!

In prior eras, no teenage girl or boy in the history of mankind was ever harmed by having sex with an adult. The notion that such things are harmful or damaging to young people is a new idea, and frankly it’s a conceit because it goes against thousands of years of human knowledge.

Coming of age ceremonies in many of these cultures take place around age 15. You complete the rituals of your gender, and then at age 15, you are either a man or a woman and are expected to behave like one. Our notion of adulthood at 18 or 21 or whenever is obviously completely arbitrary.

In the Middle Ages, children were seen as “little adults” and treated as such. They often did adult work and chores. I’m not sure if they acted any more mature than they do now, but if you expect a kid to act like an adult, he might act a lot more mature. Hence we had strange things like boy kings and whatnot. Romeo and Juliet were both only 13 years old.

Getting back to the Hmong, these people, unlike most modern civilized people, figured out that young people are horny as Hell and are not going to be satisfied with mere masturbation. They realized that young people desire independence and wish to be away from the parents. Modern societies continue to resist this notion.

Hence the Hmong allow young unmarried people aged 18-20+ to go off away from the village in the evenings. They have little places in the jungle where they gather and have whatever fun they wish to have among themselves.

The Hmong realize that at least some of these young people will be having sex in their evening hangouts, but unlike many modern cultures, they’re ok with that. Sex is completely allowed in these circumstances, but if a pregnancy occurs, the couple must get married.

Teenage Girls Look So Great Because Their Bodies Are Completely Abnormal and Non-adaptive

If you have ever looked at teenage girls very much (and I know all of you perverts have, quit lying now) you will notice something interesting. Girls from age ~16-~18 have very interesting bodies. In male fantasy, these bodies are absolutely perfect.

For it is mostly in girls this age that you see the male dream of a girl who is quite thin with the most outrageous curvy body! Normally it just doesn’t work that way. Small body, small tits. You want the big tits? Fine. Resign yourself to a big lady. Big tits come on big women. Big tits don’t come on skinny women except if she has plastic surgery, but then she has created a type of human that does not exist in nature other than in the teenage girl.

These girls look so great because their bodies are completely abnormal! Those bodies are not adaptive at all. Forget it. That body is very poorly adapted to womanhood. This simple reason for that is that a girl in that age range still has a somewhat immature body, believe it or not. Most believe that we quit growing around age 17, but while that’s true for height, it’s not so true for development. Because a 16-18 year old girl has a body that is poorly adapted for pregnancy!

Yes, a  16-18 year old girl has hips that are not wide enough yet to carry a baby to term properly. This is one of the reasons for the increased rates of pregnancy complications among girls this age.

And at ages 18-19, a girl’s hips finally widen to the proper width of a grown woman’s. Only now is she fully adapted to carry a baby to term. So you see what turns us on so much is a body that is not even really normal for a human being! It’s immature and completely non-adaptive. We are being attracted to an illusion, an impostor, a fakery.

I have always marveled at the intelligence of primitive peoples. I did a lot of ethnographic work on the Hmong at university. In fact, I read an entire ethnography (cultural history) of the Hmong – ~300 pages. An ethnography is to anthropology what a grammar is to linguistics. A grammar is a complete record of the language of a people, and an ethnography is a complete record of the culture of a people.

A lot of the work was done in the 1950’s. At this time the Hmong had almost no exposure to any sort of modern anything. They still lived very primitive lives as hunter-gatherers and swidden agriculturalists. Most of their knowledge of people and even medicine was traditional.

According to Hmong tradition, pregnancy in women is best delayed until ages 19-20. Before that, the Hmong feel that the pregnancy is more likely to have problems. What is fascinating about this is that this is exactly the age at which a woman’s hips widen enough to properly carry a baby. Before those ages, as noted, a female’s hips are not wide enough to properly carry a baby.

I doubt if the Hmong figured out about the hips widening, but they had figured out via the wisdom of the ancients (knowledge of which is now completely trashed as bigoted and stereotypical by SJW’s) that it was better to wait until 19 or 20 to have a kid versus before those ages. Ancient knowledge of which has now been conclusively proven by modern medical science. But they figured it out on their own.

Answer to Spot the Language 27

Ertuğrul bilal: My best guess would be a people of South East Asia; I am tempted to assert Dayak; yet Aceh is better choice out of the hints you gave.

