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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This caring means we are literally evil.

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

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

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

Sekou Sundiata, “Shout Out”

I normally don’t like this type of Black rap poetry, but this poem is just out of this world. It’s by a Black activist, poet, musician, and playwright named Sekou Sundiata (an adopted African name). This is from an album called The Blue Oneness of Dreams from 1997. This album won a Grammy award that year.

This is some incredible stuff. Some Blacks can write superb poetry, some of the finest poetry of all.

I get hammered when I say this, but this is an example of what I call “the Black genius.” Now that’s not to say that there are Blacks geniuses who can partake of the other genius styles, but I don’t think they’re as common as this type. It is in this style of genius that the Black man and the Black brain for that matter, truly shines bright as day. I suppose other races can display this genius style, but you sure don’t see it very often.

I can’t help thinking that Black minds or Black brains are different or at least tend to be different on average, and pure Black geniuses often look different from pure White geniuses, who tend more towards the airy philosophical world of ideas. This rapid-fire rapping type poetry, commentary, or even rap music can be found as a conversational style by Cornel West, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Micheal Eric Dyson.

Listen to these Black geniuses (West is the best, but Dyson is also very good, and I’ve always had a soft spot for Hutchinson) and you will see that they all talk something like the Sundiata is in this video. It’s a very fast verbal brain at work, almost spewing out words so fast you can barely keep track of them.

Blacks do score higher than any other race in verbal memory and Africa never had writing. All they had was this oral tradition. Who knows, maybe they even selected for it? Is it beyond the realm of possibility. I really love this Black genius type with the rapid fire super-genius brain rattling off the perfect words in the perfect rhythm often with the perfect musical pitch to the spoken word.

Some White men can do this too, especially comedians. I am thinking in particular of Lenny Bruce, a Jewish comedian with an almost “Black” stage style and even Andy Kaufman at his best.

I keep hearing this poem on my radio station and I keep wondering who this is. Tonight I memorized a few lines and put them in Google and wa-la! Ladies and gentlemen, we have an answer!

I’m thinking right now that if there’s a heaven, there’s musical poems like this being played up there.

This poem is just too perfect!

Here’s to the best words
In the right place
At the perfect time to the human mind
Blown-up and refined.
To long conversations and the
Philosophical ramifications of a beautiful day.
To the twelve-steppers
At the thirteenth step
May they never forget
The first step.
To the increase, to the decrease
To the do to the do
To the did to the did
To the do to the did
To the done done
To the lonely.
To the brokenhearted.
To the new, blue haiku.
Here’s to all or nothing at all.
Here’s to the sick, and the shut-in.
Here’s to the was you been to the is you in
To what’s deep and deep to what’s down and down
To the lost, and the blind, and the almost found.

To the crazy
The lazy
The bored
The ignored
The beginners
The sinners
The losers
The winners.
To the smooth
And the cool
And even to the fools.
Here’s to your ex-best-friend.
To the rule-benders and the repeat offenders.
To the lovers and the troublers
The engaging
The enraging
To the healers and the feelers
And the fixers and the tricksters
To a star falling from a dream.
To a dream, when you know what it means.
To the bottom
To the root
To the base, uh, boom!
To the drum
To the was you been to the is you in
To what’s deep and deep to what’s down and down
To the lost, and the blind, and the almost found.

Here’s to somebody within the sound of your voice this morning.
Here’s to somebody who can’t be within the sound of your voice tonight.
To a low-cholesterol pig sandwich smothered in swine without the pork.
To a light buzz in your head
And a soundtrack in your mind
Going on and on and on and on and on like a good time.
Here’s to promises that break by themselves
Here’s to the breaks with great promise.
To people who don’t wait in the car when you tell them to wait in the car.
Here’s to what you forgot and who you forgot.
Here’s to the unforgettable.
To the was you been to the is you in
To what’s deep and deep to what’s down and down
To the lost, and the blind, and the almost found.

Here’s to the hip-hoppers
The don’t stoppers
Heads nodding in the digital glow
Of their beloved studios.
To the incredible indelible impressions made by the gaze as you gaze in the faces of strangers.
To yourself you ask: Could this be God? Straight up!
Or is it a mask?
Here’s to the tribe of the hyper-cyber
Trippin’ at the virtual-most outpost at the edge on the tip
Believin’ that what they hear is the mothership
Drawing near.
To the was you been to the is you in
To what’s deep and deep to what’s down and down
To the lost, and the blind, and the almost found.

Alt Left: African Blacks Act Dramatically Worse Than American Blacks

Polar Bear: Read an article on a Sub-Saharan African gang raping dogs.

Nothing really surprises me when it comes to depravity in Black Africa. But I would like to point out something. Even the worst of our US Blacks have some standards. Sure the low class ghetto type group acts awful, but do the men form street gangs that go around raping stray dogs? I mean even our ghetto thugs have certain things that are completely beneath them.

A lot of Whites think that a certain large group of Blacks act pretty bad, and in fact they do.

But I would like to tell you something. I have met Sub-Saharan African Blacks from Africa. Most were from Nigeria. I had a Yahoo group for people who were scammed by Nigerian scammers.

At one point a lot of Nigerians came into the group. They claimed to be “helping us to fight the scammers.” Well, they almost all tried to scam us themselves. And these were the good ones!

The men’s behavior was horrific. We had cam sessions and most of the group was women. So it would be just me and maybe one other man and a room full of women. Yet the Africans were constantly PMing the women on cam, and when the women would go look at their cams, the Africans would all be jerking off. Some of the women got freaked out by this.

And as I said, most of them tried to steal from us at some point or another. It was always “I had a catastrophe. Can you help me?” Or “I need to start a business. Can you help me?” They always had their hands out.

And most of the men were what we called “marriage scammers.” They were trying to marry a White woman to get out of Nigeria. However, these marriages almost never work out. The men are habitual cheaters and they treat women terribly. The women don’t take kindly to being held prisoner.

The men refuse to work and just live off the women. They stay home all day and chase women on dating sites or try to scam people out of money. The marriages are disastrous and never last.

Anyway, my point is we had some US Blacks in the group. First of all, most of them were not part of “that group” of Blacks that causes all the problems. They were just regular decent Black folk that no one ever talks about. We did have one guy who was part of “that group.” His behavior was very bizarre and he was quite shady. We finally figured out that he was a psychopath, and we threw him out. But he was the only one. ~95% of the US Blacks in our group were ok.

Almost none of these Africans were ok. Maybe 5%. And the ones that did act good spent all their time defending the ones that acted bad.

Eventually we had to throw all the Africans out. and we had to institute a totally racist “No African Blacks” rule in the group. A bunch of people called us racists and took off to form a new group with a bunch of the Africans. Thing is we had to be racist in this case. There was simply no alternative but racism. Anything less was not going to work.

But I had a shocking realization. The behavior of these Africans was just awful. They were a bunch of uncivilized animals. And compared to them, the US Blacks looked positively angelic. Granted this is the group that acts fine and no one talks about. But they were very easy to find, and it was very hard to find one African who acted decent. There may be tens of millions of Black people just like that here in the US.

I almost wanted to shout for joy and praise God for leaving us with these wonderful African-Americans! It could have been so much worse. He could have left us with these awful Africans!

And another thing dawned on me. US Blacks are not far removed genetically from Africans. So why is their behavior so dramatically better? Look, it’s got to be culture. These US Blacks have been living here with us for hundreds of years.

Although they will probably never admit it, hundreds of years of exposure to White Christian culture has probably had a dramatic effect on US Blacks. They probably acted about like these Africans when they showed up. But they’ve gotten dramatically more civilized over the centuries to where 20 million of them don’t act a whole lot different from us.

And this was even with White people acting pretty damn bad towards Blacks. We enslaved them for hundreds of years, and then there was a century of Jim Crow. Even for a couple of decades after that, things were not real great. Yet somehow or other, even when we acted awful, our culture must have worn off on them.Even when we treated them terribly, their behavior got a lot better. How much better would they have acted if we had treated them well?

I’ve been saying here forever now that White people have a good effect on Blacks. Throw a few ghetto Blacks into a White town and watch them shape up dramatically. Whites serve as good cultural role models for Blacks, even the worst ones. I think it’s good for Black people to like Whites. Blacks who like White people seem to do a lot better than those who are hostile towards us. As awful as we’ve been towards US Blacks, it was probably still better than staying in Africa.

I think we ought to give US Blacks a bit of a break. You don’t realize how great they act until you meet Africans. Their behavior and culture has improved dramatically over centuries in the US. Let’s give them some credit. A metaphorical pat on the back and a cheer of encouragement, if you will.

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.

Lousy Women Part 3: Black Women and Thieving Quasi-whores

RL: Basically they all stole money from me. Yeah, they were all Black but I’m not sure if the non-Black quasi-whores don’t steal just as much as the Black whores. In Thailand they say never even marry an EX-bar girl.

Those women who stole from me were quasi-whores. And it was more of a dating or pickup thing.

