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

From a conversation on the web:

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

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

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

To which I reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s focus on ending employment discrimination against gays.

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

You know, the real stuff, not the bullshit.

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!

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.

The Politics of the El Paso Mass Shooter: The Rise of a Racist Left?

As you well know a few weeks ago, a young White man went into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and shot the place up. He was angry about mass Hispanic immigration to Texas, which he described as an invasion. His targets in the store were mostly Hispanics.

He admitted that he was motivated by Brandon Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter.

He felt that with increasing Hispanic immigration, Hispanics would take over the state and Hispanic culture would be writ large there. Further, once they had control, they would try to put in Open Borders because that is what most Mexican immigrants want: Open Borders, at least for Mexicans.

I’m not trying to justify this guy’s monstrous crime, but that last paragraph is probably straight up true and it’s something we might want to think about, seeing as we are dead set on turning this country into yet another Latin American country.

He was actually leftwing on economics. He was definitely not a conservative Republican, that’s for damn sure. His manifesto was all about the workers, and it attacked corporations for being anti-worker. His beef against immigrants was that they were taking jobs from natives. The piece was very anti-corporate and condemned both the Democratic and Republican parties. His piece also had strong environmentalist overtones.

This is pretty typical nowadays. Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter, was also mostly on the Left other than race.

These guys are not exactly on the left or right in an American sense. They are more like Third Positionists, who are left on economics and right on social issues. Third Positionists are considered to be neither left nor right.

How on Earth can they call this El Paso guy hard rightwing when he slams corporations, is strongly pro-worker, and condemns the Republican Party? Since when is anyone on the US Right pro-worker or anti-corporate? If you are those things, you are not a part of the US Right de facto.

I am wondering if we are seeing a Racist Left or maybe the left wing of the White Nationalist movement here.

Who Are the Neoconservatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is the Foreign Policy of the White Nationalists?

White nationalists are isolationists. They see our continuous fighting, killing, dying, and destroying in the Middle East as nothing more than what they call “wars for the Jews.” Which, frankly, is exactly what they are. Wars for the Jews in Israel and their wealthy Jewish supporters in the US.

Most like Russia and want to make peace with that country. Most are hostile to picking fights with China. Most want to pull out of NATO. And they seem to be against our adventurism and coup-mongering in Venezuela. From what I can tell, they want to get rid of US imperialism all together in all its forms.

They hate the IMF and the World Bank as much as they hate the UN. They hate most trade agreements. They utterly despise neoconservatives or neocons, who they say are all Jews even though that is not quite the case.

They also hate US jingoists, who they scornfully call “patriotards.” I will say that their foreign policy is one thing I like about the White nationalists, although in general, they are pretty lousy people for hating whole races of humans the way they do.

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

No Feminists, the Three Recent Mass Shootings Had Nothing to Do With Misogyny

Of course, the feminists are on full rant, blaming misogyny for all three recent mass shootings. The Gilroy shooter was supposedly motivated by misogyny because he praised an old Social Darwinist tract  that is full racist and misogynistic writing. Nevertheless, there’s no evidence that the shooting was motivated by hatred of women, and in fact, this man said little or nothing about women one way or the other. Nor did he target women in his shooting. He shot at anyone.

The moronic Left media state that the Gilroy shooter’s manifesto, which was basically apolitical and if anything an argument against unchecked population growth, contained  racist and misogynistic statements. He lamented that “Latinos and Silicon Valley twats” were flooding into his town. Sounds like he was upset about rampant population growth in his town.

Yes, he mentions Latinos, but he also mentions Silicon Valley types, and they tend to be either White, Asians, or South Indians. So either he hated Whites, Latinos, Asians, and South Indians equally (or just about everybody), or race had nothing to do with the shooting.

The FBI has since found a hit list of possible targets this man had composed including all sorts of government offices, churches, and organizations from all over the political spectrum. The more you look at this shooting, the more it seems to have not had any politics at all.

The moron feminist media claimed that “Silicon Valley twats” was a misogynistic phrase, apparently implying that he hated female Silicon Valley workers. Yes, twat can refer to female genitalia, though it’s not often used that way. Yes, you can call a woman a twat just as you can call her a bitch or a cunt, and it can be an insult when used this way.

But the way twat is most frequently used in the US simply means something like idiots, fools, morons, dumbasses, etc. So the comment was not misogynistic at all.

Instead he commented on “Silicon Valley clowns,” which isn’t bigotry at all except that our modern bigotry hunters, determined to excavate every bit of hate lurking in the caverns of even the most innocent of sentences, will probably dig some up. After all,  when you go looking for a certain thing, you have a way of finding it, even if it’s via hallucination.

The El Paso mass shooter is also somehow a misogynist in addition to being an “incel,” though no one knows his sex life, and he wasn’t complaining anyway. This is because he was a White Supremacist (fact), and White Supremacists are all automagically linked to misogyny via links with MRA’s, incels, PUA’s, etc. Or so say the serial liars at the SPLC, but they lie half the time their mouths are open, so they aren’t a good source about anything.

First of all, half of incels are non-White. Yes, some White incels are White Supremacists, but many more are not, and most incel boards now have polices against race-bait posting.

In general PUA ideology says nothing about race, leaving aside that clowns like Roissy and Roosh have adopted racialist ideology. PUA ideology is about heterosexual men getting laid by women. There’s no racialism inherent in such a philosophy of seduction unless I missed that lecture in Pick-Up class.

MRA’s are notoriously for being non-racist or anti-racist, and racism has never been a part of the MRA scene to my knowledge.

Yes, many White Supremacist men are quite sexist, and fascism often has strong links to sexism. But fascists never made a habit of murdering women. They just wanted them at home, in the kitchen, or in church (or the German translation of such), taking care of kids, cooking meals, and gaining spiritual sustenance. Kinder kuchen kirch.

A number of the more hardcore White Supremacists do seem to hate women or at least have a very low opinion of them. The crowd around The Daily Stormer and Vanguard News Network (though the latter is more sexist than misogynistic) is a good example of that. But the quietist aspect of the movement as seen in the American Renaissance site is not misogynistic or sexist at all. Neither is Greg Johnson’s more hardcore Countercurrents site.

It’s true there are few women in the White Supremacist scene, but that is probably because hardcore racism and fascism appeal a lot more to men than to women. In fact, fascism is actually designed to appeal to men.

Nevertheless, many White Supremacists and White racists of any type do not hate women at all, and nor are they sexist. If anything, from my depraved dope, booze, and sex-drenched point of view, I find them squares, fuddy-duddies, and party-poopers. They talk a lot about protecting their women, and they seem to mean it. They probably pedestalize women more than anything else.

So of the three mass shooters, only one has misogyny issues, and his shooting had nothing to do with his issues with women. So the feminists are 0-3 on their theory, which is about how they score on every bit of their fact-free ideology.

8chan Is Still Up

Here ya go, folks.

8chan.

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

pol/.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then goes on to suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The “Roosevelt Knew” Bullshit

There has long been a strain of conspiracy theory, which had significant evidence in its favor nonetheless, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed the attack to go ahead anyway.

This has long been a favorite of rightwingers then and now. Conservatives at the time thought Roosevelt was a traitor who had deliberately filled his Cabinet with many Soviet spies to whom he gave much classified information.

This is the Commie spy network that Joe McCarthy, etc. set about going after in the 1950’s during the Red Scare. There doesn’t seem to be good evidence for this.

To this day, standard anti-Semitism is almost always rightwing or far rightwing and is heavily tied in with anti-Communism among other things such as anti-modernism and anti-liberalism, two movements that the Jews were seen leading.

Anyway, there were many hard conservatives in the Pentagon around the time of World War 2, and quite a few of them were starting to imbibe the “Jewish Communist threat” line.

Winston Churchill himself was one of the originators of the Jewish Bolshevik hysteria when he made some paranoid and agitated statements along the lines that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish one soon after the October Revolution was through.

It was these nutty reactionary anti-Communist anti-Semites in the Pentagon who were responsible for the “Roosevelt knew” line.

Revilo Oliver had worked in intelligence at the Pentagon during the war and later said that Roosevelt had allowed the Pear Harbor attack. Two very conservative admirals stated after the war that Roosevelt should be tried for treason for allowing the attack. These two admirals did not have good evidence for their charges.

Oliver is apparently lying. He was an extreme anti-Communist, a White nationalist racist, a Nazi sympathizer, and a hardcore anti-Semite who later became very active in the early days of the National Review, to show you how tainted the early days of Buckley’s journal were.

Oliver is of course also a Holocaust denier who railed about the bombing of Dresden (which he exaggerated as such types are wont to do) and the Nuremberg trials, which he regarded as an outrageous orgy of murder. Which in some ways it was, unfortunately.