Note: I couldn’t help myself out of curiosity and cheated somewhat. The correct answer came along quite fast following a quick web search: Paiwan, an Austronesian people from Taiwan. That explains the statement regarding they are among best mariners of planet’s history.

Ertuğrul is a poster from Turkey. He’s quite good at languages. He’s of Laz ethnicity but I don’t think he speaks Laz.

He did a good job! Dayak and Acehese are not far. After all, they are close to the location, and they both speak Austronesian languages!

That explains the statement regarding they are among best mariners of planet’s history.

Exactly! They were the Lapita, the greatest mariners in history! They settled all of the Polynesian and to a significant extent the Micronesian islands. I don’t understand the settlement of Micronesia very well.

They also settled the coast of New Guinea, but there were already Papuans living there whom they apparently supplanted. They also settled all of Melanesia even though there were probably already people there. They settled the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, you name it.

It’s not known what languages were spoken in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even Melanesia before the Austronesians showed up. I would assume that Papuan languages were spoken in Melanesia. Papuan languages may still be spoken in far eastern Indonesia, hence Papuan is a good choice for Indonesia too.

Howevever, I’m not aware of much if any substrate in Austronesian hinting at the languages that were supplanted. The Negritos of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are obviously the indigenous people whose languages and ethnicities were supplanted by the Austronesian colonists.

However, all Negritos in this area speak languages Austronesian languages. Whatever their ancestral languages were – possibly Papuan as the Andaman Islanders appear to speak a Papuan language – were lost and replaced by the languages of the colonizers.

Even genetically, the Negritos of Malaysia and the Philippines are not different. Genetically, the Negritos of Malaysia resemble Malaysians and the Negritos of the Philippines resemble Filipinos. This is due to genetic swamping – the Austronesian colonists bred massively into the local Negrito populations, rendering the genetic similar in both cases.

Alt Left: Identity Politics of Superior Groups Is Particularly Dangerous

White IP parallels the fall of angels, th 1/3 that fell from heaven felt superior to humans and were in a lot of ways. With their advanced technology, precision, etc. some Whites develop a sort of elven elitism. Elves, angels, and Whites can be more ruthless than orcs. Perhaps they are more capable..

Face facts, some races and ethnic groups are superior on at least certain metrics. That’s not even controversial science, yet anyone who states this fact may well have their life and career ruined by SJW psychos.

But look:

Germans and Japanese both score very high on IQ tests – superior to many other groups, and objectively speaking, both developed advanced societies in a variety of ways. Their societies were also superior to many others 70 years ago. The Germans were considered to be one of the more attractive White groups, albeit a subjective notion.

In short these two groups could be seen as superior on a number of metrics. So logically, it was easy for them to feel superior. Those who achieve superior results in society tend to feel superior to others.

The odd part was that Jews were superior on a number of metrics to Germans  (let’s face it) and there’s no good evidence that many Slavs, such as Poles, are inferior to Germans (Poles score higher in IQ tests than Germans).

However the superiority of the Germans caused them to see other groups, even other groups that were on the same level or even higher than they were, as inferior. A sense of superiority isn’t necessarily logical. The problem is that that sentiment exists at all.

In Central Africa, the Tutsis were taller, lighter skinned,  had fairer features, and were perhaps more intelligent than the Hutus, who looked more like typical Africans. So the Tutsis were superior in a number of ways. Look what happened. 1 million Hutus murdered in only three weeks.

Problem is that when hugely superior groups develop an IP, the results can be out and out genocidal. Their sense of superiority allows them to regard many of the groups around them as inferior, and mass murder can flow from that.

Whites do score superior to many other races on objective testing, particularly intelligence testing. One could argue that they have achieved superior results in technology, science, the arts, innovation, and civilization in general. So when objectively superior Whites develop an IP, it’s typically pretty ugly stuff.

Take-home point: Objectively superior groups developing IP is very dangerous. Their sense of superiority, already validated by facts, gets blown out of proportion. There’s a tendency to regard many other groups as inferior – and face it, on a lot of metrics, they are.

These validated senses of superiority of themselves and inferiority of others leads to disdain and contempt for those below them and to savage IP in which they can be quite cruel, vicious, murderous, and even genocidal.

The more objectively superior the group, the more brutal the IP. Not true all the time, but definitely true a lot of the time. Superior group’s IP is a dangerous thing. It’s no wonder that people get alarmed when certain groups develop IP.