Two Black woman thieving quasi-whores: I had a date with two of them and one picked me up on the street with her friends after a party. Those two were coke whores and they ripped me off.

High class Black woman thieving quasi-whore: Then I had the high class Black girlfriend who was basically an expensive whore, one that didn’t even put out most of the time.

$8 bottle Black woman thieving quasi-whore: And a Black woman came up to me at the local store and asked me to buy her a bottle of booze and then we can go to her place. I buy her an $8 bottle and she gets in the car for a ride.

She turns completely cold. Since she promised me sex I reach under her top and start feeling her huge tits. She fights me off but then I keep on doing it. This is actually a crime called sexual assault but so what.

This is a #metoo moment but I don’t care. If any of these cunts promise us sex and get us to spend money on them and then weasel out the dick, hell yeah I’m to sexually assault them.

We get to her house and I forget what happens but she runs inside and shuts the door. So I paid $8 for a titty feel. Actually it might have been worth it. She had really huge tits.

Tinder Black woman thieving quasi-whore: I met a Black woman on Tinder who said she lived in my city and she wanted to fuck right away. Sorry, red flag.

I had an address and was about ready to go over there when all of a sudden she’s a single Mom who needs to get a sitter for her kid so we can fuck at her place.

But the kid will be bored at the sitter’s. She needs $40 from me to buy the kid a game to keep him occupied. So one more Black woman tried to steal money with this promise sex, get money, run scam.

So what I am experiencing over and over is Black women basically stealing money or trying to steal from me by getting me to spend money on them, promising sex, and then bailing on the sex. Even the high class Black woman did much the same thing.

I have to apologize to Alpha for saying this but as far as I am concerned, Black women are basically thieves and whores or better yet, thieving whores.

I know they’re not all like that but way way too many of them are. I mean that has been my experience with them, right? I keep having bad experiences and I don’t think I am unique. I always wondered why Black men seemed to hate Black women but now I get it. I get it, Black guys!

I know lots of Black women are not like this. Alpha’s not at all. But there sure are a lot of Black women who act awful. The problems in the Black community are not just the men being criminals. A lot of the women are acting horrendous too.

I mean a lot of the men act terrible too and a lot of Black women hate Black men and say they act bad. She basically Black men and Black women both act terrible and then they hate the other gender for that sex’s terrible behavior.

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.

“Gold-digger/whore” and “Pimp” as “Types” of Black Ghetto Culture

Maybe it’s not politically correct but I wouldn’t trust the black whores generally. They seem a little extra greedy.

An actual Black whore will not generally speaking not steal your money. But you need to be careful. A common scam is inviting you to a hotel room where her pimp waits and robs you.

I always wondered why Black men from ghetto culture seemed so disdainful of women in general, particularly their own women from that culture. Now after I have dealt with too many Black women, I finally get it. No wonder they call them bitches and whores. I don’t blame em.

On the other hand, a lot of Black men aren’t exactly angels, and I don’t blame Black women at all for having a low opinion of their men or even for seeking men outside their race as a consequence.

Basically in that ghetto culture, the men and the women both act terrible, and they both hate each other for the terrible behavior of the other. Vicious circle.

Way too many Black women have this “whore” personality if they are not out and out whores themselves. Way too many Black women are out and out greedy gold-diggers of the worst type. Sure, White, Hispanic, and Asian women can be like this too, but the % of Black women like this is higher, and they seem worse about it.

One thing is that a lot of them are absolutely open and shameless about their gold-digging or semi-whoredom.

A very high percentage of the decent looking Black women on Tinder are more or less gold-digging whores. It says right there on their profile that basically all they want from us men is money. What do they like? Always the finer things or the finest things. A lot of them are basically saying they want a rich guy, and he should spend all his money on her overpriced ass.

Almost all of them are coming out of that ghetto culture in which most women are some species of man-hating “whore/gold-digger” types and most men are some species of woman-hating “pimp” types.

That culture is seriously messed up in many ways, but the relationships between men and women in that culture are particularly toxic. In ghetto culture, basically everything in life, especially sex, is a Goddamned transaction, and similarly, life is all and only about getting all the money all the time. Considering that these are poor people, their insane level of greed is particularly ridiculous, offensive, grotesque, and appalling.

I hate to say it but every Black woman I ever dated or got involved with was some species of “thieving whore,.” with the exception of one and I only dated her one time. She was an aide at a school I worked at. I didn’t know her long but she seemed like she was definitely a good person.

Most of them just stole my money and then refused to fuck me. None of them were actual whores, but they all saw me as a walking ATM.

I dated a very high class Black woman who was a schoolteacher with a husband who was a physician. She acted like a librarian. I brought her over to my parents house and people remarked on how uptight she was.

She fucked me but she also charged me. Every time I saw her it had to be a date at some restaurant. I always had to shill out 100% of the money. She wouldn’t even leave a tip.

And towards the end of the relationship I would pay for the meal at whatever time of day and then she would bail on the sex. I couldn’t come over just to sit and talk or hang out or – shockers! – actually have sex! You know, what normal boyfriends and girlfriends do? Go over to each other’s homes for the primary purpose of having sex? It’s not abnormal, people.

I studied this woman at length when I was with her. We were actually supposed to get married, believe it or not.

I know, I am such an evil racist scum. I am such an evil, Black-hating, racist White man that I almost married a Black woman! Most extremely racist White men almost or do marry Black women! Happens all the time! sarcasm/>

Anyway I concluded that the most important people in her life were a group of loosely related women – mother, sisters, aunts, female cousins, nieces, etc. This loose “family” of women was  all-female and heterosexual.

Most were of approximately the same class  she was, which was at least middle class and maybe upper middle class. On the surface, their behavior was probably excellent and civilized like hers. In no way were these women part of that ghetto-type culture. There are other Black cultures, you know, and this was one of them.

But I got the definite vibe from her that this family of women had a strong hatred for men, mostly Black men, possibly based on negative experiences with them. It seemed to carry over to all men.

The philosophy was that all men were no-good, cheating, low-life dogs who were good for only one thing – sex – and maybe not even that – in addition to wringing every nickel you could out of them. Use em for sex and take every dime they own, that was the thinking.

My great co-blogger Alpha has told me that male-female relationships are screwed up in the Black community, and she even stated that this attitude above is common. She said it all goes back to slavery. For all I know she may be right, and if so, I feel very sad about that.

But none of the people involved in this gendered dysfunction nowadays were slaves, and that was long ago. If Black people want to move beyond this Gender Cold War, it’s up to them to repair that damage and move beyond into better gender relations.

I still don’t understand why but the more I see of Black people, the more I think that something is horribly wrong with gender relations in that community. My White community is not doing great in that regard either, but the dysfunction is nowhere near Black levels.

It’s really more sad than anything else.

Portrait of a Sex Fetish – Black Women Who Are “White Men Only”

Jason: Apolitical people are a lot cooler but there is so much pressure to be political or you get regarded as a sort of “Uncle Tom of your group”.

Well, I’d like to be friends with more people on social media, but there’s just too much Identity Politics on their timelines (White Redneck, Black, Gay – whatever).

Sure. I’m not against gay rights. I am a strong supporter of gay rights. I’m against Gay IP, a toxic monstrosity. I am not against Black rights. I am against Black IP! Incidentally, Blacks who are deep into Black IP, which is a vast % of them, strike me as being not very happy. They always seem miserable and pissed off.

On the contrary I have encountered a number of Blacks, mostly Black women, who are “White lovers.” A lot of these Black women are into a sex fetish called “White Men Only” or “White Cock Only.” It is an actual fetish or movement with a lot of memes of Black women saying they only want White men and telling Black guys to get lost. I don’t imagine Black men like that very much, but I am not a Black guy.

And all of these women who absolutely love Whites, especially White men, seem to be very happy people. And their behavior is pretty good.

They do not act bad in that typical Black Underclass or Ghetto Culture way. I assume they don’t because most Whites simply will not put up with the constant bullshit you have to deal with in people from that culture.

Some of the women into this White Men Only fetish are still more or less ghetto in a lot of ways. I saw the porn blogs of two young Black women into this fetish who were pretty ghetto. They were both in their early 20’s, and each had a kid already with no man in sight, which is a typical outcome for young women in this culture.

Nevertheless, I thought they acted pretty good for ghetto type women. They didn’t seem dangerous. They didn’t even seem thieving. I felt that if these women had not been into White Men Only, they would have been acting a lot worse. In other words, going White Men Only dramatically improved the behavior of these women.

After I encountered a lot of these White Men Only women, I happened across some Tumblr non-porn blogs of Blacks who were deep into Black IP, which is pretty much the majority of them nowadays.

They didn’t seem very happy. They were all about racism against Blacks, and some were very involved in Black local politics. You can be angry and happy, but these people did not seem like that. Instead they seemed somewhat miserable and pissed off. They were not having a good one.

Now in contrast the White Men Only Black women never say one word about White racism or racism against Blacks at all. No doubt they are effected by it, but they are simply not concerned about such things.