It doesn’t take long to deeply review the case of the Pearl Harbor advance knowledge theory to show that it is nonsense. We never cracked the main code that the Japanese used in the weeks before the attack. The Japanese fleet turned off their radios as they sailed to the attack, a brilliant move.

Radar was in its infancy and worked poorly. Nevertheless a radar operator noticed large blobs on the screen and notified his superiors, who laughed and told him they were clouds. Early radar has a hard time distinguishing between ships and clouds. His observation made it up to a general nevertheless, but the general laughed the blobs off as clouds too.

It is certainly true that Roosevelt was trying to push the Japanese into a corner and many thought he was trying to bait them into a war. I believe that’s pretty uncontroversial. In fact, the US was alarmed at how upset the Japanese were at the US’ moves such as the embargo on oil sales to them.

In fact in the months leading up to the attack, the US increasingly felt that the Japanese were getting ready to attack the US. They weren’t sure it was going to happen, but they thought it likely. What they didn’t know was where and when it would take place, and Pearl Harbor was not considered to be a likely a target. The large US garrison the Philippines was considered a more likely target.

Roosevelt definitely wanted war with the Japanese. He had made statements along the lines that no way was he going to allow the Japanese to run amok all over the Pacific, conquering lands and slaughtering the natives while brutally colonizing them.

There was a telegram sent to the Japanese ambassador in Washington the night before the attack telling him that the Japanese government was going to break off relations with the US. It was in an earlier code that had already been broken.

The Pentagon felt that that meant that a Japanese attack may be imminent. However, a warning to that effect sent out to US forces in the Pacific got lost in the shuffle and was only read too late by most of its recipients.

There were 10 full investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack. No foreknowledge of the attack by Roosevelt or anyone else in the administration was ever demonstrated.

Although there is some interesting evidence in favor of this conspiracy theory, at the end of the day it doesn’t seem to hold water and simply seems to be one more club that the Right uses to bash Democrats along with one of the Right’s most hated Democrats of all, Roosevelt.

Furthermore the people who traffic in this theory are pretty unsavory. It is a favorite of a variety of conspiratorial rightwing types, including fanatical anti-Communists, hardcore anti-Semites, neo-Nazis/Nazi sympathizers, Holocaust deniers, White nationalists and other charming folks.

Alt Left: Is Anti-Semitism Leftwing or Rightwing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Jewish Bolshevism Nonsense

This theory is not only nonsense, but it’s also very dangerous nonsense because this really is Nazism in a nutshell at its very essence. People don’t realize that Nazis hated Communists as much as Jews. When the Einsatzgruppen were ravaging the Baltics and the USSR, two types of people tended to be killed on sight by these assassination squads in many cases:

  1. Jews
  2. Communists

And neither was favored over the other. Furthermore the lines were blurred, as the Nazis’ main enemy was Communism, and Nazi theory held that Communism was a Jewish plot, and essentially all Jews were Communists who had to be killed to snuff out the Bolshevik threat.

Of course they had other reasons for hating Jews, but most folks don’t Trealize how important the Commie Jews theory was in the annihilation of the European Jews.

This line went along with growing anti-Semitism on the Right in the US and elsewhere along the lines that the Bolshevik Revolution has been a Jewish revolution and that Communist Jews posed a threat to the so called Free World, which was always anything but.

This line held basically that all Jews were Communists. It wasn’t true, though most European Jews in the 1930’s were definitely on the Left, especially in places like Poland. Many were just liberals and social democrats though. An old line says that maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. So you do the math.

While there were many Jews in the leadership positions of the early Soviet government, most Jews were not Bolsheviks. In the 1917 election before the Bolsheviks seized power, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party.

They may have supported the Bolsheviks after they seized power, but the majority of people in the country did anyway, including a lot of the military, especially the military intelligence of the Czar’s army, most of whom went over to the Reds.

I did some research on the makeup of the early Bolsheviks and there were people from all ethnic groups of the USSR. Yes there were a lot of Jews, but there were just as many Latvians, of all people, and possibly more. So I guess the Bolshevik Revolution was a Latvian Revolution, right?

There followed short lived Communist revolutions in the several years after the October Revolution, one in Hungary under Bela Kun, a Hungarian Jew, and another in Bavaria under Rosa Luxembourg and some others, all German Jews.

Kun’s regime lasted only a few months, but he did kill some people, though the death count, which may be as low as 300, is much exaggerated by anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers. But he killed just enough to scare the European middle classes.

The Bavarian government was overthrown after a few months, but the fact that it existed at all spread horror throughout the German petit bourgeois.

It was this early revolution on German soil that cemented the Nazis’ belief in Jewish Bolshevism, which held that all Jews were Communists intended on overthrowing all non-Communist regimes and seizing power for the Jews over the Gentiles the world over. The theory said that the main reason the Jews wanted to do this was to get rich by exploiting the Gentile masses when they had established World Communism.

As anyone knows, nobody goes into Communism thinking of getting rich. And Communists don’t exploit workers to make a profit anyway. That goes right against Marxist theory. It’s nearly on the level of a transgression.

So this part of the theory was so nonsensical it is almost laughable.

But many to most hardcore anti-Semites continue to push this line to this very day, that Communist Jews are a threat to the world, want to take over all countries and convert them to Communism, thereby finally ruling over their hated Gentile enemies, while at the same time ruthlessly exploiting the Gentiles so that these Communist Jews get filthy rich under this world Communist system.

The theory is so absurd that you would think it would have no more than a limited shelf life, but its recrudescence seems eternal and vigorous. Perhaps the theory’s staying power speaks more about the essential irrationality of obsessive, paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Semitism than anything else.

The Holocaust was largely driven by this belief in subversive Jewish Bolshevik Communists out to overthrow the established governments of Europe. It was a paranoid argument with no basis at the time, and it still is.

European Jews in the 1930’s had little power. They held quite a few high positions in some countries, especially in Hungary and Germany, and in Germany they had acquired quite a bit of money, but they had little power in either country. What Jewish power existed was quickly overthrown by the Nazis when they came into power.

Many of the East European Jews, especially the Polish and Russian Jews, had become terribly poor in recent decades. They lived in ignorant, backwards, poverty-stricken villages called stetls. They were pathetic but they were hardly world-controlling wealthy Jewish profiteers and oligarchs. It’s hard to see how they were a threat to anyone, but Polish anti-Semitism was very high anyway.

These Jews were poorly assimilated and this is offered as a reason for Polish antisemitism, but many Jews in Western Europe were much more assimilated (indeed assimilation was the laudable goal of most West European Jews).

The German Jews were the most assimilated in all of Europe. Lot of good it did them. In the previous century the assimilation was so thorough that many Jews had left Judaism and converted to Christianity, especially Protestantism.

This caused no end of problems for Nazis trying to figure out who was a Jew and who wasn’t. To this day you can find many German Protestants who will tell you that their ancestors were Jewish converts to Christianity. Even in Marx’s time this was quite common.

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: Against the Jewish Mystification of Anti-Semitism

Against the Jewish Mystification of Anti-Semitism

After being thrown out countries 106 times, instead of concluding that they might possibly, just maybe, even theoretically be doing be doing something wrong even a tiny bit wrong like any normal group, the Jews instead have activated ego defenses on a tribal level of projection, denial, and mostly repression, the latter of which they excel in.

The Jewish line about antisemitism is that it always happens for no reason or for some stupid or even insane reason (the Jewish conspiracy line). There is simply no rhyme, reason, or logic to anti-Semitism according to the Jews.

This race has even funded entire research institutes to try to figure out why so many people hate them, which is alarming right there.

There is a Center for the Study of Antisemitism in Israel in which a bunch of Jewish eggheads expend much cognitive energy trying to figure out why so many people hate their guts. The fact that this race felt the need to create such an academic research tank in the first place is alarming and out to take you aback.

Of course its material is almost completely useless as every document issued by this stink tank concludes with numbing repetition that the antisemites hate Jews for absolutely no reason at all when they do not hate them for idiotic or delusional reasons.

Yes, the Jews are often hated, sadly or even heartrendingly tragically, but they are indeed hated for a reason. And it’s not a dumb reason or a crazy reason. It’s in fact the exact reason you would suspect given Jewish competition with non-Jews.

Alt Left: A Puzzle Solved: The Main Reason for Antisemitism Uncovered

Antisemitism is caused by Jews. Antisemitism follows Jews like day follows night. A lot of antisemitism simply boils down to the fact that the Jews are intellectually superior to the White Gentiles they have always lived among.