Interracial Dating in My City

RL: That’s not the ideal situation at all, Jason. Even here in California in the midst of the diversity, Whites are generally paired up with Whites, Blacks with Blacks, Hispanics with Hispanics, and so on. Most people end up dating their own kind for whatever reason.

Jason: I’m saying people should be cool with it if it’s on the table, but normally it’s not, although it is way more than in the past.

Oh yeah! People are absolutely cool with interracial dating here! This is California, bro. Yes there are some Whites who disapprove of racemixing, but they are very much the minority, and they better be awful careful about who they talk to about this.

*****

The following two combos are relatively common, although you don’t even see these very often.

White man – Hispanic woman. You hear about them, but you don’t see them very often.

White woman – Black man. You don’t see these very often either. You see more of it in young White women around here, but the Black men they hook up with are the worst thugs of all, and the White girls don’t seem to marry them – they only date them. These White girls will probably marry a White man.

*****

As you can see, only Whites are dating outside their race with any frequency. I am not sure what that means. I will allow commenters to elaborate. Obviously we Whites are the most evil and diabolical racist scum of all since we are more likely to date outside our race than any other group, right? The extent of White racist evil never fails to amaze me.

****

The following combos are not common:

Hispanic woman – Black man. I have seen one case – divorced.

Black woman – Hispanic man. I know of only one case.

Black woman – White man. Only saw one case, a high school boy and girl, and both appeared to be either virgins or near-virgins. It sure was delightful to see these two 15 year old teenagers love wrestling and making out in public.

Asian M or F – Any other race F or M. No interracial dating at all. We simply hardly have any of these people around here. We have a tiny few Chinese and a very small Filipino population. There is also a tiny Vietnamese and Khmer population. They all date within their own races.

There was something just joyously beautiful about two sexual greenhorns breaking themselves in so innocently. And it really charmed me that this White boy fell for this Black girl and the other way around for that matter. You don’t see that very often.

****

As you can see, both Black and Hispanic women don’t hook up outside their race all that much.

Game/PUA: The Intersection of Race and Gender

Great post from Polar Bear.

This is why I love stereotypes. We all know full well that stereotypes are not true in their entirety and are only widespread average glimpses of entire groups. Anyway, people will never stop stereotyping no matter how much the SJW’s scream. Stereotyping is simply generalization and pattern recognition. Generalization is one of the hallmarks of higher thinking.

SJW’s hate generalizations. I tell you what. Try to go through one full day without generalizing. I really doubt if you will even make it out of your bed. We all make generalizations about all sorts of things all the time, every minute of every day. The notion that humans should live without generalization is not only ridiculous. It is downright dangerous.

Pattern recognition is the essence of higher thinking. The higher the IQ, the greater the pattern recognition. This even extends beyond IQ’s of 145.

Stereotypes are generalizations, a necessity every moment of our lives. All generalizations are pattern recognition, the very essence of the highest thinking that we are capable of. In other words, stereotyping is simply pattern recognition, the ultimate in thinking, in terms of human behavior. Polar Bear does a lot of stereotyping here, but while he does this, he tells us many (in my opinion) essential truths about the behavior of various racial, religious, and ethnic groups.

Polar Bear: Black men put up with way less shit, give their “bitches” more shit, and benefit from it.

By the time a White man has a kid with his lady, he is owned.

Orthodox Jews have more of a team relationship.

Muslim men put their women in their place. Jokes at the expense of women right in front of them are common with many of these guys.

Asian women submit and take care of their man.

I believe Jews have the healthiest relationships. I see more of all the other groups, but the Jew couples I’ve seen really had their shit together. My theory is the ethnocentric and religious commonality strengthen their bonds.

Asian women know their role and have great taste in men. This is also a recipe for success.

Muslim men dominating their women is perhaps born out of necessity.  Anyway it’s far better than women dominating men, and I see a lot of strength in their women’s eyes.

Blacks dominate their sick White cows. The women seem on drugs, but at least Cosby Light wears the pants.

Western White men today are steamrolled by their abusive butch women.

Alt Left: Treatment of Official Minority Groups in China

SHI: They are forcing the Uyghurs, what remains of the Tibetans and the Mongols in Inner Mongolia to intermarry with the Han population so that the country’s Sinicization is complete. They’re already 95% Han Chinese in that country. It’s not good enough for them, so now they want to push it to 100%.