Now according to Black IP most of us Whites are pretty much flat evil and are behind this mysterious nebulous systemic or structural racism against Blacks, and that’s when we are not out and out nigger haters of varying intensities.

Well, if that were true wouldn’t these White Men Only Black women be experiencing a lot of racism, certainly systemic racism, from the White men they are dating? I mean those White men probably treat them bad right, since most Whites really hate Blacks?

Instead they are very happy and say that White people treat them great. In fact many of these women actually look up to Whites as role models for themselves and their race. The fact that these White Men Only Black women experience mostly nothing but pleasantness and kindness from Whites and deal with little racism makes one wonder just how racist White people really are.

Which lets us in on a dirty little secret of Black-White relations. Guess what, Black people? If you like us we treat you a whole lot better! Amazing, isn’t it?  You know, just like for most human contacts? If you act like you don’t like us Whites, we are not very nice to you.

A recent survey showed that 31% of Whites could be described as anti-Black racists. That figure does not surprise me. It’s probably out of three of us. But look at the opposite figure. 70% of us Whites are not particularly racist against Blacks at all. That’s most of us. Some would describe that as “the vast majority of Whites are not all that racist towards Blacks.”

My conclusion is that Black IP is from the very start based on a false premise about White people that most Whites hate Blacks and we are out to do them wrong.

They also blame all of the sadly considerable failures and discrepancies of the Black race on this all-present racism. Well that’s a convenient excuse for Blacks, isn’t it?

How many times have you ever seen someone screwing up and then insisting it wasn’t their fault, they did nothing wrong and instead it was someone else’s fault and they are just a victim of this other person?

It’s a convenient out and this is probably why humans seem to love being victims. Being a victim gives you an out. You no longer have responsibility for your behavior, and in fact you lack agency altogether due to your victimhood. You are simply at the mercy of the evil oppressors who will do with you what they will.

 

Alt Left: The Flat Out Truth for Black People: The Vast Majority of Whites Do Not Particularly Dislike You

This is the flat out truth for Black people:

Most Whites don’t hate you.

There is no such thing as systemic or structural racism. Yes, 1/3 of Whites don’t like you, but that’s not most of us. Deal with it. Life’s tough. Life’s not fair. Life’s a bitch and then you die. You need to just toughen up and deal with a reality where a good third of Whites don’t like them. You need to get a thicker skin.

Most of your many problems are your own damned fault. I assume that there’s nothing wrong with Black genes (a big if) so that means that your culture is the source of most of Black problems since we know these problems are not due to racism.

Or should I say certain Black cultures or subcultures because there are Black subcultures that are pretty good as I am just now discovering. But the problem ghetto culture that causes most Black problems has ensnared over 50% of you, or at least of your women. That’s my impression from dating sites. On Tinder a good half of the Black women on there are more or less part of that culture. On Bumble it’s not much different.

You already have most rights. The problem isn’t lack of rights, but instead it is simply that far too many of you  act far too lousy. Yes, many Whites act lousy too, and a lot of Whites act pretty damned lousy. But the issue is that far more Blacks than Whites behave badly and their bad behavior is generally worse in quality than White bad behavior.

I have decided that the main problem with Blacks in that ghetto culture (and I have known quite a few) is lack of empathy. They simply have less empathy than the rest of us. They are not without empathy since most are not actual psychopaths, but they have a lot less empathy than Whites.

They also take responsibility for nothing and blame everything on the people that they victimize. In other words, they victimize you in some way or other and then insist that they didn’t or that you victimized yourself or that somehow you acted so horrible that it was within their rights to victimize you.

They are basically what I would call scammers. They more or less scam their way through life and victimize large numbers of people, often in minor ways, on a near quotidian basis.

And most of them have elevated psychopathy or sociopathy. I do not mean they are psychopaths, though I have definitely run into Black psychopaths.

Psychopathy exists on a scale of 0-40 and both zero’s and 40’s are not common, however, Ted Bundy was unusual in that he actually scored a perfect 40 on the PCL. Most of us  do not have zero psychopathy so you can say that we are all at least a bit psychopathic in some way or other. Low levels of psychopathy are not a problem to deal with since people with low psychopathy levels simply act like most people you meet every day.

However, just for the sake of argument, let’s say your average White has a PCL score of 5 out of 40. Repeated testing over  decades has shown that Blacks have a psychopathy level about twice that of Whites. So let’s say your average Black has a  psychopathy scale of say 10 out of 40. So their level is twice our level. Now a person with a PCL score of 10 is not a psychopath in any way. You need at least a score of 20 to be labeled a psychopath, and 98% of humans score below 20.

Instead Blacks are in the normal human range for psychopathy. However, within that normal range, Blacks do show significantly higher levels of psychopathy than Whites, typically in minor ways harm others but only on a low level, and this will be apparent and can be observed in their behavior on a nearly day to day basis.

They are more annoying than infuriating and enraging. Instead of wanting to kill them you just shake your head and say this is a lousy person, and I am simply not going to deal with them anymore. So you act like they are not there, and don’t even greet them when you see them. You also develop a rather cynical and disgusted attitude towards them and their ilk.

Jazz As Pure American and Pure Black Music

I always wondered why is Jazz so popular among people living in former Soviet bloc countries.

On the other hand, I met many Brits (and Americans) who not only hate Jazz but any of its paraphernalia. You just have to mention Jazz and the conversation will end right there. Maybe it’s old-fashioned today to be swinging to Jazz beats? But then there’s Latin Jazz which is phenomenal.

Maybe my experiences were subjective. But, I did encounter so many Jazz-haters. I couldn’t believe my ears: “how can anyone hate such a soulful, melodious music.”

I love Jazz because it has a hint of romance in every beat. Jazz is the rhythm of the most beautiful life.

Most of us rockers don’t hate jazz. At worst we find it rather boring. We hate jazz fans or jazzholes as we call them! See below.

Jazz is very nice music and it is often also very good music. The great Black jazz musicians like Coltrane and Miles Davis were absolutely out of this world. I mean they were in another category altogether – sort of on a higher plane.

I don’t like “jazzholes.” A lot of jazz fans are like that. They are anti-hipsters who hate rock and roll and think it is stupid and lowbrow, except that it’s not. They think they are intellectual and sophisticated, often wear suits even as young men, despise hipsters, refuse to smoke pot or do any drugs at all and instead prefer to drink alcohol, preferably the hard stuff in mixed drugs.

I always considered them to be a bunch of squares and never liked them very much. Jazz versus rock got caught up in the anti-hippie culture wars on the 1960’s-1080’s which at its mildest form simply hated rock music and pot and at its worst hated long hair and the whole nine yards.

Jazz isn’t British music. British music is rock and roll!

Jazz came out of the US and it all came from Black people. The roots were all the way back to the 20’s and it was long associated with a drug-using, mostly Black underground in big US cities like New York where the scene was big Harlem.

I have no idea why jazz is so popular in the former Soviet bloc.

The Marriage of Drug, Black, and Jazz Cultures in the Earlier Days of Jazz Music

The jazz underground has always been associated with Black people and drugs even from its early days in the 1920’s.

The drug back then was mostly marijuana which was widely demonized back then because it was mostly used by Blacks and Hispanics. Whites who used it were more or less White niggers or wiggers so to speak.

The Pot Makes You Violent Bullshit

My Mom has believed this garbage her whole life. She keeps bringing it up. She got infected with this propaganda way back as a girl. This shows how strong propaganda is and how it has the potential to override all reason.

This is where the myth the crazed psychotic violent pot crazed murdering maniac comes from – the fact that most pot users were either city Blacks or low-skilled Mexican workers. These people were considered to be violent types – and they are more violent than Whites. They also used pot, so it was assumed that the pot and violence went together except that it didn’t and if anything it probably calmed them down.

There were also a few notorious cases in which unstable pot smokers went wild and committed some savage murders. The relationship of pot with these cases is unknown but back then, few people smoked pot, but one thing was for sure – almost all criminals, even White criminals, smoked pot. In fact it was seen as a drug of criminals which is why a lot of people didn’t want to use it.

The completely serious movie (now a so bad it’s great movie) Reefer Madness is emblematic of the anti-pot propaganda of the time.

A man named Henry J. Anslinger headed the Drug Enforcement Agency back then, and he had some sort of a hard-on for pot for some crazy reason. He led the anti-pot campaign in the US for many years starting  in the 1930’s. He was more of a brainwashed (and racist) fool than anything else, but he damaged the lives of a lot of innocent pot smokers.

Of course anyone who has smoked pot knows that it calms you down. I knew Jack Herrer, a famous post activist.

He told me that when he was in jail and prison, prisoners who smoked pot always calmed down a lot and became less aggressive and violent. He said some of the wardens even turned a blind eye to pot use for his reason. In fact, the passivity that this drug causes is one of its biggest problems, as people get lost in their bong hits and become apathetic as the world passes them by.

This amotivational syndrome is mostly an issue for teenagers and young adults and it is quite common among young potheads. However, I have hardly ever met an adult past age 23 who had amotivational syndrome, as most even very heavy pot-smokers develop the work ethic needed to survive in our society by that age.