Hence you get situations like Jews, 2% of the population, owning 32% of the wealth of Germany. No nation is going to put up with that, no matter if the money-hoarders got it fair and square or stole every nickel of it. And indeed not coincidentally, Adolf Hitler assumed power as the dictator of Germany that very next year after gaining the most votes in the prior election. Not that I am excusing the monstrosities and horrors of the Nazis. I’m no Nazi. More like the opposite. But the Nazis did not engage in their horrors for no reason at all. Most terrible things are done for reasons, usually not very good ones but reasons nonetheless.

But the sad fact is that anti-Semitism is simply the “normal”, though regretfully so, reaction of of non-Jews towards Semitism, or Jewish behavior in the societies in which they live.

I will credit the much-maligned Kevin MacDonald with that particular insight. In the sense that he finally figured it out, right there, this particular antisemite, MacDonald (he wasn’t one at first but he’s surely one now), is smarter than every Jew who ever lived combined because he finally solved the theorem that the Jews have been pondering for 1,500 years.

Please note that when I say normal I don’t mean good. Many terrible things are sadly normal, death and taxes being two that immediately come to mind. I mean normal in the sense of common as wifebeating is common and therefore “normal” while still being reprehensible.

And as I noted, much anti-Semitism simply derives from the outrage, offense, envy, and sour grapes attitude of whatever Gentiles the Jews happen to be competing with at the time. The Jews are simply a superior race, perhaps the most superior race on Earth, hence they tend to out-compete most if not all other races, obviously provoking outrage and sore-loserdum among the defeated.

The Jews’ crime is being too successful! In fact, they are so successful that the races they beat get so mad about the Jews always winning the gold that they go to the envious retaliatory extreme of murdering Jews simply because they won the race and showed up the defeated losers. Jews then are so successful that they actually get murdered for their success by the envious and outraged races that they defeated!

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

“Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar”

The title is very misleading. There is a theory put out by White nationalists that Blacks could not even build a boat to get to Madagascar. Yet is appears that they did just that. Very short. Download as pdf for best experience.

Blacks Couldn’t Even Build a Boat to Madagascar

Author Stephen King on Trump

Here.

He was years ahead of his time in seeing this phenomenon:

I had written about such men before. In The Dead Zone, Greg Stillson is a door-to-door Bible salesman with a gift of gab, a ready wit, and the common touch. He is laughed at when he runs for mayor in his small New England town, but he wins.

He is laughed at when he runs for the House of Representatives (part of his platform is a promise to rocket America’s trash into outer space), but he wins again. When Johnny Smith, the novel’s precognitive hero, shakes his hand, he realizes that some day Stillson is going to laugh and joke his way into the White House, where he will start World War Three.

Anyone see/read that one?

…started thinking Donald Trump might win the presidency in September of 2016. By the end of October, I was almost sure. Thus, when the election night upset happened, I was dismayed but not particularly surprised. I didn’t even think it was much of an upset, in spite of the Huffington Post aggregate poll, which gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning – an example of wishful thinking if ever there were one.

Some of my belief arose from the signage I was seeing. I’m from northern New England, and in the run-up to the election I saw hundreds of Trump-Pence signs and bumper stickers but almost none for Clinton-Kaine.

To me this didn’t mean there were no Clinton supporters in the houses I passed or the cars ahead of me on Route 302; what it did seem to mean was that the Clinton supporters weren’t particularly invested. This was not the case with the Trump people, who tended to have billboard-sized signage in their yards and sometimes two stickers on their cars (TRUMP-PENCE on the left; HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL on the right).

Brexit also troubled me. Most of the commentators brushed its importance aside, saying that the issue of whether or not Britain should leave the EU was very different from that of who should become the American president, and besides, British and American voters were very different animals.

I agreed with neither assessment, because there was a vibe in the air during most of 2016, a feeling that people were both frightened of the status quo and sick of it. Voters saw a vast and overloaded apple cart lumbering past them. They wanted to upset the motherfucker and would worry about picking up those spilled apples later. Or just leave them to rot.

Clinton voters were convinced she’d win, even if they saw her as a ho-hum candidate at best. Many did not even bother going to the polls, which was a large (and largely unstated) factor in her loss. Trump voters, on the other hand, could not wait to pull those levers. They didn’t just want change; they wanted a man on horseback. Trump filled the bill.

9-Year-Old Black Bullied to Death – by Blacks – for One White Friend

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181209/9-year-old-girls-suicide-shocks-small-alabama-community

Yep, you heard it!  One white friend.  Not five, not even two. 😆  And this wasn’t even the dreaded middle school hell yet!

So when will the black community be accountable for racism – they accuse ONLY whites of having?

Racism in Latin America, with an Emphasis on Anti-Black Racism

Tulio: It seems the Latin America right is mostly dominated by whites. I yet to see many dark brown Amerindian leaders of right wing movements in Latin America. They seem to be all people of European descent.

Yep. White people act pretty horrific down there.
I know you don’t like Chavez, but he is the hero of the Blacks and Browns down there. The opposition is mostly White and light-skinned. During the recent rioting, the opposition attacked some Black Venezuelans on the assumption that they were Chavez supporters and set them on fire in the streets.
The Opposition habitually called Chavez a mono or a monkey. He was a zambo, a mixture of Black, White, Indian. This mixture is pretty common in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. I have read interviews with members of the opposition. One was an unmarried White upper class man in his late 20’s who lived at home. He said he felt so insulted every time he saw Chavez because it was like his people (upper middle class Whites) were being ruled by their maids and gardeners. The idea that this proud White man should be ruled by his inferiors was infuriating.
Peru is an extremely racist society. Now it’s mostly against the Indians, it’s true. They hardly have any Blacks. There was recently a case of a beautiful Black woman who tried to get into an exclusive nightclub in the wealthy Miramar District of Lima and she was turned away at the door. I guess they had a “No Blacks” policy.
Chile is incredibly racist against Indians, and they are supposedly one of the most progressive countries down there. I had a friend whose father had worked in Allende’s administration. He was a sociology major and he was doing some work with the Mapuche Indians who  live in the South. But his racism against those Indians was off the charts. Chileans are extremely racist Peruvians, and most of it is wrapped around the idea that Peruvians have much more Indian blood than the Chileans do, though the average White Chilean is ~25% Indian.
I’m not sure how racist things are in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil. Some people say that Colombian Whites are extremely racist against Blacks, but others said it’s not the case.
Actually in Latin America there is the phenomenon of social race. A wealthy Latin American told me that even Black Latin Americans can be completely accepted in wealthy White circles if they only have enough money.
This phenomenon is called social race. It is especially prominent in places like Brazil. So a wealthy Black Brazilian can be effectively “White” and a poor White in a favela (there are many Whites in favelas) is effectively Black or mixed race (a wigger).
Racism is forbidden by law in Brazil but it still exists. I think there was a case recently where a White woman was in an elevator and she would not let a Black person in the elevator with her. It generated a lot of controversy. Nevertheless, there is a racial hierarchy. White women are regarded as wives and mothers but not so much as sex objects. In fact, they are too pure for that. Black women are regarded as unattractive. Their only use is maybe to be your maid. However, mixed race mulatta women are the most highly prized of all, and even White men see them as the sexiest women of all. They are sexualized as sex objects.
I had a White Brazilian woman who was my friend for a while. She mostly spoke Portuguese so it was hard to talk to her. I told her, “You try not to be racist against Blacks here, but it’s hard.” She agreed with me, and said, “Yes, I agree, we try not to be racist too, but it’s hard. We Whites have a saying here in Brazil, ‘If a Black doesn’t steal from you when he’s coming, he steals from you when he’s going.” In other words, if he doesn’t steal from you when he’s walking in the door, he will definitely steal from you when he is walking out the door. So even down there Blacks are regarded as thieves.
There’s not a lot of racism in the Caribbean because there are almost no Whites. However, the mulattos in Dominican Republic are extremely racist against the Blacks in Haiti. They still enslave them, for Chrissake.
Mexico, I am not sure, but in barrio culture here, low class Hispanics are much more racist against “mayate” Blacks than Whites are. The mestizos are openly racist, much more so than the Whites who probably think open racism is uncouth as Mexican Whites are very into being proper, mannered people. In there is open racism against Blacks in Mexico at least in the media. Further, the Mexican media is ~100% White. I have told Mexican-Americans that they are 4% Black and they don’t believe me. They also act a bit insulted. But it’s true. Every regular mestizo Mexican you meet is ~4% Black. The population just bred in with the Blacks and practically wiped them out except for a few around Veracruz. They simply bred them out of existence and everyone ended up with a bit of Black in them.

The Lie of the Incompetent Black Affirmative Action Professional

The racist argument – which I just saw again on Niggermania today (as I said you need to know what your enemies believe) – is that due to affirmative action and whatnot (which is a racist White Whale that barely exists anymore anyway), Blacks are held to a lower standard.