I haven’t heard about that. Perhaps that is because those ethnicities are in rebellion.

There are ~80 officially recognized ethnic groups in China. They represent millions of people. They have full cultural rights. They all also have a right to native tongue education in school – that’s right, most Chinese minorities get to take their education in their native language.

For the larger ethnicities like the Uyghurs and Tibetans, I believe they even have universities in their languages. They are allowed to have TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines in their native languages. I’m not aware of any efforts to wipe out any other ethnicities by marrying them into the Han. Mostly they just live in their ethnic areas (which are often autonomous zones), and everyone just leaves them alone to do what they want.

All of those ethnicities were in terrible shape before the Communists took over. The CCP improved things dramatically for all of those groups. A lot of them were living in feudalism or near-slavery. Also the CCP dramatically improved all of these groups in terms of economics. There was a webpage up for a while from the Chinese government that over in great deal how the  Chinese government had improved matters for each ethnic group. It was very convincing.

China has long been at the forefront of good treatment for its minorities. The USSR was too.

The thing is that a Kashmir-type episode probably would never happen in China. Kashmiris would have been given full cultural rights and right to education in their native tongue in China. Also they would have given them an autonomous zone. It doesn’t sound like India has done anything like this to Kashmir, right?

Are you aware the current fascist leadership of India is planning to send 2 million people in Assam to detention camps?

2 million Assamese to camps? Wow.

SHI: I just feel a large nation state like PRC is too powerful for its own good.

The problem is that the enemies of China are the ones who want to break it up. They want to do this in order to weaken it. See how that works? Why break up your country to make it weaker when that’s nothing but a plot via your enemies?

Alt Left: China Is Not a Democracy, But It’s Not a Full-blown Dictatorship Either

SHI: I slightly disagree.

I was really rooting for the Hong Kongers. But the might of People’s Republic of China proved simply too much for them. The PRC leaders are uncompromising jerks: they would have gone all Tiananmen on Hong Kong protesters if needed.

Come on, all they were demanding was to be left alone to run their autonomous island and no interference from Beijing on certain issues. They already have the Chinese flag and wear Chinese symbols. What more should they be asked to give up?

I mean if they could pull that tank stunt in 1989, what would have prevented them from doing it all over again thirty years later? Look at the way the Chinese superstate is detaining Uyghur minorities and brainwashing them in reeducation camps.

They’re not autonomous. Hong Kong is part of China. China’s not a democratic country. It’s a communist dictatorship. These Hong Kongers are living in a communist dictatorship just like all the rest of China. They have to live under the same system everybody else does.

They’ve got no support in the rest of China. 86% of the people like the system. A few of these guys, less than 15%, don’t. Why do they get some special system that everybody else doesn’t get? I don’t understand.

The extradition treaty was a good thing. China wants to go in there and arrest a lot of those corrupt politicians in that lousy place. They can’t do that because of the stupid extradition treaty.

Do you realize the case that set this off? Some jerk in China murdered his wife and then fled to Hong Kong. China tried to extradite him, but no dice. So they’re rioting for a wife murderer.

I have some different opinions on the Tianmen Square riots. I hope to write about this soon. By the way, those former Tiananmen rioters are still walking around in broad daylight saying the exact same stuff they said back then, spouting their mouths off, if not too publicly. Nobody bothers them as long as they are not too public about their views.

I had a friend who lived in China in the Northern Min region. He was a hardcore Christian and he absolutely hated the Chinese government with an extreme passion. I talked to him for a long time, and I never heard that he got arrested. He’s probably still walking around free.

There are probably ~150 million dissidents in China who are opposed to the regime. They walk around freely all through the day. The party is not stupid. You going to arrest 150 million people? How bout killing them? You going to kill 150 million people?

The problem with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is most unfortunate. I can’t say that I support what China is doing over there.

I’m for the Chinese regime in general, but they also do things that I don’t like. They violate human rights a lot, and arrest a lot of harmless dissidents who aren’t particularly doing anything wrong.

But it’s false to see China as some brutal Stalinist regime like North Korea. Do you realize that there are fully 1,000 different political demonstrations in China every single day? It’s true. You don’t have 1,000 different dissident rallies every day in a pure hardcore dictatorship.