Teenagers and young adults are notoriously apathetic and poorly motivated as it is, since they have not yet been beaten over the head with the Reality Stick of Life. Encapsulate such a young person in a perennial cloud of pot smoke, and it just makes the laziness and lack of guidance, direction, and purpose typical of this age group all the worse.

Anyway, the jazz scene lingered in mostly Black and rather sleazy nightclubs in ghettos where nevertheless a lot of lowlife White types who lived my sort of lifestyle liked to go to slum it up on weekends. White men have been slumming it up forever. There is a cool element to it as long as you do not get too taken in by it.

Ghetto Drugs and Non-Ghetto Drugs

Cocaine and heroin were also pretty widely widely used in this scene – cocaine all the way back to the 1920’s, when we were already getting warnings about the insidious nature of this drug. Heroin was always around too, as it’s always been in the ghettos. It got more popular in the 1950’s and many great Black jazz musicians become junkies.

Psychedelics were never popular, as not only were they not around then, but also people in the ghettos and barrios of big cities have never been big psychedelic fans.

Psychedelics actually do expand your awareness and exaggerate whatever environment you are in. This is great for self-exploration if you have a fairly cozy life, but if your life blows for any reason, you might just have a bad trip.

I kept a hit of strong LSD in my refrigerator for two years until I finally felt that my head was perfectly clear and sane enough to take the stuff. The importance of what is called set and setting is extremely important for drugs like this.  Psychedelics are not escapist drugs – they are the opposite.

As Blacks and Hispanics in city ghettos and barrios are usually living anywhere from a hardscrabble to nightmarish existence, the last they want to is to take a drug that makes that very existence about 10 times as powerful as it is.

On the other hand, PCP  was popular in the Black and Hispanic communities, but it is not a psychedelic per se, as it is more of an anesthetic – it was originally an animal tranquilizer, and people used to refer to it as “elephant tranquilizer,” which was exactly what it was used for.

Yes, that stuff was actually used to literally knock out massive elephants. Now think about a drug that is strong enough to put an elephant on its ass and try to imagine what it will do  to a comparatively puny human.

The PCP experience can be profoundly weird, but I suppose it is also a form of escapism, as when you use PCP  you are basically traveling to another  planet right here on Earth. Going all the way to another planet while never leaving your own is about as powerful as escapism gets, I would say.

Sonny Landreth, “Taylor’s Rock”

Sonny Landreth, Taylor’s Rock from Hound Dog Taylor: A Tribute, 1997, on Alligator Records, featuring cover versions of Taylor’s songs by Luther Allison, Elvin Bishop, Cub Koda (with Taylor’s band, the HouseRockers), Gov’t Mule, Sonny Landreth, and others.

It’s hard to believe that music can get any better than this. I mean seriously. How is that even possible?

When I heard this I was wondering what it sounded like. The Allman Brothers and Lynyrd Skinyrd came to mind. The music also has a Southern sound to it, and Landreth was from New Orleans. His music is called something like Bayou Blues Rock.

I thought more and it reminded me also of ZZ Top, a legendary band from my high school days. ZZ Top also played blues rock with a Southern tinge to it. It’s excellent music.

This is real blues, in this case blues rock. Sonny Landreth was a legendary blues rock guitarist who played slide guitar that I had never heard of before.

He played with Eric Clapton and Johnny Winter,  and his music sounds like both of theirs. After all, both of them play the slide guitar, and so did the late Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers, dead too soon at 24. Slide guitar is a difficult way to play guitar using a metal slide as the fret instead of your fingers. It produces a very nice sound, and sometimes I think it is better than the sound of an ordinary guitar.

Now if any of you out here hate Black people, well, whatever. That’s for you and Black folks to sort out. It’s not my problem. I’m not here to be a moralfag. I’m not your Mom, your pastor, or the Thought Police. That’s a moral problem, between you and your God if you still even have one.

But if you love rock and roll, could you please leave the great Black blues musicians out of it? It’s the least you can do. They birthed your favorite music after all. Rock and roll came from the blues, and the blues is Black music, created by American Blacks.

A later form of it in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s went into rhythm and blues, a direct precursor to rock and roll. At one time I had a number of those old pre-rock albums from that period. Most of the performers were Black. The vinyl was very hard to find, and many were actually 78 rpm records. Ever heard of those?

That’s some rockin’ stuff, a very special kind of music. If you get a chance you might want to check that stuff out and pay homage to the Black parents of your favorite music.

Alt Left: America Made a Pact with the Devil on the Day It Was Born

Another great comment from Francis Meville, this time on our Original Sin and its aftereffects.

Francis Meville: America signed a pact with the devil at its very birthday through her Godfather Benjamin Franklin’s mouth, get over it. It got its independence from Britain for two reasons.

First retaining total unbridled freedom to kill on sight like game Amerindians and other non-conformist peoples in the colonists’ way. This at the time would have become juridically impossible to do if the territory had been considered part and parcel of a “Christian” European country.

Second was in order to practice slavery at will (not only Negro). In the particular case of England, slavery was growing more and more problematic. Quite hypocritically, English country was asking all Europe to phase the practice.

She showed the rest of Europe this good example once she had made all the money to be made by this traffic. No longer needing slavery, England moved on to practice quite another form of colonialism in India which didn’t require the institution of slavery but instead relied on far more modern exploitative practices.

America grew independent from Britain for exactly the same reason as later on Rhodesia would do. Both countries enabled the metropolis to either apartheid, slavery, or Indian slaughter.

Hadn’t there been an American Revolution, there would still be an Iroquois nation along River Hudson most probably enjoying a status quite like Scotland within Great Britain, though probably a very mixed-blood and English-speaking brand of Iroquois people.

Negro slavery would also have been phased out right at the time of the Revolution in order to give way to some form of indentured labor. These two reasons alone justified America’s war for independence and especially Louis XV France’s support of the new entity, which didn’t entail any form of humanistic benevolence whatsoever.

The French people were not a bad one but the French overseas interests were always the top nastiest of the world. For them, America was to become a great model for the French plantation colony.

Also, make no mistake about it, the French so-called Enlightenment movement (contrary to German Aufklärung) from which the American derives grew from the most anti-humanist ideological group of all French society. They were, among others, especially Voltaire, the most opposed to popular elementary instruction. The French diplomats who supported the early American enterprise were all likes of Kissinger.

There was no betrayal of the American revolution by oligarchs, it was an oligarchs’ revolution right from the start. But they had to cover their crimes through a very elegant media presence in Europe so as to make as many “useful idiot” European intellectuals as possible dream instead of inquiring as they should have done. The USSR would later on adopt this same notion in the name of quite a different ideology but to the same effect.

America was a colonial company like the East India Company, both having acquired full sovereignty and right to full secrecy from England. The earliest American flag (13 stars in circle, 13 stripes) was simply borrowed out of whole cloth straight from Sassoon’s East India Company. All the rest was already propaganda.

The right to free expression as defined by the First Amendment was a fraud right from the start. Only chartered private enterprises, not individuals as such, ever had that full right, and that right was always assorted with the right of legal recourse that allowed the targets of such speech to pursue the speakers for defamation.

Allowing an override of the First Amendment is in reality total censorship of opinion exerted by private rather than public interests – the worst of both worlds. In reality, one feels far freer in a country where you have to fear only disagreement from a single state authority rather than from a multitude of private interests and religions liable to declare themselves offended at any of your words.

As for the Second Amendment, the rationale for its existence was never for the right of ordinary individuals to be armed in order to prevent the rise of a tentative tyranny from some ambitious politician. Its purpose was instead the delegation to private interests, especially plantations, of the repression of both slaves and Indians.

It was actually the acceptance of a semi-feudal private state as regards police so as to discharge the state proper of any responsibility. One reason for the state’s abdication of its law enforcement responsibility was due to the vastness of the territory.

Anyway, history shows us that gleeful gun-toters in any case have always sided with would-be tyrants in position of authority against the poor and the free thinkers. A good example of this tendency occurred outside America in the Caribbean.

The new rulers relied on the inheritance from the American “gun rights” as the Americans proclaimed during the American occupation of the Island. A classic example was the triumph of François Duvalier in Haiti. He counted not on any legitimate power of state police but instead on a police force made up of purely voluntary individual gun bearers, later to be known as the infamous Tontons Macoute, to assert his fascistic dictatorship.

Alt Left: The Iranians Are Behind the Rapid Development of Drone Technology by the Houthis

From the excellent Moon on Alabama blog.

It occurs to me that the Houthis started the rapid improvement in capabilities around the time they disposed of Saleh and resolved their internal disputes. Very rapid improvement since then. It would be interesting to get to know the people behind that, making it happen. Is Seulimani in there somewhere? Nasrallah and his minions? I’ll bet.

The tech is coming directly from Iran which has dramatically ramped up their technology transfer in recent months. Hezbollah takes the new tech and helps the Houthis build drones and missiles out of it or modifies existing flying weapons.