Well, they’re Black, so we don’t expect much of them, so we will pass them with lower grades than the Whites, and we won’t expect as much of them at work, we will not expect them to do as much work. and we will let them get away with more bad behavior.

I have no idea how true this is. Yes, some law schools do lower standards for Blacks at admission, but there’s no evidence that they grade Blacks at a different standards than Whites. Even if they can fudge a bit to get them in, Blacks in professional schools still have to do just as good as Whites to pass in class. No one’s cutting them any slack on law or med schools, at least not yet.
And if the Blacks really can’t cut it because they slid in on lowered affirmative action standards, they will flunk out anyway, especially at a place like Berkeley. So the lowered standards in a sense are a non-problem. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing if you will.
And even if they somehow do not flunk out, they still have to pass the bar. If a Black gets admitted to law school and graduates and then somehow passes the damned bar, they’re competent. It doesn’t matter whether standards got lowered for them to get in or not. The Bar doesn’t believe in affirmative action, at least not yet.
Medical school is the same thing. Ok, they lower standards of admittance, but 35% drop out anyway, and 7% out and out flunk out. So if they were admitting unqualified people, they will bomb out one way or another anyway. And if they do graduate, now they have to pass their boards. Boards don’t believe in affirmative action or not yet anyway.
Tests like the Bar and the Medical Boards are the Great Equalizers. If a Black person can get through law or medical school and pass the bar or their boards, Jesus Christ, how bad of an attorney or physician could they possibly be?
The Bar and the Boards are so difficult that they make it so that anyone who miraculously passes them is absolutely qualified at a minimal level to practice law or medicine. So the idea of all these incompetent Black  professionals everywhere that the racists bring up doesn’t pass the smell test. There simply cannot be lots of incompetent Black professionals as long as they have to pass murderous tests to get the job, and the workplace holds them to high standards.
The notion of the incompetent Black professional affirmative action hire lies in the dust.

Anti-Black Racism Limits the Freedom of Black People by Holding Them to a Different Standard Than Whites

Christopher Donnellan: No, you’re wrong. ‘Racists’ see that that patterns of behavior or traits tend to predominate within certain groups. Such behavior is the result of many factors, including genetics, which you seem to play down or disregard. As with humans, there are always individual exceptions to such factors, but its important to keep such things in proper perspective.

There’s no good reason to put it in quotes. The term exists although it is horribly abused. I assure you that there are definitely still humans here in the US who more or less out and out hate Black people. That means they are racists, not “racists.” Now you can argue about whether or not their racism is a valid belief. Believe it or not that’s what I am trying to do here.
The behaviors don’t predominate in Blacks. None of them do. They’re much more common, but they don’t predominate.
And the exceptions are more than individual. In the case of Blacks, most of the behaviors we really dislike are probably displayed for the most part only by a minority of the group.
Sometimes I think that it is even a minority of low class ghetto type Blacks who act bad. We have some around here and while they are caught up in that culture, I can’t say that they are bad people at all. They don’t engage in any of that frightful rudeness, manipulative, using, callous or inconsiderable behavior that so infuriates me. I am friends with some of them, and I struggle to see how there’s anything terrible about them. Now granted these are all Black women, and most are young Black women.
I am getting my information on anti-Black racists and what motivates their hatred from Black humor sites like Chimpmania and Niggermania. Those are not White nationalists. Those are everyday folks who hate Blacks, and I mean hate them. I especially look at the Introductions pages and the unfortunately named Coontacts, in which members discuss recent encounters with Blacks and why they were horrible or evidence of reasons why Blacks should be hated.
I don’t want to read the other sections although I have to admit that those people are pretty damn funny sometimes. I went there the other day with this notion of, “Ew yuck! These people are horrible, nasty evil racists! I’ll have to take a shower after I leave this site!” That should inoculate me against the jokes, but even that didn’t work. I still found myself laughing even though I didn’t want to.
Fair’s fair. I would say that if Black people set up a White-bashing site to make fun of us, I might go to it. It might be painful to read, but funny is funny. Paul Mooney rips White people a hundred ways from Sunday, and I can’t stop laughing at his shtick. One some level, funny’s funny.
It’s important to read sections like that on those sites because those people are flat out stating why they hate Black people. Shouldn’t Black people know what motivates racists? The argument is no, racists are crazy and evil, why do I care about why they hate me? But does that argument really make sense? And if antiracists get the reasons why racists hate Blacks completely wrong, how can they possibly due battle against something they completely misunderstand?
Those people are not flat out evil like Stormfront and Daily Stormer, and that’s part of the problem. They’re not filled with hate like those people. You read their introductions and most are just like the regular people I grew up with. And they’re not all White. Quite a few are South Indians, Hispanics, and Asians.
It’s rather sad that Black people are hated pretty consistently across the board by quite a few people of a number of races. That’s also alarming. If it was just one race, you could say there’s something wrong with that group of people. But when you see all sorts of races and nationalities disliking them, you can’t say that anymore. The reasons the different races give for disliking Blacks are all pretty much the same.
Most have little to do with the way Black people look or certainly the color of their skin. I have seen Blacks say that they are hated because of the color of their skin. That’s not really true. That White person is not saying

Ew your Black skin is ugly. I am going to throw a bottle at you because your skin color is so ugly.

I mean maybe a few think that but not most. Instead they are probably thinking

I have had a lot of contacts with people of this skin color (who are part of a certain race). These contacts were not pleasant and I thought these people acted pretty bad. Here you are, and your skin shows you are part of that group I had unpleasant interactions with. I assume that you act bad just like they do.