In China they let you disagree quite a bit, especially if you are the “loyal opposition,” but at some certain point, you’ve gone too far. They probably warn you first. A lot of dissidents just get a few weeks in jail and then go free.

The people who get arrested publish newspaper and magazine articles, issue political statements and pamphlets, form anti-government organizations, things like that. Just being against the government about this or that is no big deal.

Party officials respond to the needs of a lot of demonstrators and dissidents. If you put enough pressure on some state official somewhere about some particular local issue, a lot of times, the party just caves.

The party wants to stay in power. They read the tea leaves of 1989 well. They want majority support, popular support. They want to give the people what they want, within reason. They realize that an unpopular government will go the way of the USSR.

Repost: The Scarlet Letter of Modern White Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUA/Game: The Young, Rich College Coeds I Met at USC 1982-1983

SHI: I found the girls from the wealthy group superficial, flaky, and snobbish. No shit, that’s how they were raised. Their parents were assholes too.

Jason: But they are of course in massive denial of this. Well, I did get one to admit he was an ass – sort of.

Yeah, who knows? Who knows what those people think?

SHI is correct for rich Indian women, no doubt. But American rich women seem a lot different.

Although I went to USC and I met a lot of young women from wealthy families. I was in a teaching program, and those are full of women with only a few men. Stud’s paradise. The few guys around are often lame, cucked, repressed or autists.

I was friends with this Japanese dude who was almost too Beta to even get laid, though he had a girlfriend who wanted to fuck him obviously. But he was too scared – nerdy = autistic – to do it, and he would make an excuse and turn her down. He was nice but very conventional.

He was also a writer. I spent a lot of time over at this guy’s house in Torrance. I was “Duude.” That was actually my name to him. He thought I was a crazy, offensive, super-asshole, which is of course true. He just thought I was an outrageous “funny asshole.” He rather liked me.

There were also these aide types around in the administration of the teaching program. Almost all women, one dyke, a lot of the rest single, one man in the whole program, decent enough guy. I think he ran the thing.

So the office was full of these horny single woman staffers. Like 10-20 years older than me. I chased them too because I’m an asshole, and I don’t care. This one hottie I befriended. She seemed really uptight. Lived alone. But obviously liked cock.

I used to have breakfast and lunch with her. One time we were talking about gay men, and I mentioned that people say they hate women, but really they don’t. Most women think this is a thoughtful conversational topic. And then I said, “But I think to truly hate the opposite sex, you really would have to be a heterosexual!”

She fell out of her chair, and every woman I used this line with loved it. Because straight women sort of hate and love men, and straight men sort of hate and love women.

We are wonderful and horrible to each other. Men hurt women badly and vice versa. Both sides accumulate battle wounds and bitterness over time. Everyone knows this but if you mention it, the defenses like Denial come out fast. But women think that statement hits it on the head.

We used to go out to the movies. I was an alcoholic at that time, drinking 10 beers a day and doing student teaching. I was also a mental mess and was going insane. She lived alone near Beverly Hills and slept alone on a pad in the living room. I made out with her pretty good at the door but she stopped short of that and would not let me come in.

She wanted to fuck me but stopped herself because “she had been married and traveled all over and I had not,” so we had nothing in common. So no sex. No pussy. Plus she was 15-20 years older than me. Mommy type. Mommy-son dynamic. Weird but fun. Maybe.

I actually dated quite a few of those USC coeds. If anything, they were a bit uptight and not real loose sexually. It wasn’t real easy to fuck them. They were sort of inexperienced/prudish, but not in a bad way. Others were living with a boyfriend.

I became good friends with one, and I used to hang out at her house. She was Jewish. We never had sex but we used to talk about porn, and she knew the names of female porn stars. But I don’t think she was an easy fuck, or at least she never fucked me.

I met another one, totally hot, Sandra, who drove a late model Mercedes and lived in her own expensive house  in Pasadena. She was well known for being a slut ,and the other women hated her. She was nice and actually I probably could have fucked her as she gave off vibes like that, one day in particular, but I blew it.

I made friends with an extremely uptight Black woman named Betty. I guess she liked me but she was ugly and ultra-uptight. She eventually decided I was an asshole after blowing her off for many months.

There were other Black women in the program.  They lived in South LA but they were extremely civilized, nice girl, often really religious types.