The critical factor was the US threats to Iran. Under Obama Iran had a vested strategic interest in keeping at arms distance from Yemen – any overt help to Yemen would result in strategic threats to Iran; the risk to Iran would be too great.

After Trump pulled unilaterally out of the JCPOA and threw back ever more and mare sanctions on Iran, the strategic interest of Iran in holding off Yemen was transformed into a strategic interest in assisting Yemen as a way of putting pressure on the US.

Once the US put really high pressure on Iran and tried to cut Iranian oil exports to zero, the steady stream of technology flow to the Houthis suddenly became a mighty river, quickly leading to a huge surge in capability.

With every turn of the screw against Iran, we can clearly see step-wise advances in technology, quality, quantity, range, and performance of Houthi weapons. The timeline of Houthi advances set against the US pressures on Iran shows this with crystal clarity.

Beyond question, if Trump had never withdrawn from JCPOA the Houthi attack on Abqaiq would have been impossible.

Exactly. The only reason that refinery got attacked in the first place was due to the United States.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

God patriotards are morons.

Have you noticed that ~70% of Americans are full-blown, drooling, ranting, wild-eyed, bloodthirsty, warmongering, arrogant, believe- anything patroitarded fools?

One thing I like about Blacks and Hispanics is most of them are not patriotards. Patriotards are almost all White people. I don’t blame Black people for not being patriotards. This country has not been very kind to them. Why love a nation that has treated you so cruelly?

PUA/Game: Avoid “Whore” Types at all Costs

Watch out for whores. Even if a woman you are dating says she has whored previously or would consider doing it again if she’s real broke, that’s a very big red flag.

And once she starts talking about the sex you might have with her being contingent in just how much money you are going to spend on her or just how much it is going to cost you (like there’s not going to be any sex unless you spend some money), you know you are dealing with a woman who is basically nothing but a Whore and not much else.

She’s going to lighten your wallet, and in a lot of cases you don’t even actually get laid, though you usually get some teasers, like say a titty feel or a makeout session.

Any woman who has the idea that sex = money and that each sex act = money on your part is nothing but a fucking whore. Black women are absolutely notorious for this mindset.

I really don’t know what is wrong with them. Is it genetic? Just to be safe, I will blame their culture. I think there is maybe something terribly wrong with their culture because I am convinced that a lot of Black cultures in the US simply promote the idea to Black women that sex with men is essentially a monetary transaction.

For the record, I understand that sex in urban Black Africa is profoundly transactional to the point where a lot of the “dating” is little more than glorified prostitution. I mean you go to a nightclub in Black Africa and take a woman home, and my understanding is you are paying her for the privilege of coming home with you.

Once again, I’m at a loss for reasons. People will always yell poverty but I wonder if that’s just another tautology. Why are so many Black women prostitutes? Because they’re poor. Why are so many Black women poor? Because they’re prostitutes.

Also they seem to have very little shame about being whores in one way or another. While a lot of White and Hispanic women still think being an out and out whore is pretty damned sleazy, a lot of Black women seem like they could care less, like it’s a perfectly proper and acceptable thing to be.

I always wondered why Black men called Black women bitches and whores, and I think I am starting to get it. Now, a lot of Black men act awful too, especially the ones caught up in that ghetto-type culture. They treat Black women very poorly, and I don’t blame Black women for being mad at their men.

On the other hand, it sounds like a lot of Black women aren’t all that great either. So it’s not oppressed versus oppressors anymore. It’s just a war. A lot of people in both genders of this race act pretty lousy towards the opposite sex, and there’s a lot of anger between Black men and Black women, which I now see makes sense on both ends.

I dated a Black woman for about a year. She was very classy, spiffy and even quite uptight. My brother remarked on how uptight he thought she was. She taught school and that’s where I met her. She was seriously into money like so many Black women are. She had formerly lived in Palos Verdes when she was married to the doctor, so she definitely had expensive tastes.

She was married to a physician at the time, but they were separated, and she refused to speak with him, though they met quite a bit. She had not spoken one word to him in maybe a year! He was always saying, “Why won’t you talk to me?!” And she wouldn’t say a thing. Her reason was that he was “cold.” Like she wasn’t.

This woman made more money than I did, but as usual she couldn’t be bothered to spend a nickel when we went out. My requests that she leave a tip for the $40 meal were met with mewling outraged protests.How dare I ask her to part with a nickel of her hard-earned money.

We didn’t even have that much sex. She pretty much charged me just to go over to her place and speak to her. That, for instance, would cost me a brunch meal. And probably no sex on her end. She was a prim, proper, classy Black woman who was as uptight as a White person. Yet when I described her to my friends, they all just laughed and said she was nothing but a whore.

Any women reading this just take note that we men don’t think much of whores. In fact we have no respect for them whatsoever and I don’t think we ever will. As long as  you are a whore, no man will ever respect you nor should he.

Any Black women reading this, what can I say? If you don’t whore as I assume most of you don’t, good for you! Take note of what I wrote above. No respect at all. Like zero.

As far as why so many of your sisters seem to have such a transactional attitude towards sex, perhaps it’s something you might wish to give some thought to. It’s not appealing. Black women don’t have a stellar reputation as it is, and this behavior just drags down the whole lot of them. It’s good for you or your kind.

Any Black men reading this, ok, I forgive you. I get it, I get it. I don’t know what to say. Why are so many of your women such whores? I’m thinking a lot (not all by any means) of Black cultures are just awful.

There’s not much you can do about that but get together with some high-minded sisters and set a good example. How do you set a good example? You’re not racial ambassadors and you can’t carry the whole weight of your people on your shoulders nor should you. Live your life. Live it well. Your life is your example. Live it well and hope others will follow. Step light and high and keep your eyes to the sky. There’s nothing else you do.

PUA/Game: The Varieties of Whoring Experience: Thieving Whores, Transactional Sex Whores, and Real Whores

SHI: Dude can use his girlfriend/wife as a money minting machine. I wouldn’t mind a stripper for LTR. I am as depraved as they come.

What if she doesn’t hand me over her money? I’ll just be a good pimp and beat her ass till she’s bleeding all over. I’ll fucking kill her if my ATM plans to dump me.

I wish though I were this bad though. Unfortunately I can only talk.

Those are the type of guys stripper types usually end up with, frankly. Their boyfriends are usually glorified pimps (“managers”), criminals, and often hard drug users, often dope shooters who use needles. The women’s relationships with these men are quite tumultuous, and I think they are often accused of taking the women’s money.

I very briefly dated a woman who wanted me to get her into porn and I guess be her manager. She was Black and was also a former call girl and strippogram girl.

I actually picked her up right off the street in Century City amidst the skyscrapers. Not as a whore, more as a secretary on lunch break, which is exactly what she was. She smiled and waved to me, so I pulled over. She said she was just going to get some lunch, and would I like to get some? I said sure and she jumped in. I asked why she waved me down, and she said, “Because you’re cute! I was looking for a cute guy to go to lunch with,” flashing a grin as wide as an LA freeway.

I said ok, and we had lunch on Sunset Boulevard in some place across from the Whiskey A-Go-Go. The waitress was staring at me like a robot the way they always do when you’re with a hot chick. Women are like money. It takes one to get one,  and it takes some to get some. Either way you start at zero and you stay at zero. Then we made a date for later that night.

I met her at some barber shop in South Central where she was getting her hair cut later that afternoon.

There were some old school Black men there. One had an antique Coke machine, and I engaged him about it. He told me all about it and showed me another one. He was acting pretty strange the whole time but not unfriendly at all. Maybe wary and like he couldn’t believe what he was seeing.  I later asked her about it and she told me that he didn’t like White men. He was nice enough to me but he did seem uncomfortable. I guess he couldn’t understand why I was so nice.

I talked to some other Black guy there about his dialect and suggested it sounded like Gulla. He told me that indeed he had come from South Carolina. Both of those Black men were pretty damn nice considering that White people never went there.

We went to her place where she lived with her Mom, but no one was home. She very suspiciously asked me for a contact number, which freaked me out just a bit, but I guess it makes sense, and I’m  well enough used to it anyway.

We men are always being suspected of being raping murderers. I gave her my Mom’s number because she wanted a contact number, I guess in case I murdered her and left her for dead in a ditch somewhere. Now why she cared what happened afterwards if I murdered her and left her in a ditch I have no idea, but perhaps she believed in postmortem justice.

So we took off for her friends’ apartment in the Wilshire District, an extremely mixed Black-White neighborhood at that time. She’s was talking about “rock cocaine” with this weird gleam in her eyes, and wasn’t not quite sure why that was.

We went inside and it quickly unfolded that this was a mixed group of young Blacks and Whites, apparently single and in their 20’s. They said they worked for the phone company. They were all smoking crack. This was very interesting as I’d never tried the stuff before and was curious.

This was 1986 and the first time I had ever tried crack. The drug had just come out and the press was full of all these over the top horror stories.

Well, back then I was a drug dealer myself, and most of the outlaw dregs and lowlifes I ran with didn’t believe any “drug war propaganda,” which we considered to be laughable scare stories. Sadly sometimes these scare stories are true.