But notice that that Black guy you are throwing a bottle at – you haven’t even met him! You don’t have the faintest idea of what sort of a person he is. Sure you the bottle thrower are making up a fake theory about the whole race being bad, so that means this guy you heave a bottle at is bad too because that’s the only way you can justify throwing that damned bottle. But as I have pointed out, that theory is completely erroneous. We can shoot it down right at the hypothesis stage. We don’t even have to bother to test it out.
As I pointed out in another post, this is a cognitive error because even if you can produce evidence that a lot of Blacks act bad, it’s not all of them, and I don’t even think it’s most of them. It’s a minority, but it’s a large majority, and their bad behavior tends to be worse than the bad behavior of other races. I once said that Blacks have six times more bad actors than Whites and the bad actors tend to act six times worse than White bad actors. I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s my impression. Still it’s wrong to hate the whole group because of the behaviors of a minority. It’s irrational and according to Moral Philosophy, it’s a moral error – it’s immoral. So it’s both crazy and wrong. 
Thing is no one wants to say, “I hate Black people because 40% of them act bad.”
That starts to twist your mind in a lot of weird ways and causes a lot of cognitive conflict.
On those Black humor sites, all of them say that all Blacks are bad. Even they can figure out that a lot of Blacks are not obviously bad and seem just like anyone else, so this belief is automatically in jeopardy. So they come up with the Magic Negro Theory to explain how these seemingly good ones are really just niggers deep down inside too, one blowup away from having their niggertude manifested by some TNB.
This is of course wrong. Even if there are genetic links to Black pathologies, it’s not going to affect all of them because Black genes are extremely variable.
If you plot these behaviors on a graph, it will look like a scatterplot. If you plot Whites doing these behaviors on a graph, you will get another scatterplot.
I’ve never done this, but I assure for any “Black” behavior, you are going to get all sorts of overlap. First, not all will display it or to the same degree. Also there will be a lot of overlap and quite a few Whites will display this “Black” behavior.
If you look at the White graph, it will be skewed towards the better behavior, but even here you will have a vast number of Blacks, perhaps the majority, over there in the White plot acting more or less fine, just like White folks. So there is no “Black” behavior. There is no “White” behavior. There’s simply human behavior, some of which we label good and other of which we label bad, with plenty of folks in either race in both the good and bad sides of the plot. If there is no “Black” behavior, then there is no “inner nigger” waiting to manifest itself. There is no “Black essence” of Black people other than rather obvious things about skin color and whatnot.
One more thing about the Magic Negro Theory is confirmation bias. What does this inner nigger behavior look like? No one knows as it is undefinable.
So Tulio and Greg pretty much can’t have a temper tantrum, can’t blow up, scream, yell and throw stuff around. I have no idea if they do that, but I doubt if they act perfect all the time. The problem is that I do things like that too, to this very day even. Every single White person I know throws wild tantrums which the racists call chimpouts. But see, when I throw my tantrum, I’m just Bob, a White guy who’s lamentably losing it for a moment, though it’s probably for a good reason because I know Bob and he doesn’t blow up lightly. No one would say I am accessing some inferior inner core when I do that. If asked, a racist would just say,  “No, Bob’s not chimping out. He’s just throwing a tantrum. Humans do that, you know.”
But see, people like Alpha and Malik are actually limited in their behaviors. I can throw tantrums and probably do all sorts of stupid shit without it being a manifestation of my inferiority. People will just say I am acting human, and humans sometimes act bad.
But the Blacks on my site don’t have that freedom. If Phil blows up exactly like I did, even copying my behaviors to a T, he’s not just acting like a human, and hey, humans do that. What’s happening when Phil does that is that even though Phil acts great most of the time, this tantrum is an example of his “inner nigger” essence manifesting itself. So Phil’s a Magic Negro and he’s really just a nigger like all the rest of them after all. He just hides it well. But you still can’t trust being around him because you never know when that inner nigger is going to come out. Better play it safe and only hang with Whites.
Alpha has told me that she deliberately monitors her behavior due to anti-Black racism. She deliberately tries to keep her anger toned down. I know her and she’s not a very angry human anyway, especially for a Black person, as they do tend to be angrier. I’m probably angrier than she is. She told me once that when she blows up and loses it, it’s a lot more problematic for her than it is for me. She told me that if she blows up, people will look at her and say, “Well she’s just a nigger anyway.”
Now it’s good if anyone acts better for any reason, and if this racist bullshit makes Alpha act less angry, I  suppose that’s good. But she’s also less free. She’s being held to another standard. I can blow up and be human, but if Alpha blows up, it’s proof she’s a nigger.
Just look at that theory for a second. I don’t even have to test it out to see that it’s wrong. When Alpha blows up, if she does, the truth is she’s just being human, just like me. For a human, she’s rather calm anyway, even compared to most Whites. There is no inner nigger. There are no Magic Negroes whose good behavior is only covering for their inner nigger hiding down inside. It’s bullshit.
But it’s interesting that the racists are bothered by hating an entire race if only 30% of 40% act pretty bad. Their mind is saying, “What about the other 70%?!” This upsets their conscience so much that they decide against all evidence that 90% of Blacks act bad. They need to say this in order to hate the whole group!
But it’s interesting that this still nags at their consciences and this is a reason why I say most racists are not stone evil psychopaths. Instead they are more or less good, decent people with morals, guilt and consciences, who unfortunately have taken a stroll down an immoral path. As I said earlier, stone evil psychopaths don’t have consciences, guilt, and morals.
Antiracists portray all anti-Black racists as stone evil literal psychopaths, literally Hitler if you will. Not only is it not true but it’s bad politics. Call someone evil and they will get their back up. Call a basically good person evil, and he will really get his back up. Call a racist evil, and this lie will make his back rise, and he will probably react by doubling down on his racism.
The way to reduce racism is to appeal to the humanity and basic decency of racists. It starts by saying they are not the evil people, and we are not the good people. They’re people just like us, with morals, guilt, consciences, the whole nine yards. They’ve gotten off on a crazy and immoral racist mindset, yes, but nobody’s perfect, and the fact that they still have morals, guilt and consciences means that you can theoretically pull them out of it.
Furthermore, there’s nothing to be gained by saying your enemies are something they are not. I remember a famous general in a war had photos of the general on the other side all over his desk, staring at him every day.  People asked him why he did that, and he said he wanted to know his enemy.
People asked him if he hated the other general and he said, oh no, he had tremendous respect for him. He was just another man just like me, the general said. He simply had the misfortune of being on the other side. It’s hard to defeat an enemy if you don’t even understand them at a basic level. It’s even harder to deal with enemies if you don’t have the faintest reason why they hate you or if you have the reasons why they hate you entirely wrong. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is the dictum.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist: The "Magic Negro" Theory

A lot of them do admit that some Black people seem good. They call these the magic niggers or magic Negroes. It’s 10%. The good Blacks on this site like Tulio would be called magic niggers because he appears like a good guy. But then would say that Tulio is still a nigger deep down inside, and sooner or later something will happen, and his lousy inner nigger will come out. I don’t believe that Tulio or the other Blacks on here have some lousy nigger inside of them. They’re just people like or me. There is no lousy “nigger essence” inside of every Black person. It’s nonsense, and even worse, it’s immoral nonsense.
But you see even these racists can figure out that some Blacks (they underestimate 10%) act good. This shows that not only are they moral, but they are also sane. To look at all Black people and decide they are all lousy stretches the credulity of the sane mind. This violates their theory so they have to explain it. They come up with the Magic Nigger Theory. This states that no matter how good they seem, magic niggers still have that awful Black nigger essence inside of them like all of their race, and sooner or later it will come out.
The Magic Nigger Theory allows them to accommodate the fact that even they, since they are basically sane, can see that millions of Blacks seem to be just fine, while still allowing them to hate the whole race. If millions were just fine, then it would be a moral quandary to hate the whole race. What about the magic ones? Do you hate them too? Well, why? How can you?
They can’t, and they are decent enough to recognize this. So to assuage their guilty consciences, they come up with the Magic Nigger Theory that says that even the ones that act good are really just lousy niggers deep down inside, and sooner or later their lousy inner nigger nature will come out. The theory’s completely false, but it shows the lengths these people will go to try to mollify their obviously guilty consciences.
As long as we see racists are pure evil sociopaths and not simply regular moral people like you and me that have gone astray on some immoral belief system, we will never understand these people. Racists feel guilty about strolling down this immoral path as as they properly should, so they devise all sorts of fancy cognitive strategies to deal with their guilt.
And it’s important to note that if anti-Black racists were truly evil, they wouldn’t have any guilt in the first place. The fact that they feel guilty at all shows us that we are dealing with good folks who went astray rather than pure evil sociopaths.
If you want to fight racism, at first you need to understand your enemy. Anti-racists fail on this front by not even bothering to understand why racists feel the way they do and what sort of people racists are in the first place. The first dictum is always To know thine own self is the rule, but the second dictum ought to be about how important it is to know your enemies.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist

They have bad experiences with quite a few people of the race and then they just decide to hate the whole race. Anti-Black racists make a deliberate cognitive error. They say that all Blacks suck. They have to say this because when you are that racist, saying that 40% or even 90% of them suck and therefore you hate the whole group seems morally wrong. But if the whole groups sucks then even I would agree that you should hate all of them.
These people still have consciences. It would bother their consciences to hate the whole group if only 40% were bad. In order to clear their conscience, they say the whole group is bad, and now they can hate the group in good conscience.
Seeing racists as evil is an error. Most are not evil. If they were evil, they would not have guilty consciences. They are moral people with consciences like you and me, but they have taken on an immoral view, so they have to justify this to their own guilty consciences, and they jump through some moral hoops to do so.

Why Typical Low Class Black Behavior Is So Offensive to White People

Tulio: To some degree all groups become defensive when their group is criticized by an outgroup. Especially an outgroup that they’ve had a long and bitter history with, And especially, especially if that outgroup spent centuries as their oppressor.

Think of it like this, would Palestinians trust criticism of Palestinian behavior coming from Jews? Would Sunnis trust criticism coming from Shias? Would Korean accept criticism coming from Japanese? Hell, even the left and the right in this country within the same race won’t listen to each other. A Trumpist does not want to hear criticism of his tribe from some west coast liberal far outside of his bubble. No matter how valid the criticism is they will plug their ears and deny it just the way you guys accuse blacks of doing when presented with facts and evidence.

Robert…question for you. What are some examples of bad black behavior that you feel the majority of blacks are guilty of?

You may find this hard to believe but I would say in general, nothing!

For Black women, I would say that far too many of them have a whorish, prostitute-type attitude towards sex to where they think there are price tags on the vaginas and they should charge men for every sex act. I am not even going to say this is genetic. I am going to pin it on Black culture having this permissive attitude towards prostitution to where this culture apparently thinks it is perfectly acceptable for Black women to be literal whores in one way or another. Now obviously many Black women don’t do this. Alpha doesn’t have this mindset at all. In fact, she has the opposite mindset. But far too many Black women do. And that would be my complaint about them right there – a whorish and transactional attitude towards heterosexual sex.