I used to hang out with one in the library. One day she laughed at me and asked, “Boooob. Are you shyyyyy?” I never went out with her, but I probably  could have. But as she was a church girl, she probably didn’t put out. But she sure was nice. And in a Black people sort of way, she was rather hot.

I dated a Venezuelan woman but it never went beyond lunch dates. She wasn’t exactly an easy fuck either.

I dated a repressed Black woman who lived in Marina del Rey whose father was a physician.

We were working as aides at an elementary school, and we would meet at 8 AM and all have breakfast in the lounge.

I guess the Black woman liked me. One day we were talking about the football game, and she looked at me and said, “Damn I sure wish someone would take me to the football game!” And then she repeated that a few times looking right at me. Not being a total idiot, I got her number, and we made plans.

We went to a football game, and a bunch of White conservatives saw me with a Black chick and laughed at me in a very racist way, like sneering Southern rednecks treating me like an object of derision and hilarity.

Back then it was like if a White guy was with a Black chick, he was a fucktard because that meant he couldn’t get a White woman, so he had to resort to Black chicks. Because obviously they are bottom of the barrel, right?

I went out with her again at her apartment where she lived with her physician father, who I met. She lived in the Marina. I forget what happened but we went to some disco and went out dancing. Nothing happened in this relationship, not even a kiss. She was insanely uptight and apparently inexperienced sexually.

Later she hated me. Some weird guy was calling her up all the time saying sexual things and threatening her. She was convinced that this was somehow me. She also thought I was the biggest fucktard idiot total loser of a man on the face of the Earth. I have no idea why she thought that because she never acted like that on dates.

She was basically out of her mind. She told everyone that I was doing this to her, and I think even tried to get authorities involved. Just another land mine in the minefield called Women.

Women are dangerous.

There was this other very proper White woman who nevertheless usually spent the night at her boyfriend’s house. She ate breakfast with us every morning. So she was getting fucked all the time. Most of the others were not. Seemed like she and maybe a few of the others were the only women having any sex.

She actually seemed like she really liked me too.

Almost all those women had parents who were dentists, lawyers, or physicians. I carpooled with this super uptight women who was going to Dentistry School.

She was sexually repressed and uptight, and sitting next to her in the passenger seat, she would look at me and nervously touching her pussy while she drove. Like her pussy was all backed up, female equivalent of blue balls. Which actually exists. She wasn’t getting laid at all obviously and she probably was very inexperienced.

I have seen other young women who were not getting any sex and probably not masturbating either. They also seemed “backed up” with female equivalent of blue balls and touched their pussies a lot nervously.

There was also some older couple in the car with us, no idea, maybe her parents. I managed to piss all these uptight, conventional, extreme Normie people off by being my usual offensive asshole self.

That woman really hated me, and her parents thought I was pure scum, which is sort of true. I didn’t really care because they were just typical Normie White people fucktards, completely uptight, conventional, critical, with 1 million prohibitions and what you can say or do and be appropriate.

She seemed like she was interested in me sexually though, even though she hated me. Which is pretty typical for a woman anyway.

There was a seriously hot Black woman with a physician father. She was in one of my night classes, and she and I became quite close, had all sorts of great conversations, and spent time together. She was my best friend!

She was very, very nice and absolutely gorgeous, but rather uptight and seemed like she was sexually repressed or possibly just inexperienced. I simply blew it with her because I was completely insane at that point in my life, and it was sort of clear to anyone who studied me a bit. So like a fucktard I never asked her out. She sure liked me though. I mean a lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot.

There was also this Korean woman whose parents were doctors. She was also in the night class with the Black woman and she was also in one of my day classes with the blond sorority cunt.

She was the sweet, kind, loving, super-friendly, knockout gorgeous Asian woman of your dreams, straight out of all the stereotypes you ever heard about these women. She embodied them all, literally an animated and mortal human stereotype in flesh and bone.

She seemed like she really liked me. I mean like really really really really liked me, but like a moron, I never asked her out.

To tell the truth, she also seemed very sexually inexperienced, but not uptight or prudish, more in that strange Asian woman way where they aren’t getting any but it’s not due to being prudish because they’re not. Instead they are sort of normal and ok with it as this is what an unmarried woman is supposed to be like in their society.

I probably could have easily dated half the women in the program, but I simply blew it with a lot of them. And I did  date quite a few of them anyway. They were mostly repressed, uptight, and sexually inexperienced. But most were very sweet and nice.

Also keep in mind that I was at the peak of my looks, and women said I looked like Tom Cruise and Rick Springfield. I got offers to be a male model, which I turned down due to homophobia. In retrospect maybe I should have braved the fags and taken the jobs.

So maybe these women were just really nice to me because I was Chad. Had I not Chad’s looks, perhaps my experience would have been very different.

I also had good Game even then, so maybe that too. But I needed the Looks.

You got the Looks? Fine. Add the Game on top of the Looks, and now woo woo you’ve got a killer machine. It’ll teach you ev-ry thing.

No Looks? Add Casanova’s Game and it might just be worthless, or worse, creepy and dangerous.

YMMV.

Alt Left: The “White Men Are Pedophiles” Bullshit

Roy: An Asian confessed the pedo market in Asia is because Asian men like very young girls. Mestizo Mexicans have told me they only like very young-looking White girls. An African-American told me he was a rapist because he loves the surprised look on their White faces.

Europe has a history of marrying young, but this has changed in modern times. White Western American men are the only ones I’ve met on the “she looks too young for me” trip. A small group of White Americans are even “old milfs only” types. The biggest White pedos I’ve seen are wiggers and mentally handicapped in some way. Seems as though the New Europeans are the leaders of anti-pedo culture.

This is what I thought. This whole White pedos thing is a huge lie. Hispanics are bigger child molesters than we are, and Asian men have long been known as molesters. Sure Black men prey on White women, but they rape 5X more Black women than White women.

Keep in mind that 80% of child molestation is done by non-pedophilic molesters. Sexually, they are not that different from you or me. They have no special attraction to little girls. These men are just criminals who prey on little girls because they are defenseless and an easy target.

Culture and Behavior: Where Do You Set the Bar for Bad Behavior?

I think some races or cultures set the bar higher.

The White culture I grew up in set a pretty high bar for lowlife behavior.

The Hispanic cultures around here set a somewhat lower but still significant bar for scummy behavior.

The Indian and Arab cultures around here set a quite high bar for bad behavior. I think it is set even higher than mine was.

Asians are well-known for having extremely high bars for bad behaviors. Almost too high. Different Asian cultures set the bar at different levels though. Japanese set a much higher bar than Filipinos.

Black cultures are actually quite variable. Alpha grew up in a quite functional small town Black culture in the South where, if anything, the bar for bad behavior seems to have been set even higher than mine was!

I just think that a certain type of Black culture(s) (probably constituting 50%+ of US Blacks) set a low bar for bad behavior. My advice to make that culture better would be that they need to set a higher bar for lowlife behavior.

Wherever you set the bar, there are going to be people like me who like to hang right down there around the bar. Not really below it but right around the bar itself, teasing it. My bar was set pretty high, so even when I behave terribly, to tell the truth, I’m not acting all that bad. It’s only a bit bad in terms of my strict culture.

Most people no matter what culture are going to want to be on top of that bar. Social stigma is an actual thing, and for a lot of folks, it stings worse than a yellowjacket. Social stigma is a very effective tool for promoting good behavior in any cultures and most cultures other than totally collapsed ones seem to use this. Carrots taste great but people respond to sticks too, especially big ones swung hard.

The lower you set that bar for bad behavior, the more freedom you are giving people to act bad, and if you give people that freedom, a lot of them will do just that. If I have learned anything in 62 years, it is that humans are not real great and a lot of them are pretty damned lousy. Not to say there are not a lot of great folks out there. We have a lot great people right here on this site. But they share the planet with a vast number of lousy ones.

That’s why it doesn’t matter so much where  people are in your culture in terms of the bar itself because people will probably distribute themselves above, at, and below the bar in similar ways across cultures. Instead it matters more in the sense of where you set the bar itself.

Alt Left: Why Some Women Prefer Masculine Men

First, my comment in response to a commenter who ridiculed hypermasculinity and described it in a way that made it look like a parody:

“Hypermasculine” or hyper “cartoon caricature of masculine”?

To which I responded:

I live in the hood (barrio). Normative masculinity here does look like a parody.

Sometimes I get upset with myself for being such a wuss and try to ultra-masculinize myself.

It ends up feeling like such a worst joke of a fake parody of manhood that I am sure everyone must be laughing at me behind my back. Interestingly, no one laughs at me, and a lot of super-masculine White men who never acknowledge me start giving me these respectful nods. Sometimes they even give me “shout-outs” with the nods: Yelling “Hello there!” from their cars.

And that’s the only time these Latinas around here look interested in me. Most of the rest of the time, they seem like they want nothing to do with me at all. The Black women around here are mostly ghetto, and women like that never like me. And the White women around here are working class blue collar redneck Whites, and they never like me either. They all want cavemen, and I’m not a Neandertal.

I get on best of all with White women of a certain type, especially if they’ve gone to university or have a university degree. They want a sophisticated man, not a thug. In fact, a lot of them think thuggish cavemen are gross.

I can also get along well with Asian women, who, bizarrely enough, treat me like I am hypermasculine and even a bit frightening. Asian women treat me like I’m Paul Bunyan.

My conclusion is that not only is masculinity a parody of itself, but I am also starting to think that most folks’ behavior is a parody of itself. And if you want to be successful, act like a parody of whatever behavior you are mimicking. Which is not only absolutely ridiculous but also philosophically interesting.

Here is another man responding to me. I really liked his intelligent response.

Among people who grow up around stressful environments (poor people, war zones, ghetto, hood) the men tend to prefer larger asses and thicker women, and the women prefer more muscles and masculinity. It’s a survival mechanism- I read about this years ago but can’t remember exactly where.

It’s not genetic per se – it’s like a gene turns on when you are subjected to a hard life for long enough. For example, in the Middle Ages, bustier women were considered attractive and skinny ones unattractive.

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men. Even if you look at East Europe where there is more poverty than in Western Europe – there men and women are behave a little more like the ghetto stereotype.

As a result I have the opposite issue. Most middle class White women act scared of me or treat me badly. East European, Black, and Hispanic etc. women seem attracted to me. Also for some reason natural blond Nordic-type women who seem to prefer more masculine men. With Asians it’s a toss up – depends if the Asian prefers masculine men, which a lot of them do, but a lot of them don’t.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me. I feel if I went to Europe (like Germany, Poland or Russia) I would be pretty successful dating.

I am guessing I am too masculine for the typical overweight easy life middle class White American woman. However, wealth and status are important to most women, and my being dirt poor is a problem even though my poverty derives from being discriminated against, dealing with repeated crime, and corrupt cops etc. rather than some deficiency in myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy reading!

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

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

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

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

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

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter I – The New Working Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such policies should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III – Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter V – Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: How Chinese See Underclass Blacks

There is little crime or bad behavior in orderly, polite Chinese society of the sort that is commonplace in the Black underclass.

In particular, the habit of many Black men of fathering multiple children all with different women and then refusing to support any of them would outage and offend any decent Chinese man to the core. That’s the ultimate non-Confucian behavior. A proper Chinese man would say that those Black men who do that are barely even human. Instead, they are akin to stray dogs that roam our streets.

Because, the Chinese man would say, that’s what an animal, especially a dog, does. A male stray dog pretty much runs around screwing any available hotted up bitch while of course refusing to support or even acknowledge the offspring.

The Chinese man would say that this is one of the things that distinguishes man from the lower animals. Male humans pair bond with one female human and the male and female human together raise any children they have for nigh unto 20 years, sacrificing much along the way.

Alt Left: Anatomy of a Chinese Stereotype: Lack of Creativity and Inventiveness

Lack of Creativity and Inventiveness

 

Chinese are very inventive. They are much more inventive than we thought they were. This idea that they lack creativity and only copy others but never invent is nonsense.

Of course they copy and even shameless steal from the inventions of others in order to gain that expertise and manufacture that product. But left on their own, I do not think the Chinese are any less creative than Jews, and Jews are probably one of the most creative and inventive races on Earth.

Here the Chinese seem to differ from the Jews, as the Jews are creative in many ways, particularly literature, poetry, fiction, and nonfiction. The Jewish brain is very heavily weighted towards verbal skills, while it is relatively weak in math and science (other than one-offs like Einstein). The Jewish verbal IQ is said to be an unbelievable 125. Any race with a verbal IQ that high will out-compete any other race they are competing with, and of course, the Jews do just that.

The Chinese brain on the other hand, is wired towards science and math while being comparatively weak in verbal skills. Note the lack of major novelists coming out of China. Okay, we have Mao Yan. Off the tip of your tongue, anything else?