This is where the War on Drug squares screwed up. They turned everything into a scare story, so we quit listening to everything they said. It was a Boy Who Cries Wolf scenario, and how did that story end? The wolf ate the lambs, and the dope ate some of us.

They were using glass pipes. One Black guy was on the carpet on his hands and knees, and he was pressing his forehead against the carpet like he was trying to be an ostrich, but he mistook a hardwood floor for a patch of sand. I’ve seen a lot of weird drug stuff, but that was disturbing. I was thinking, “What the Hell kind of drug is this, anyway?” I bought her a rock ($25) and we smoke it.

She sucked on the pipe like a deranged friend who was suffocating and grasping the last desperate breaths out of the pipe. I mean she was sucking on that pipe for dear life. That was downright disturbing right there. I mean if she wanted to suck my dick like that, she’d be a hero, but this was a Goddamned drug pipe!

I mean I had seen people jonesing and fiending before but mostly on pot, which was nothing like this. I had been a cocaine sniffer sporadically for nine years, especially in the last few years when I was running around LA with artists high on coke and weed, but they never jonesed or fiended like that, and I’d seen some fiends. Like out and out addicts.

We finished the rock and it was definitely an excellent high. Got me out of stupid neurotic self for about 15 minutes and then it was over. I was in  the bathroom pissing in a toilet and I saw her watching me in the doorway with lit-up eyes.  I was thinking, “That’s weird,” but that was when I first realized that females actually like to watch guys take a piss. I suppose to cock-watch. I can’t think of any other reason that’s not seriously twisted.

After 15 nice minutes, the drug wore off and I felt like crap. And more than anything else, I really wanted another damn rock to make the bad feeling go away. Which of course is the whole problem here, right? I caught onto the drug’s scam, and decided to just say no.

She was badgering me for another rock, but I was getting suspicious of this game already. She was acting like, “One more rock and then we can fuck,” but I was thinking this game could go on like this all night, and I was later told that it often does just that. And you never get a thing in the end no matter how many rocks you buy the bitch. It’s a heist.

As you might suspect she was the typical Thieving Whore type with a background as a Real Whore (Real Whores often double as Thieving Whores when they are feeling lazy or just more evil than usual), and I caught onto the “Buy me one more 20,” scam and ditched her. I went out to my car and sat there. She was supposed to join me but she never showed up, so I sat there like an idiot for 45 minutes holding my dick in my hand, feeling stupid, and getting increasingly angry.

These other Black people who were at the party showed up and told me that she was up there talking shit about me. I was thinking, “Ok, screw this bitch. She’s not getting a ride home. She can walk if she wants! It’s only ten miles away in the dark LA night! I’m sure she can make it without any problems at all!”

One of the group was a Black woman about 35 years old who looked pretty good. I went out and talked to them. She grabbed me and put her arm around me. “You come with me, baby,” so I went off with her. At one point we were in someone’s car she was shoving her tongue in my ear whispering dirty stuff while this other Black woman with her acted all grossed out.

We went up to their place, and it was another crack party. I bought her one too. The rock went around fast as the speed of light with everyone  hitting it like it was their last breath on Earth. It was creepy, weird, and actually pretty damn scary. By this time I was wise to the drug, and turned it down while I watched these maniacs suck it down like oxygen.

I looked around at the people in  the room. The people in there looked like zombies from a Night of the Living Dead movie, especially one Black man in his  40’s with black holes where his eyes were supposed to be. He has his head back on the couch with a thousand yard stare, looking like someone had suctioned his brains out, which is pretty much what had happened, except a drug did not and not a vacuum tube.

I was sitting there thinking, “This shit is literally the worst drug on Earth.” And this was my very first acquaintance with the drug called crack. As you can see, I’m not only not an idiot but I’m also a quick study.

Well, this other Black chick was all over me telling me it was her birthday and how we were going to get a hotel room and all this dirty stuff she was going to do to me. Then it turned into, “Buy me one more 20, and I get the room.” I had already heard that song before, earlier than night as a matter of fact. I kept shaking my head no.

At some point I was being escorted out of the apartment. The last I saw was a look of utter contempt on this Thieving Whore’s face. I was out $50 and all I got were a couple of makeout sessions. Lessons don’t come cheap in life.

Well, my Mom called me later the next day all freaked out, “Bob! What did you do to that girl!?” I had no idea what in God’s name she was talking about. I was like, “What?!” The woman’s Mom had called my Mom because that bitch never came home that night. Why?

Because I was her ride and I abandoned her halfway through a date and left her ass at an apartment in the Wilshire District when she lived in South Central. So I took her out on a date and stranded her halfway through the date with no ride home. I told you I’m a charmer. I told my Mom what happened, and I guess she called the woman’s Mom back.

I was pretty angry at my Mom for even suspecting that I would rape and murder some woman and leave her in a ditch somewhere. Not that this one particular woman didn’t deserve just that of course, but I don’t have it in me to do that, and of all people, my Mom ought to know for God’s sake. I’ll save that for my next life when I come back as a Serial Killer. Hopefully I can break Bundy’s record. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

So this is an example of a Thieving Whore. Thieving Whores are the worst women on Earth by far. I think most of them are psychopaths. Whores are pretty much psychopathic women anyway, and 45% of prostitutes are actual diagnosed psychopaths. The personality of The Whore (Histrionic Personality Disorder) is often considered to be nothing less than the female version of male psychopathy itself.

Thieving Whores dangle the sex or implied sex in a dating context, ask for money for something or other in the context of the date, get the money,  buy the stuff, promise the sex some more, and then vanish out the door without fulfilling their end of the bargain.

You’re left holding the bag on one hand and your dick in the other. You are $20-80 poorer and you got little if any sex out of it, or at least not what you were promised – you may have gotten a tit feel or a makeout session, but you were promised real sex, which is why you forked the money in the first place. These are far worse than actual whores who generally at least are not out and out thieves and at least give you something for your money.

These types are ubiquitous and they tend to be deep into ghetto culture. This is pretty much the only type of female who comes out of that culture. Obviously the Whore and Thieving Whore types are present in all races of women, but the Whore types are vastly more common among Black women, and the Thieving Whore types are drastically more common among Black women, with Hispanic women bringing up the rear of the gutter.

Yes, I have recently met a young White woman like this, but she didn’t get any money. As far as Whore types go, obviously there are White women like this, but there are a lot more Hispanic women, at least around here, which I found shocking.

Playing The Whore and the Thieving Whore is a young woman’s game. Young, attractive women play this role simply because they can. Older women do not play this role not because they don’t want to – they’d love to if they could get away with it – but mostly because they can’t. Now I love older women, but who’s going to pay big money for some 47 year old woman’s used up ass? Basically no one.

Not that a few don’t try, but they don’t charge much either. I am talking about the “Transactional Sex” Whores, not the Actual Prostitute Whores, which are another matter altogether.

I am not fond of Transactional Sex Whores because they pretend to be dating you when really they are nothing more than glorified Whores. They are all over dating sites looking to “date men,” but they are really just part-time prostitutes who engage in actual whoring and more commonly transactional dating out of their apartments.

Of the three – Thieving Whores, Transactional Sex Whores and Actual Whores – I actually much prefer the latter, as at least they believe in truth in advertising and give you something for your money. They are generally pretty straight up and honest, too. It’s a rare whore who steals from you.

The former two are thieves by nature, especially the first type. Not only that but these are female criminals who have devoted their entire lives to stealing from us men. To say they are the enemies of all of us men is an understatement. The fact that not only do these wenches exist at all, but more appallingly are everywhere you look makes the lie of the feminist idiocy that says we live in a patriarchy. I assure you that no true patriarchy would tolerate this silly crap for one second.

Alt Left: Apparently Facts Are Racist Now

I’ve been studying this issue deeply since ~1989. That’s 30 years or half my life. A  journal article by Richard Lynn set me off on this quest.  While it’s obvious that there are racial differences on average between the races, I’m not 100% clear about what causes them, but I doubt if it is racism.

My attitude is that Blacks are deliberately, of their own free will, creating really lousy cultures, and they can knock it off any time they want. In other words, Blacks need their shit  together. While that seems harsh, the alternate opinion, once you throw out racism, is that Black genes are inferior regarding intelligence, and this is where the test score differences come from. I think my view is a lot more Black-friendly, but that’s just me.

I am the odd liberal who even dares to talk about things like this. What is pathetic and rather terrifying is that I get pummeled mercilessly and called racist and ultra-racist for saying things like:

Presently Blacks score 13  points lower than Whites in IQ tests. I believe that IQ tests measure intelligence well and they are not biased in favor of Whites. I am not sure what is causing these differences. Obviously differential intelligence is going to explain a lot of the discrepancies between the races where Blacks seem to come out behind.

That is a perfectly noncontroversial opinion! The entire field of intelligence studies agrees that there’s a score gap.

And now nearly the entire field says that IQ tests measure intelligence well (they fought that one forever, but they caved on that one a while back). The left of this field caved on the question of whether the tests are biased in favor of Whites or not even before this latest cave.

The only argument now is over what is causing the differences, and it is raging right along. The fact is that both sides can collect at least a fair amount of evidence for their side. And at the moment, scholars of intelligence regard the question of what is causing these differences as unresolved.

The left of this field mischaracterizes this debate by saying that there is no evidence at all for the genetic side so it is a pathetic and racist argument. This is not true.

The awful nonscientific folks on the Left in the popular media are much worse, regarding  the Genetic Theory as racist pseudoscience. It most certainly is not pseudoscience and it’s not racist at all. It is simply a hypothesis, just as the Environmental Theory is also a hypothesis.

As I said, both sides have a fair amount of evidence for their case sufficient to make for  adequate scientific questions on their part. And instead of being a  pseudoscience, the Genetic Theory has accumulated a rather frightening amount of evidence for their side. However, the evidence is not yet probative, and the question is regarded as inconclusive and presently under debate.

And I’d rather sit this one out as far as conclusions go for a variety of reasons that I will not go into. But I will say that I do not regard the 15 point gap as set in stone and I believe the environment can close at least some of the gap.

So my statement is:

There is presently a 13 point discrepancy between Black and  White IQ scores (fact).

The tests are not biased against in favor of Whites (fact).

I am agnostic on whether the differences are due to environment or genetics. This is actually the official position of the intelligence studies field at the moment, so it’s hardly a racist position!

I believe that a number of the discrepancies between Blacks and Whites are due to this test score differential. This simply stands to reason. A 13 point lower intelligence score is obviously going to play out in all sorts of behavioral variables on the ground, right? I mean that’s just obvious.

So my statement above, for which I get absolutely pummeled for, is made up of two solid facts, the standard consensus of the field, and a statement that is simply obviously true.

See how crazy this is? If you state obvious, proven, scientific facts, you get destroyed for being a racist!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: 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: Problems Associated with Mass Third World Immigration since 1965

Lot of interesting food for thought here.

From a conversation on the Net. I didn’t write the text below! So please don’t blame me for it. Another man wrote this in the course of a conversation I was having with him on a website, American Renaissance of all places.

What I have noticed is that you have a tipping point that changes a community. Let’s say you are in a community of 90% White and 10% Black. The community will largely reflect White values and norms. If you have 60% Black, 40% White, things shift, and the community largely reflects Black norms.

And it is similar if we use I.Q. instead of race or some other measure. What has happened is mainstream American culture has radically changed since 1950 or even 1980.

I have witnessed this myself. You have massive amounts of crime and corruption everywhere, along with a lack of professionalism, and a lack of accountability (for bad police, bad teachers, bad CEOs etc.). Even in majority White areas there is usually this culture of incompetence.

With the huge influx of Mestizos you have a blending of American culture- American society just tends to look and act a little more Mestizo, as the genetic tendencies and intelligence of the community become more like Mestizos.

In the early 1900’s you had the opposite effect in the United States, which blossomed into the 1950’s heyday.

Germans are one of the most successful people in the world. Germany is generally cleaner, less corrupt, and more prosperous than other European nations. And where Germans go their success usually follows. There was a huge influx of German immigrants to here around the early 1900’s. More Germans immigrated in the United States than any other group (although the Irish come close).

This had a civilizing effect on America. The English are very similar to Germans but they had largely sent their criminals, chronically poor, etc. to populate their colonies. America blossomed into a clean, well oiled, low corruption society. After WW2 Operation Paper Clip brought Nazi scientists to the U.S., we had the greatest innovation the world has ever seen. Most scientific inventions seem to be done by white males of Germanic ancestry.

Similarly, a large influx of Yiddish Jews contributed to the financial dominance of the United States in the world and the country’s dominance in the arts (such as Hollywood).

After the 1950s, as we began to get immigrants from less successful races, we have seen the effect on our society- we are less competitive in the world of cutting edge science (although we still hold the lead), corruption is more commonplace, and academic test scores are down (although there is a lot of effort to conceal this fact).

American society more and more resembles a Second or Third World nation and less resembles the exceptional achievements you find in German or Yiddish communities.

Alt Left: “Head Start Doesn’t Work” – A Longstanding Rightwing Lie

There are various arguments in favor of the Head Start program. First of all, it’s not all a bunch of “niggers and beaners wasting hard-working White taxpayer dollars,” which is 100% of the reason behind all anti-Head Start arguments. I spoke to a man who lived in rural Western Pennsylvania. He worked somehow for the local Head Start program, and it was filled up with the children of low income rural Whites there. So White kids use it too.

How about this? Moneyed people get to send their kids to preschool, right? Ok, well then, as it sounds like a basic right like food and health care, why don’t low income and poor people get to send their kids to preschool too? It’s only for the rich and the middle class? You are punishing little children for the low incomes of their parents. What you are saying is that these kids messed up by picking the wrong parents, so we have to punish them by denying them this program.

How about another one? The argument against Head Start makes no sense whatsoever.

The argument says that Head Start is absolutely worthless and all benefits fade after 2-3 years, so there’s no point in having the program. It’s true that what look like remarkable gains do indeed fade after a few years, but there are lower level gains that are sustained far into adulthood as I will show below.

But let’s look at this argument itself. There’s nothing special or automagical about Head Start. It’s not some kooky program dreamed up by liberal fools. Head Start is nothing other than preschool. Preschool for children from low income and poor families. It’s no different from the preschools the moneyed folks send their super special children to. Not even 1% different.

But wait a minute. If Head Start doesn’t work or is worthless, isn’t that argument saying that preschool doesn’t work or is useless? Well if it’s useless, why do these same moneyed parents who spend good money to send their kids to preschool even bother? It doesn’t work, right?

But moneyed parents send their kids to preschool because they are convinced by many good arguments that it works, is good for their kids, and is worth the money. So preschool is necessary and it works great for our kids, except that it’s useless and fails for those other people’s kids?

Well for Chrissake. Does it work or not? If it fails, for God’s sake, pull your rugrats out and save some cash. But if it works, as moneyed folks are convinced, then they need to explain how it somehow works for their special pale kids, but it doesn’t work for those blighted duskier kids over yonder?

Preschool works great, except when it’s called Head Start, and then it doesn’t work at all and is a failed program that needs to be eliminated. I suppose they could craft an argument that Head Start works great for kids from moneyed backgrounds, but it fails for those darker Brown and Black kids, I guess because those kids are too inferior to make use of it or something.

It’s all nonsense. Preschool works. Preschool works for moneyed and lighter skinned kids when it’s called preschool. It works, apparently just as well, for poorer and darker kids when it’s called Head Start.

The argument against Head Start lies demolished before we even get to the studies. It’s dead before it’s even left the starting gate. It failed even as a hypothesis.

But just for the sake of shooting fish in a barrel, let’s look at the figures for Head Start:

Granted the grandiose claims of its supporters when Head Start was begun have not panned, but so what?

How about if we judge the program on one and only one variable? Is it cost-effective.

The kids who go through Head Start don’t end up Rhodes Scholars, but they end up better on many different variables. Less mental retardation (under 70 IQ), more high school graduation, lower arrest rates, and welfare use. In fact many studies have shown that Head Start is actually cost-effective and cheaper than no Head Start. It’s not a miracle cure, but it’s worth the money economically.

No Child Left Behind was a rightwing plot to destroy our public schools. Bush required public schools to improve their scores each and every year into eternity! Seriously. If not, there were serious punishments funding-wise.

Well, of course this is not possible, so much test faking and cheating ensued, for which I don’t blame them. My family were children of the US public schools. I do not look kindly on rightwing attempts to destroy our public schools that so many good White kids literally depend on. It’s viciously anti-White.

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: What Are the Effects of the Mulattoization of a Black Population?

Following from Jason’s piece here:

Who care if low morals, unattractive White women have sex with Black men? I mean we are going to have unattractive and low morals White women no matter what. Does it matter that they are screwing Blacks?

I get pummeled for saying this, but there may be advantages to mulatto or mixed race children.

They are much more intelligent than full Blacks. Mulattos have IQ’s of 93.5, and full Blacks have IQ’s of 87.

I am not sure if they act better behaviorally. There is some evidence that the young ones act worse because they don’t fit in with either group. Two of the worst gang members in my complex with mixed race young men, one White-Black mixed, the other Hispanic-Black mixed.

Also Latin America, which has a high number of mixed race people, has one of the highest crime rates on Earth. Countries such as Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil have many people with mixed Black ancestry. The mix here is generally White-Black-Indian. Hugo Chavez was a mix like this. I think they are called Zambos, but that is pejorative.

Puerto Rico is the same and Puerto Ricans commit lots of crime. Puerto Ricans in fact are precisely 1/3 Black, 1/3 White and 1/3 Indian.

I just had a date with a 23 year old half-Black, half-Hispanic woman that was one of the worst dates of my life. I believe she was a female psychopath.

However, we don’t have to look far to find mulattos or light-skinned Blacks among the finest achieving Blacks in our country all the way back to George Washington Carver. Many of our finest Black intellectuals have quite a bit of White in them. You also find a lot of light-skinned Blacks among the top positions in society such as law, medicine and politics.

Although I discussed some mulattos who acted very bad, I don’t have to think very hard to find a lot of mixed race or mulatto people I have met who act exceptionally good. Many of them are completely outside of the low class – ghetto type culture, one of the major Black cultures. They are very common among middle class Blacks, and the young ones I have met typically act just like the other well-behaved young people in their environment.

Of course many dark-skinned Blacks are also part of the Black middle class, act quite good, and are quite intelligent.

Increased mulattoization of US Blacks would lead to continuing improvements in the group, with an increased number of Blacks moving into the Black middle class, and the ghetto culture possibly shrinking.

US Black intelligence would increase very slowly as measured by IQ.

We would see more Blacks in top fields such as law, medicine, academia and politics than we see now.

We would probably see more Black and mixed race people mixed in with the general population or living among Whites than we do now. Presumably these mixed race people would be less likely to be packed into ghetto Crime Manufacturing Enterprises than we do now.

Since Blacks act better when they are spread out through the population rather than being packed together in a  segregated group, this presumably would have a good effect. In other words, other than the obvious genetic effect, increased mulattoization would increase actual integration in US society, and integration of good for Black people.

Whether crime itself would go up or down is somewhat up in the air as Latin America shows that mixed race populations such as Black-White or Black-Indian-White can have some of the highest crime rates on Earth, even higher than full Black populations. When it comes to the causes of crime, there is a lot more than genes going on.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

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: Blacks: An Anatomy of a Half-Civilized People

When we talk about the amorality, uncivilized, antisocial or criminal behavior of various groups of people, we need to differentiate between white collar crime or controlled crime and the uncontrolled, chaotic nature of street crime.

After all, when I am walking down a dark street late at night in a bad neighborhood and I see a man in a suit and tie following me, I don’t suddenly think with terror, “Oh no! That guys about to commit a health and safetly violation!” Even if he’s a white collar crook, he will probably leave me alone, at least tonight on this street for sure.

But if I see a young, typical dead-eyed underclass or ghetto Black following me at the same time and place, I will be most alarmed. While it’s not true that he is sure to be dangerous, the likelihood of him being dangerous to me is much more than 0%.

While both Asians and Jews have reputations for being white collar crooks, neither race engages in much of the savagery and barbarity of street crime. On the other hand, sadly, many Blacks still do act this way.

Blacks are a half-civilized people. When I say that I do not mean insultingly that most if not all Blacks are only halfway civilized. Anyone with eyes and ears can figure out that that’s not so. Instead they are half-civilized in that maybe half of them are quite civilized in the Western sense (the American Black middle class), while the other half is still quite savage and barbarous (the underclass), though even they have calmed down and gotten a lot more civilized in the last 150 years.

We succeeded at civilizing maybe half of them, the middle class half, while the other half are still pretty savage and barbarous, especially when they are young and male. However, Blacks, even the worst Black men, tend to mellow out and become more civilized as they get older.

Even the half of the Blacks that are uncivilized are still much more civilized and less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years ago before the civilizing effort. I think US Blacks are more civilized than Caribbean Blacks, and African Blacks are still quite barbarous and savage. Nevertheless, even African Blacks have become much less barbarous and savage than they were 150 years. This is probably due to colonialism, though I hate to credit such an amoral institution.

Alt Left: Book Review: “The Negro in Jamaica: : Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London”

Book Review: The Negro in Jamaica: Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London, by Bedford Pim. 1868. London: Trubner & Company.

Great for the first half, the second half is rather boring. It concerns a report to a British anthropological society about the uprisings of the Blacks in Jamaica in the 1800’s when it was a British colony. The portrayal of Blacks here is not complementary at all, and it would be called racist in modern terms.

However, this portrayal is not racist at all. I believe it was simply observational with keen eye of objectivity. The Black man in the Caribbean and in Africa for that matter was a forlorn specimen, barbarous and savage in the worst possible way.

I will briefly add that the book is racist in the way it patronizingly defends colonialism and says the Blacks of Jamaica were not mistreated when obviously they were. The report also says that Blacks cannot govern themselves, which is dubious.  They can govern themselves. Not very well, but they can do it. They do it in the Caribbean, in Africa and even in large US cities. The only solution to this problem then was that Blacks should be put under permanent supervision of Whites until they had gradually become civilized.

By the way, this was also the colonially stated beneficent rationale for apartheid. For all I know, they may have been honest about it. South African Whites felt that Blacks had to be held under apartheid bondage until such time as they had achieved civilization enough to live on equal terms with Whites.

Be that as it may, apartheid was still immoral and had to be done away. Why? Because it was simply the right thing to do and for no other reason. The fact that South Africa has gone seriously downhill under Black rule is irrelevant. Humans have a right to self-rule, and whether they do so well or not so well is strictly up to them.

The solution advocated in this book is to continue to bring Blacks from Africa and work them on five year contracts for White plantation owners, after which they would be returned to Africa. One cannot help but notice that the endless insistence here that the Black man cannot rule himself just so happens to provide a rationale for Britain to retain the colonial possession of Jamaica. Wink win.

Although of course you can see shadows of this barbarous behavior in modern day Africa, the Caribbean and the US Black underclass, what is shocking is the growth of the Black middle class since the Civil Rights era and how they do not resemble the degraded race portrayed here in any way, shape, or form. A large percentage of the Blacks have become, in a word, civilized. The problem was not so much genetic or biological as cultural.

Via exposure to White society over 150+ years, a large percentage of Blacks, the Black middle class, have become civilized people. They bear no resemblance to the barbarous brutes in this book at all. One would be shocked if they were told that they were of the same race. Indeed the difference is so profound that the only sane conclusion is that we are talking about two different races, which is of course not true.

The message here is that integration is the way to go. The deficiencies of Blacks are not so much biological as cultural. All Blacks needed was the guiding hand of the civilizing impulse, as is the case with so many other human groups.

The other message is that White people are good for Blacks. I should amend this to say that good White people are good for Blacks. Obviously, White slavers or enforcers of Jim Crow in the US and elsewhere in the Americas was not good for Blacks, athough this book tries to make the case that it is.

It’s good for Blacks to mix with good, decent Whites or even to marry with said Whites. Left on their own to congregate in large cities, they act like crabs in a barrel, pulling down anyone who tries to escape and driving each other down to the lowest common denominator in a race for the bottom behaviorally. Large groups of Black people don’t seem to work. Blacks act best as a rather small minority, 20% or less, in a larger group of Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

The Blacks don’t have any numbers, so they don’t influence each other much. Further, the same Blacks who would obviously degrade quickly in the hood do much better when integrated, as they try to mimic the behavior of the races around them, races which tend to set the bar higher behaviorally.

Integration works. The way to ameliorate the Black problem in the US or any other land is to thoroughly mix them in small numbers with Whites, Hispanics or Asians. This brings out the best in the Blacks. It’s good for us, for them, and for society. Everyone wins.

Integration today, integration tomorrow, integration forever!

Alt Left: A Black a Block Works

First of all this whole rather offensive “a Black a block” theory only applies to low class or ghetto Blacks who are causing all the problems. The middle class Blacks get furious every time I bring up this theory, but I’ve got some news for you: We aren’t talking about you! You are not part of the Black a block theory. We don’t think middle class Blacks need to be spread out in order to act more civilized. They already act ok as it is.

Sam: “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!”

This has already been tried and shown to fail. The study of this was done in Memphis Tennessee. They tore down the public housing and everyone went to Section 8. Everywhere they moved crime followed them.

Your comment is not correct. Yes crime went up in the areas they moved to but they followed the Blacks from public housing to the new neighborhoods and they did act somewhat better in the new places. They committed somewhat less crime in the new places than they did in public housing, so it was a net win for society.

In fairness to the idea that spread out they are not so bad we should note that they did seem to cluster on section 8 but it was because there was only so much lower cost housing.

So they weren’t really spreading them out so much after all.

Sam: This plague of black criminals was of course was foisted on poor Whites by the rich.

If Black crime goes up in White areas but goes down overall, is it worth it? I argue that it is. It doesn’t particularly matter where Blacks commit their crime, and 90% of the victims of Black violent crime are other Blacks anyway. I argue that if Black crime goes up in White areas it is still worth it because Black crime went down overall. We want the lower class Black crime rate going down. It doesn’t particularly matter where they commit their crimes. As long at the rate goes down, it’s all good.

Sam: The real solution is to build mass high rise housing projects. The basic idea is sort of like what they had in the Soviet Union but refined. With mass production they could very low cost.

They already tried that. Google Cabrini Green. It didn’t seem to work. Crime was very high in those high rise projects for whatever reason. There was a theory for a while that there was more crime in the high rises and the idea was to spread them out to one or two stories. Not sure how it worked as public housing in Watts such as Nickerson Gardens (puns anticipated) is very low-rise like that, and those places are Hell.

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

Jason Y writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more reason why SJW’s suck.