The majority? Tulio, it’s not even the majority! That’s the problem. It’s not so much that the majority of Blacks act bad! I doubt if the majority of Blacks do act bad. But it’s more that there is a minority of them who act bad and that minority is far too many of them.  There are just far too many people in this ethnic group who act bad compared to other groups. The high rate of bad behavior ends up making dealing with the group as a whole something of a minefield.
Of course there are plenty of Black people who act fine but there are so many bad actors that you have tread very carefully to sort out of the good from the bad, and it’s not completely obvious who is a good actor and who is a bad actor.  At some point one tires of walking through minefields sidestepping human landmines, and you start to think that the whole group is too much of a risk because of all the bad actors.
And if you are a like me, you mostly just don’t have much to do with Black people anymore. Of course I sympathize with them, I wish to help them, and I even work on their political campaigns where their demands are reasonable. My favorite group in Congress is the Black Congressional Caucus. I am on the mailing list for several Black political groups, and I am happy to participate in their campaigns. Overt racism and discrimination against Blacks in housing, jobs, voting, and so many other things outrages and infuriates me on a primal level, and I resolve to work to right these wrongs. But as far as dealing with the group, I often just think they are too much trouble and too risky to deal with, so I just opt out of dealing with them much. I’m willing to help them completely from a distance, but getting too close to them seems to risky.
The problem with Black people isn’t with the Black middle class, which is now quite large. I’m not aware that they act bad. In fact, the ones I knew, mostly schoolteachers, seem to act very good. Most Blacks I worked with were competent, friendly, good workers, and generally good, decent people. I haven’t seen much of the Black incompetence or slovenliness in the workplace that you hear so much about, but then Black schoolteachers and administrators are a pretty select group.
The problem is what Alpha calls the low class Blacks, who are more or less what we call ghetto people, even though most do not even live in the hood. Yet they have “hood” behaviors. We Whites hate most Blacks with that “hood” attitude, period! They’re infuriating, most simply because to us they are unspeakably rude. I am not even talking about crime or serious bad behavior. I am talking about very low level stuff, but these are such politeness violations for Whites that they send us through the roof.
Low class Blacks borrow money and never pay it back. They borrow very small sums like $5-25, and then never pay it back. In White culture, this is considered to be an outrage. In my complex here there was a young White man who was for all intents and purposes a complete wigger. He was poor and he lived with his Hispanic wife and their little kid. Now and again he borrowed some very small sums of money from money. He always paid me back! He told me, “This is how I was raised. You always pay back.” Sometimes it would take him a month or two to pay me back, but there he would be, two months later, at my door with $25 in his hand.
At my previous location I lived with poor and working class Whites. Now and then some of them borrowed money from me. One woman borrowed $25 and then paid it back a month later with interest! There was one White woman who was a very trashy person who had descended pretty low. She borrowed $5 from me and then never paid it back. That is considered horribly low in White culture. If it’s your last $5, you pay it back. With the Whites I hang out with, that White woman would be called a nigger.
We would essentially throw her out of the White race because one of the qualifications for being White is paying back when you borrow, especially small sums because they can be easily paid back. If you can’t do that, we say you’re not White anymore, and we will refer to you disparagingly as a nigger. Not even as a Black person. That’s too good for them. We call them niggers, which just means low class or ghetto Blacks of a particularly obnoxious type who we really despise. It’s not a word we use much because it seems like such an ugly word, but if there is a Black person who know and  really despise on a personal level, we will refer to them as that word. But at the same time, referring to the whole race with that word outrages us. It’s a grotesquerie, so backwards, hick, cracker and racist that it’s profoundly offensive.

Rudeness

The main problem is absolutely grotesque rudeness. This type of Black person is unspeakably rude. They are manipulative and they only show up at your house if they want to obviously use you for something. In White culture, that is grotesquely rude. A White person who did that, once again, would be considered a nigger and would be essentially evicted from the White race. You don’t get to be White automatically just because of the color of your skin. Whiteness is considered an honor and ideally it is something to be earned. You earn Whiteness by adhering to some rather stringent moral standards. If you can be decent enough to do that, then you are rewarded with Whiteness.

Violation of A Man’s Home Is His Castle Principle

They come into your house and immediately start pointing out stuff and saying, “Give me this” or “Give me that.” I can’t even put into words how rude that is! I’ve known thousands of Whites in my life, and no White person has ever been that rude! You can’t do that. A man’s home is his castle. You have no right to ask for anything in a man’s house. I believe you can request a glass of water, but you can’t really ask for anything else. If your host is drinking something, you may ask for some of what he is having, but you have to ask in a very kiss ass, submissive sort of way. And this type of Black, as soon as they set foot in the door, immediately demand that I give them a drink of whatever alcohol I had.
The one woman I knew who did this most of all was a former schoolteacher, and two of her daughters were at university. One graduated and the other was still in school. So she’s a middle class Black. But even she was horrifyingly rude. Alpha likes to claim she’s an outlier, but I didn’t get that impression. Instead it seemed that this was just typical behavior in her culture. I don’t think she’s all that different from the rest of her ilk. I have met others on her level, and they acted about as bad as she does.
As I said, I have never met one White person who has ever done that in my entire life. I asked around to my friends, and they said a lot of Black people do that. You invite them into your house, and they start saying, “Give me this,” or “Give me that.” Or they say, “Sell me this” or “Sell me that.” and then they offer far too low of a price. This is often done by a young Black male and is accompanied by a sense of menace. It’s basically a shakedown because he’s offering you way less money than the thing is worth.

Use of Seduction To Steal from You

A Black woman came up to me at the store and acted very seductive. She asked me to buy her a bottle of booze. I didn’t really want to, but I ended up buying her an $8 bottle of booze. The implication was that there would be something in it for me.
Then she wanted a ride. As I said, I wanted something out of it, so I tried to get my end of the deal. As I was driving, I tried to feel her tits, but she freaked out and kept knocking me hand away so it turned into a bit of a wrestling match. Fortunately the #metoo police were not called, and I did get to cop a feel. We got to her house and she pretty much ran inside. I felt like she completely ripped me off.
No White woman has ever done anything like that to me in my entire life. For a White woman to do something like that would be the lowest of the lowest of low behavior. It’s on the level of snails that crawl on the ground. That’s how low it is.
Even if a White woman stooped so low as to ask you to buy her a bottle, she would be expected to invite you in, share the bottle with you, and not necessarily have sex with you but maybe let you cop a feel or make out with you on the couch, something like that. There’s a sense of reciprocity with Whites. With Blacks like that, there’s no reciprocity, and often it just feels like an out and out ripoff. They more or less shamelessly steal petty amounts of money from people and never pay it back and it doesn’t bother their conscience one bit.

Abuse of Asking for Rides and Favors

The Black woman upstairs and her friend asked me a for a ride and then completely used me. They ignored me the whole time and talked in ghetto dialect which might as well have been Greek. They went inside some store and didn’t invite me and then left me in my car waiting for an hour. There was no sense that they imposed on me. I forget what happened but I think I finally just left, and they were furious. They also borrowed $5 which was never returned.
I later saw the neighbor’s friend out in front of the local market with another Black woman, both dressed up like prostitutes on a Saturday night. The neighbor herself was said to be a former call girl, and her former boyfriend was a pimp. Her current boyfriend beat her up on a regular basis. You could hear wild fights a lot, and the mother would come over and shout it out with the boyfriend. Later I heard he was in jail.

Pimping

One day parole officers came to the neighbor’s house looking for the neighbor’s boyfriend. The PO’s told me, “He’s just a pimp.” I have met two Black pimps since I moved here. Blacks are 4% of this town and 100% of the pimps. Those were two of the slimiest, sleaziest, oiliest men I have ever met. I’ve never heard of any non-Black pimps in this town.

Prostitution and General Whorish Attitude towards Sex

Although Blacks are only 4% of town, they make up ~75% of the streetwalkers. No Hispanic woman walks the streets here. Some whore but they do it in a very sly level that more akin to transactional dating. Or they operate out of bars in what also looks like transactional dating. It seems like no decent Hispanic woman would ever walk the streets. But these Black women walk the streets here utterly shamelessly without a care in the world, like there’s nothing wrong with it.
I met a number of Black women in dating sites, and over and over, they turned out to be prostitutes. Some even wanted to date, but they also did prostitution. Others wanted to trade me dirty pics for fancy clothing. I got quite a few offers to be a sugar daddy if I had the money. I can’t do it because I am broke. Maybe 75% of the sugar baby offers were from Black women. These were much more civilized and better acting Black women. Two were at university. Yet there was this same attitude that being a whore is a perfectly respectable thing to do.
I had a Black girlfriend once and she practically charged me every time I had sex with her. I almost wanted to leave a $20 bill on the bed stand after I was done. After a while, she cut off the sex, but she still charged me just to come over and talk to her. I always had to take her to dinner or brunch or whatever. She made more than I did, but I had to pay for everything. I told my White friends about her, and they said, “She was nothing but a whore.” This was a very respectable Black woman, dressed well, schoolteacher, graduated from university, married to a physician when I was dating here, but she was for all intents and purposes nothing but a whore.
I wrote an article on this previously that I have never seen a race of women who shamelessly whore themselves out in one way or another as much as Black women. It’s disgusting. I’m going to say that Black culture simply tells Black women that it’s perfectly ok to be a whore. It tells them that their pussies have price tags on them and that they should charge men every time they fuck a man. I’m not going to say this is genetic. I’m simply going to argue that this culture apparently thinks being a goddamned whore is a perfectly respectable thing to be. And I would argue that a culture that does that is a lousy culture and it offends me on a very deep and basic level.
I don’t think you realize how disgusting White people think whores are. They are the lowest of the low to us. There’s nothing lower than a whore. It’s a like a human slug crawling along the sidewalk, leaving slime in its trail. No self-respecting White woman whores herself out openly. I have known White women that worked as strippers, but even they could not be call girls. And they had friends who did it. It was just too low, too below their morals.
In US Asian culture, there’s nothing lower than a whore.
In US Hispanic culture, your average self-respecting Hispanic woman thinks whores are disgusting. A decent Hispanic girl would rather die than be a prostitute. They even have a saying in Spanish called, a woman of the streets. An Hispanic woman will call a low-class Hispanic woman a woman of the streets. She’s calling her a street whore. It’s the lowest things you can be.
So with low-class or ghetto Blacks, which in my estimate are over 50% of the population, they are rude, low-class petty thieves who grotesquely use and manipulate others, borrow money with no intention to pay it back, ask for rides and then treat the driver with utter callousness and inconsideration, prostitute themselves openly, often as streetwalkers at very high levels, and make up an outrageous overrepresentation of the pimps. They walk into your house and outrageously demand that you give them your stuff for free! They also demand drinks, alcohol if you have it.
What this all boils down to is unspeakably rudeness!
Black men, I don’t really deal with them too much. The ghetto ones are nothing but trouble, so I won’t deal with them at all. I won’t get involved with them, so they don’t affect me, but from afar, their behavior doesn’t look real good. Obviously if you look at statistics and hear stories, these Black men act pretty bad, but I don’t have enough personal experience with Black men to make any serious critique of their behavior. The Black men I have known all acted good because I was very selective about the ones I befriended. The non-ghetto or middle class Black men seem to act quite good. I’ve mostly had good experiences with them. I actually think they act better than the women, many of whom are nothing but glorified prostitutes.

Alt Left: Black People and Anti-Racists in General Will Never Understand Anti-Black Racism

I said in an old post that Blacks and antiracists in general should go to racist sites like Stormfront or racist humor sites like Chimpout or Niggermania to see why people really hate Black people. Actually, Stormfront would be a bad choice because they’re not very rational. The people at the other two sites make a lot more sense. Look through the Introductions section on those sites where new members introduce themselves and tell, well, tell why they hate Black people so much.
Blacks and anti-racists in general think the dislike, wariness, or out and out hatred of Black people is the height or irrationality. It’s crazy and it’s evil.
Now I would argue that if you are a Black person who acts just fine and you are still a victim of racism, this is serious moral error. I have some great Black folks on my site. I don’t personally know Alpha, Tulio, Greg, Phil or the  other Blacks on my site, but what I’ve learned about them is that they all seem like great people. In particular, they behave quite well. When I think that these people, my Black friends, will suffer racism, prejudice, unfairness and hate because of things that other people did, it almost makes my blood boil. It’s so wrong.
Specifically, you are being held responsible for the behavior of the other members of your race when you have done absolutely nothing wrong at all. It’s basically collective punishment. Why should that Black person over there, who acts as decently as any other citizen, be subjected to racist hatred because a lot of his racial brethren act terrible?
That’s immoral on a deep and powerful level, but it’s also understandable. The problem with Moral Philosophy is that a lot of immoral behavior is understandable. Humans are not wild, slavering, drooling, crazed beasts of the field. Even people who act bad often have some pretty sensible reasons for doing so. The problem is that behavior that is sensible (not irrational) and understandable is often nevertheless morally wrong.
Black people and antiracists just don’t get it. Racists don’t hate Black people for no reason.
Few people hate Black people “because of the color of their skin.” Actually, if they did, it would make it a lot easier for people to hate anti-Black racists because hating someone due to the color of their skin is pretty awful.
Few people hate Black people because of how they look. Asians look pretty funny too to us Whites, and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. If Blacks acted like Norwegians or Japanese, I think anti-Black racism would be at a  pretty low level.
Which brings us to the cause of almost all anti-Black racism: It’s the behavior of Black people. Period. If you go to the sites I listed above, you will notice that almost immediately. On the Introductions section, over and over, you will see almost everyone there say that they hate Black people because of the way they act. Then they will list a lot of very negative experiences they had with Black people.
And in a way, you can’t blame them. It’s wrong to go so racist due to these types of experiences, but I see why people do it. I’ve had many of the same negative experiences with Black people, and it is only with conscious effort that I have kept myself from falling into the racism hole. Not because it’s wrong, although it is. Mostly because it’s a hole that I don’t want to fall down into. And it is wrong to hate well-behaved Blacks because so many of their tribe act terrible. To me, that’s a moral error on a very serious scale. It would be hard to live with myself if I felt that way.
Blacks and antiracists simply refuse to believe that this is the reason why Blacks are disliked. They get very agitated and angry if you so much as mention it. According to them, Black people don’t act bad at all. They act just fine. Except anyone who has spent a lot of time around Blacks knows that’s just not true. Yet Blacks keep insisting that Black people act just fine. People say Blacks act bad, and Blacks say well White people act bad too. Yes…but…the difference is the numbers.
Compared to Blacks, the number of White people who act bad is quite low, and the degree to which they act bad is on a much lower level. Looking out at a population level, there’s much less bad behavior, and what bad behavior there is is typically at a lower level. Now you go over to a Black area and the bad behavior is everywhere. There are far more folks acting bad, and they are acting bad in a far worse way than Whites do.
Actually there are behaviors that low class Blacks engage in routinely that you will almost never see a White person engage in, simply because in White culture, that behavior is regarded as unspeakably low. Even poor and working class Whites often have strong moral and behavioral codes and stringent rules of behavior. I don’t think these Whites act better because of their genes. It’s probably culture. But there is something in even pretty low White culture that is above even average level behavior of low class Blacks. So when Whites see Blacks routinely doing things that are absolutely outrageously rude and disgusting beyond all comprehension, we are outraged. We are outraged on a moral level. We are morally offended at what to us is outrageously bad behavior.
Black people won’t have any of this. They jump up and down and yell, “Why do you care? Why do you think about us anyway?” It’s simple.
These Blacks have never studied Moral Philosophy. Behavior that is so outrageously bad that it is almost never seen in one’s culture because it’s universally regarded as the lowest of the low outrages people on a moral level.
People who get outraged on a moral level are often not bad people. At worst they might be too good – i.e., prigs like my late father. But Black people get furious at good people who are morally outraged by people acting awful and say that these outraged folks are bad people. No they’re not. If they were bad people, they wouldn’t be so outraged by terrible behavior. Only good people get outraged by people who act awful.
Good people have relatively high morals, and when they see lowly behavior, it sets off a sense of moral outrage in them. Black people say that these people are evil for having high morals and a sense of moral outrage for despicable and low behavior. This is so wrong. No one is evil for having high morals and a sense of outrage over anti-civilizational behavior. It’s never evil to come from a place of elevated morals.
The problem is that Black people will simply never admit that Black people tend to act worse, a Hell of a lot worse, than other races, such as White people. They’ll go to their graves insisting that this is not true. Yes, there are people in every race that act bad, of course there are.
But humans are smarter than that. Humans are intelligent enough to play the odds game.
In my youth, I had many encounters with my fellow Whites whom I lived with.  Of course these were a mixed bag, but I had many good encounters, and I was able to make many good friendships. Sure, I ran into some bad White people who harmed me, but their numbers were not large. In general, you could make friends with a White person and be pretty well assured that they would treat you right.
My very first encounter with Black people – on the street outside my father’s school in Watts at age 12 – was terrible. My father was inside working in  his classroom and he had foolishly left us outside. Two very young and very feral Black boys asked us to play some game with them – I forget which – and very quickly they were trying to steal from us and there was a wild fistfight in the streets. My little six year old brother took on both of those little ratfucks. This sort of thing would almost never happen with the White boys our age, and we had dealt with some pretty bad White bullies. But even the worst White bullies weren’t that bad.
My next encounter was with JD, one of the few Black guys at my school. He was friends with my group of friends so I became a sort of friend of his, although he was always a bit of an ass. One night he left me in a park for 45 minutes for absolutely no reason at all, just for a joke. Somehow he came back around later and my friends in the car with him saw me and picked me up. My other friends were all laughing but none of them would have done that to me. In fact, very few Whites I knew at that time would do that to me. JD simply thought that was a hilarious joke.
JD had a brother named MD. He was a former football player, and I rather liked him. He had parties at his house, and the 14-16 year old high school kids in my crowd would hang out there, drinking cheap wine and smoking weed. He was a good jolly fellow, but he was later arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.
There was a Black man named Mr. Matthews at my school. He was the only Black teacher. He was also a jolly good-natured Black man. While I was there, he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old White girl student. People said it was racism, but I doubt it. I think he did it.
Ok, now I am in high school, and I’ve met a whole five Black people.

  • Two tried to steal from me and then picked a fight with me.
  • One left me in a park for 45 minutes as a joke.
  • Two were grown men who got arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.

5-5.
At least two of them were in jail and another two should have been.
All five acted pretty damn bad. Their rate of bad behavior was far higher and an order of magnitude greater than the Whites I knew.
The statistics prove that Black people as a race act pretty damned horribly no matter how you slice the cake. Line up any number of statistics on any number of behavioral variables, and there are the Blacks, leading the charge in the bad behavior brigade.
Why do we care? Because morals are important to us. Because we have deeply held moral belief,s and people who violate our morals in an outrageous way offend us to an incredible degree. Moral outrage is a thing. It’s a normal thing. A rational thing. A morally outraged person is not usually a bad person.
Black people can huff and puff all they want to about how evil Whites are for feeling morally outraged. “Well, don’t think about us then!” That’s not helpful. It’s Blacks who are acting awful. The solution to people acting awful isn’t to call the people who are offended by them evil and order the offended to look the other way and mind their own business.
The problem that keeps circling back around itself is that Blacks refuse to believe that Black people act bad. You can throw anecdotes at them, and they will cry, “Anecdotes!” You can throw impressions and intuition at them, and they will cry “Impressionistic!” and “Unscientific!” and demand scientific studies. Then you throw scientific studies at them, and they order you to shut up and take down the damned studies, and then they yell that the studies are wrong.
The Emperor’s walking naked down the street and everyone is looking at him and laughing, and Black people are jumping up and down and screaming that he has clothes on and screaming that the people who see that he’s naked are evil. That never works very long. You can scream at people all you want that their eyes aren’t seeing what they see, that their ears aren’t hearing what they hear, that their very senses aren’t sensing what they sense. People will get confused for a bit and believe you and think maybe they are hallucinating after all, but then they will revert right back to sense and reason.
And this is the saddest part of all. As long as Black people keep acting so terrible, anti-Black racism will never go away. The antiracist project will be forever doomed. This is heartrendingly sad to me because at its root base, at its core, the antiracist project is a noble one. Wouldn’t a society with a diminished degree of racism be a wonderful thing? It would for me. It would be like a dream.
But the antiracist project will keep crashing back on itself because anti-Black racism is driven overwhelmingly, especially at this late date, by bad Black behavior and little else. This is very depressing, and I don’t know what to say about it, but hollering that Black people act just fine isn’t going to cut it. People will believe a lie only so long until reality keeps coming back and smashing them in the face and wakening them from their socially drugged slumber.

Alt Left: Feminist Retards: We Will Keep Screaming Until Rape, Sexual Assault, and Child Molestation Are Ended Once and for All!

Feminists actually believe that there will come a time when no man will ever rape or sexually assault a woman and no man will ever molest a child. God, feminists are stupid! Feminists think that men commit sexual crimes because they are taught to be some ridiculous rape culture. So you, me, and all of the rest of us men grew up in a “rape culture” that taught us to rape women!
Look feminist morons.
From the very beginning of recorded time, men have raped and sexually assaulted women and other men, and they have probably molested children. These behaviors are found in all societies that have ever been studied by anthropologists. There will always be crime and criminals. I will die in 20-30 years, and there will still be lots of crime and plenty of criminals. As long as there is crime and there are criminals, you will have rapists, sexual assaulters, child molesters.
Trying to eliminate human criminality and human evil is a fool’s errand. No sane person thinks we will ever be rid of these things.  With crime, all you can hope for is to reduce the rate of it. With criminals, all you can wish for is that there will be fewer of them. For the crimes of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, all we can ever wish for is to reduce the rate of it. Intellectually handicapped feminists can scream all they want that they will not stop screeching until rape, assault and molestation are wiped off the planet, but that doesn’t mean that  the rest of us have to listen to their foolishness.
According to feminist pinheads, every society on Earth must have a rape culture then because feminists say if there is one rape in your culture, then you have a rape culture!
It’s not a matter of excusing this behavior by saying “boys will be boys” but instead it is a recognition that human violence against other humans and the human potential for evil will never end. It has always been a part of our legacy as a species.
Feminists have this idea that they will create this utopia where males will have it drummed into their heads not to rape and molest, as if we don’t get that drummed into our heads a million times as it is.
Supposedly the rape culture BS goes back to the toxic masculinity garbage. Toxic masculinity (which is just normal masculinity really) apparently causes men to rape, assault and molest! So if we wage war on toxic masculinity and get rid of it, we will get rid of rape, assault and molestation! Idiocy. In this stupid utopian vision, all men will be feminist mangina cucks who are shedding off all their masculinity, toxic or not.
Part of this agenda says that all men have to be called out. You, me,  and all  other men have to be called out for this brain-dead campaign. Even if we don’t rape, assault or molest ourselves, we need to police other men constantly. Every time we hear a man say a sexist remark, we need to stand up and call him out. Now I don’t even know what a sexist remark even is. I don’t even know what sexism is. Like racism, it’s one more word that’s been MOAB’d by feminist and SJW ridiculous abuse of the term that it doesn’t mean much of anything anymore. What’s the definition of racism? If it makes some idiot Black person mad, it’s racism! Well, how will we know if we are making racist remarks? We won’t! We will only find out when your Black overlords loom over our heads  with hammers, informing us that we just said something racist and to take it back or else.
What is a sexist remark? Nobody knows! Apparently it’s whatever some fool woman says it is! If you said something that made some female dingbat mad, it was sexist! How do we know not to say sexist things? We don’t! We have to wait until some feminist harpie  appears with a meat cleaver, threatening to chop our penises off for uttering something sexist, demanding that we take it back or they take a penile scalp.
I hate all of these stupid words and in general, words like this are banned on my website. You can’t run around screaming fool words like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, transphobe, etc. here. Yes you can call people racist, but they have to be pretty egregious. The word sexist is permanently banned on this site because it has no meaning other than a knife feminists use to castrate us men.
I agree that the world misogynist has a meaning. Feminists scream “Misogyny!” about every other sentence. 95% of the time some feminist bonehead yells, “misogynist” it’s a false alarm. On the other hand, misogyny does exist. You can see quite a bit of open misogyny in the Manosphere. PUA sites are cesspools of misogyny. MGTOW’s wrote the book on misogyny. Incels are steeped in some truly dangerous misogyny. And MRA’s engage in a fair amount of misogyny themselves. Outside of those places, I don’t see much of it.
The only sane definition of sexism is if a man thinks men are superior to women.  However, women are just as sexist as men in my opinion. I meet a lot more sexist women than sexist men. The number of female chauvinists out there who think that men are inferior to women is very high. I know a couple of them very well. Having been abused by female sexists and chauvinists who cackle with glee in their smug superiority of us men while radiating contempt for us men as inferiors, I can tell you right now that sexism feels pretty bad when it’s coming from women and directed at men.
If it feels that bad for us, think how it must make women feel. It must make them feel as bad as it makes me feel. I would not want to subject any woman to the feelings that I experienced from experiencing sexist abuse. If we don’t like it when they do it to us, we should not do it to them. We men should not act like we are superior to women and treat them as if they are some inferior breed of human. That’s the only definition of sexism that makes sense.  As long as you don’t feel that way,  you’re not a sexist no matter how many times some Down’s Syndrome feminist accuses you of being one. If you feel that women and men are equal and men are not better than women, then your conscience is clear.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

35,000 White Women A Year Are Raped by Blacks!

White nationalists love to toss this headline around to make it seem like Black criminals go out of their way to preferentially select White women to rape, almost as if they were hunting and White women were their prey. The 35,000 alone is shocking and boils down to 100 White women a day being raped by Black criminals. Just reading that figure is almost enough to set off the latent White nationalist in any White person.
I don’t mean to play down such a crime figure. Any high rape figure is appalling.
But that figure is not nearly as shocking as it seems.
For instance, Black women are vastly more likely to be victimized by Black criminals than White women are. Comparing Blacks to Whites, five times as many Black women as White women are raped by Black men. Looking at only those two races, Black women are 85% of the rape victims of Black rapists. White women are 15% of the victims.
If these rapists were simply picking women of these two races at random to rape, 84% of their victims would be White women, and only 16% would be Black women. I don’t know how to do the math here, but it looks like Black women are maybe six times more likely to be raped relative to their population than White women. So Black rapists massively go out of their way to select Black women for rape and go way out of their way to avoid selecting or deselect White women.
But that’s not what you would hear from the White nationalists. Figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure.