Alt Left: The State of the Alternative Left and Realist Left in the US and around the World

Both the Alt Left and the Realist Left definitely continue to exist. There are Facebook groups, websites, and even a couple of online major magazines for these groups. But both movements are quite small, there are no political parties in the US promoting this view, and as far as I can tell, there are few if any people in national office or even running for national office who are Alt Left or Realist Left.

For the purposes of this post, we will focus on the Alt Left and not the similar but not equivalent Realist Left. The differences between the two movements could be summed up by saying that the Alt Left is further to the left than the Realist Left on economics but further to the right of the Realist Left on social issues.

Some media personalities and political thinkers fall into the category of Alt Left. As an example, I would regard Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, and Chapo Treehouse (the “dirtbag Left’) as Alt Left. They would fall into the category of “Bernie Bros.” There are some male Bernie supporters who are  pretty much Alt Left, but it’s not reflected in the candidate Bernie himself or anyone running along his lines – for example, see “The Squad.”

Interestingly, Bernie used to be part of the anti-Identity Politics Left or so-called “class reductionists.” The Trotskyite World Socialist website of the International Socialist Tendency is in the old Left tradition of class reductionist and  anti-Identity Politics. Most other Trots in the West are extreme SJW’s, as are almost all Western Communists and Leftists.

I would proudly call myself a class reductionist, but it’s used as a term of insult on most of the Left, where it translates to something like “bigot” or “Nazi.” Sanders also used to be a nationalist and the Alt Left is absolutely a nationalist movement, but now Sanders along with the whole Western Left is internationalist, much to their detriment.

There is a sort of an “Alt Left” forming on the Danish and French Left. A couple of the major parties there like Melancon’s in France and the Social Democratic Party in Denmark have taken an anti-immigrant line, a stance which is throwing shock waves through the Left.

Victor Orban in Hungary is said to be a Rightist. In some ways he is, but he has nationalized quite a bit of the economy and promoted huge social spending under the nationalist rubric. If he was in Latin America, we would be calling him a Communist and trying to overthrow him. Orban is virtually Alt Left.

There are also some pretty strange Alt Left-type formations on the Arab Left, especially among Arab nationalists. Keep in mind that Arab nations are very socially conservative, so even the Left parties there reflect that.

The Iranian regime is actually quite far to the Left. Most of the economy is actually nationalized and social spending is huge. They’re almost Marxist in a sense. But they don’t think much of the Cultural Left, so in a sense Iran could be an Alt Left country.

The Russian Communist Party (KPRF) supports Putin, and they are quite socially conservative for a Leftist party. I would absolutely consider the  KPRF to be Alt Left.  Putin himself is rather leftwing believe it or not, but he is very much against the Cultural Left. The Alt Left generally supports Putin, or at least I do, and I consider Putin to be a type of Alt Leftist.

The former Communist regimes were all very much against the Cultural Left, which they called Western bourgeois decadence, so in that sense, most if not all of the former Communist regimes could be thought of as Alt Left. That strain of Communism is pretty much through though.

Things here in the West as far as the Left-Right split have gotten wildly partisan and “party line,” but if you step outside the West, there’s a lot more heterogeneity.

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Cultural Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready when you are, Cultural Left fucktards.

Alt Left: Permanent Ban from r/Communism

On Reddit. Oh well. I am starting to think I am not much of a Commie anyway. Western Commies are the most insane feminists and SJW’s of them all. They’re almost all full-blown radical feminists of the worst kind, and most Western Communist groups are flooded with non-heterosexuals and nonbinary gender types, and they have the worst of those two also.

I was reading one forum and ~half of the posters were non-heterosexual and gender nonbinary. Recommended reading was some radical feminist lesbian manhating psycho on “mandatory heterosexuality,” or some crap. I said I’m out and quit reading and let them have their pervert misandrist jerk-off session.

The group I got banned from recently posted saying that all Communist countries had banned porn and that porn would be banned in their future dream society. Every Communist guerrilla group that forms local rule puts the women in charge. It causes the usual chaos that Female Rule always does anywhere. Guess what the first thing they do is? Ban booze, gambling, and porn. The three things that keep most of us guys from blowing our brains out. Brilliant!

I made ~two posts there and then I was banned. I didn’t say anything bad at all. I asked why I got banned and got a response:

No misogynists.

I guess he read through my posting history. I told my partial roommate about this, and he gave me this puzzled look like:

You? A misogynist? WTF! That’s total bullshit LOL!

I said I know and we laughed about it. Then we talked about how Western Communists sucked. He said:

It’s nothing but a bunch of niggers and Mexicans and fags. They hate Whites and men. That’s why I never wanted any part of it.

I basically agreed with him, without the slurs that is.

I also find it laughable that I am a misogynist. When I see hardcore misogyny online, a lot of times, it makes me throw my head back in shock and disgust. I dislike it on a visceral level. Obviously with reactions like that, I must be a horrible misogynist, huh?

My feelings towards women do range from love all the way to hate and everything in between though, I agree. But they’re mostly on the positive side. I don’t want to be a woman-hater. It doesn’t feel good.

Also women were so good to me when I was young that I really can’t hate them. I will love them forever for the kindness that they showed to me then. And yes, kindness is the right word. They treated me like a was a prince or a cool new toy to play with and pass around to their friends for them to play with. But that’s ok. I didn’t mind being a meat puppet. That was obviously for a completely shallow reason called Looks, but hey, humans are shallow.

Women from 18-55 pretty much treat me like dirt now (but not always). I must say that if they had treated me my whole life they way they treat me now, I would definitely hate women. I mean you hit a man enough times, he might start hitting back. Those poor incels have been treated like human garbage by females their whole pitiful lives. I don’t blame them for hating women. Who wouldn’t?

Alt Left: For a Lot of Young Non-Black Men, Racism Is Just a Phase

Alpha Unit: I don’t know why you think Black people go around screaming at racists.

Not sure if I am referring to racists. Black people sure yell racist an awful lot over a lot of stupid-ass bullshit. But they are with the White antiracists on that one. Actually I think the White antiracist SJW’s are probably way worse that way than Blacks.

Get real. The only response of society in general to racists is to yell at them, and that’s just for starters. I actually don’t mind that if they are actual racists. They deserve to get yelled at. I’m just not sure if that is the best or only way forward.

Alpha Unit: I’ve said on this blog before that I’m not interested in trying to persuade anti-Black racists to like me, and I meant it.

@Alpha Unit is a proud person. I’m sure she finds it humiliating to grovel for someone’s respect. Hell, I don’t blame her.

I’m sure most Blacks feel the same way. Read the article. I said such an attitude is just fine and understandable to boot. I just think there’s another way is all.

Alpha Unit: More and more often I hear Black people saying that they’ve given up on trying to talk to Whites in particular about anti-Black racism. They don’t think the conversations go anywhere.

You realize an awful lot of people, especially young non-Black men in their 20’s, drop this shit after a while, right? Many of the old racist commenters on this site went away, and then wrote me back years later telling me that they had dropped anti-Black racism. Actually they dropped the whole thing, including the antisemitism.

And these were some of the worst of all like Wade from St. Louis, fpy, and White Preservationist. The latter two were open White Nationalists and/or White Supremacists. I couldn’t believe it. I mean these two guys were pretty much out and out Nazis. And they dumped racism altogether.

This is what gives me hope, what I live for. Not that you or any Black person has to engage them by any means, but I like to do that myself. Dialogue is my style.

For a lot of young men, this stuff is just a phase.

So I’m Rightwing, Eh? LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent Ban from Twit (Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I got a temporary ban from Twit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. But Whites need panmixia!

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

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

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

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: All of the MSM and all of Silicon Valley Is Deep State

It’s painfully obvious that there is no free press at all anywhere in the West. There is only Fake News MSM completely controlled by the US government and NATO.

There is some real news on the Internet but the Deep State is now going after all of that too. Twitter and (((Facebook))) are mass-banning any pages or users that publish anything that goes against the Deep State/CIA line.

Twitter and (((Facebook))) are both absolutely part of the Deep State now.

So is (((Google))). (((Google))) partnered with the Atlantic Council (NATO Deep State) to downgrade most leftwing outlets critical of US foreign policy as “fake news.” The Atlantic Council issued reports showing all the “fake news” or “Russian” sites.

Any site critical of US foreign policy is not only fake news but it is also always Russian. Hundreds of Americans were banned from Twitter when Jack Dorsey (Deep State) said they were “Russian propaganda bots.” (((Mark Zuckerberg))) (Deep State) also banned many pages from (((Facebook))) as either “fake news” or “controlled by Russia.”

The leadership of (((Google))) is absolutely Deep State. Not only did they bury most leftwing sites on their search engine, they have also removed many videos from (((Youtube))) on the grounds that they are “fake news” or “Russian propaganda.” Quite a few of these accounts were left up, but (((Youtube))) required them to carry warning messages saying that the creators of the video had links to Russia.

I’ve been telling people for a long time that there is nothing groovy or cool about these bitchin’ new capitalists in Silicon Valley. They’re the same old capitalist ratfucks, except possibly they’re even worse than the old kind we sort of got used to. Like any corporation on Earth, the Silicon Valley corporations are not progressive in any serious way and are in fact conservatives and reactionaries like all corporations are.

These corporations are said to be “progressive” because in addition to being rightwing corporations on anything important, they have also adopted leftwing SJWism as it’s no threat to their bottom line.

And in answer to the question I assume you are getting ready to ask me, no, supporting degenerate nonsense like Drag Queen Story Hour at your local library, perverted gay pride parades, and transsexual bathhouses for all ages does not make you a progressive because those are not progressive issues.

They fall into another category called Moral/Traditional versus Immoral/Degenerate. Supporting sick nonsense like the above doesn’t make you left wing at all. It just makes you a degenerate. You SJW degenerates proud of yourselves?

 

Alt Left: Feminism Is Shoveling Sand against 100,000 Years of Tide

The fact that Players are typically treated as heroes in most societies by both genders and across age groups is another reason why feminism goes against human nature.

That is why this new feminist reaction that somehow Players are evil, scumbags , pedophiles (!), creeps (!), losers (!), criminals (!), and deserving of contempt and increasingly arrest and imprisonment for the crime of being a male mammal is bizarre. Feminists are part of the Cultural Left. As usual, the feminists, as part of the SJW Left, are trying to destroy human nature.

They are acting like 100,000 years of human history of continuous biological behavioral trends either never happened or are irrelevant. You hear feminists say over and over, “But we are modern now. We have decided you can’t be that way anymore,” about this or that. Feminists, like all SJW’s, are trying like the Communists to create a New Man, in the Communists’ case free of capitalism and selfishness and in the SJW’s case liberated from 100,000 years of evolution.

We are supposed to shrug off a hundred millennia of biological habit as if it never occurred. We are supposed to create a New SJW Man torn free from the roots of his past.

Feminists are also trying to create some New SJW Woman or at least they are lying about the basic nature of women, which is extremely consistent across thousands of cultures and over millennia of written record.

According to feminists, and the Cultural Left in general:

  • Everything your grandfather taught you is wrong.
  • Every human society that ever existed was wrong.

The New Feminist Woman is not working out. Women are simply being women just like they always have in spite of the feminists. Feminists are reacting to the intractable nature of female behavior by both denying it is happening now and denying that it ever existed in the first place.

In other words, feminists are lying like all SJW’s  and IP types. Since all SJW’s and IP types are about denying everything negative about whatever identity they are about, all SJW and IP movements are characterized by constant lying of nearly tidal wave proportions.

The new hatred and even criminalization of Players goes against 100,000 years of human evolution and ultimately shows that Female Rule fails, probably because Female Rule ends up being utopian and based on universal justice when unfortunately, there is no such thing.

Alt Left: The Basic Law of Human Beings

Polar Bear: Black women basically operate on jungle law. I have seen it with old model blacks even. If an injustice favors them personally, they are all for it. A White Dudley Do Right will demand equality for his coworkers at his own expense. A house slave will be harder on her fellow slaves because only master butters her bread.

I don’t think this is particular to Black women. Blacks period seem to operate on this crude calculus.

And in fairness to Blacks, most groups are like this. Why do you think Identity Politics is so nasty and toxic? Because that’s what IP supporters are like – all IP movements support any injustices against the enemy group that benefits the identity group in question. SJW’s aren’t really about justice at all.

They’re for injustice as much as they are for injustice. Most SJW’s believe we need to commit injustices against certain bad groups to benefit certain good  groups. That’s not exactly justice if you ask me. It’s just sheer vengeance and retaliation.

Feminists are like this, and most women support these feminist injustices that harm men but help women.

I think most ethnic groups feel this way too, but I am having a bit of a hard time proving that at the moment.

Also, Whites supported injustices against other groups for many years on the basis that it was good for us. This whole thing of Whites turning into Dudley Do Rights and voluntarily surrendering power is a fairly new thing.  It is not just Whites who do this. It is also men. Whites and men are two of the few groups in the world that I can think of who have voluntarily ceded power to other groups and who have dismantled injustices that benefited us.

And what do we get for this saintly, self-sacrificing behavior? Endless attacks from the groups we gave up our privileges to attacking us for being the essence of pure evil. You can’t win.

I think that Whites and men, specifically White men, are some of the most moral people on Earth at the moment. You see anyone else voluntarily surrendering power and supporting things that harm their own group simply because they think that the policies they benefit from are immoral and hence should be dismantled?

White women have been in on this to some extent, but since feminism, they have become very angry and selfish. In a word, due to feminism, women are all hopped up and looking for paybacks.

An awful lot of people in the world believe:

Right/Good: Anything that benefits me.
Wrong/Bad: Anything that is bad for me.

Alt Left: SJW Behavior in Men Is Profoundly Unmasculine

Face it. It is faggy for men to get upset over every little remark and to be bitching out all the time over trivial things as SJWism mandates. Women are natural bitchy sometimes so this behavior is normal, but SJWism is making women a lot more bitchy than they were before this silliness hit society.

Yet for men it’s abnormal. I don’t want to diss gay men here, but that’s what a gay man does. If you have spent a lot of time around them, you will notice this. It’s like a woman.

Ever seen a gay man get angry? It acts like a bitchy woman. Actually when they are at their worst, they are a lot worse than bitchy women.

First, a lot of are very prissy and uptight over neatness, manners, and other silly things. Then you combine the bitchiness, pettiness, touchiness, triviality, fussiness, and priggishness of a bitchy woman  with the testosterone-induced aggression of a hormonally healthy man, and you can en up with something like a bitchy woman on steroids.

I really don’t recommend that you have a gay boss. Perhaps you may have a good experience. My gay boss was one of the worst nightmares of my life, and ever since, I have been extremely wary about having  a gay boss. I really don’t want another one. Once bitten, twice shy.

Anyway, I am pointing out that straight SJW “men” who enforce SJW nonsense like sour-faced nuns with rulers are acting profoundly unmasculine. Moralfaggotry is not a masculine trait. It’s prissy, hypersensitive, overemotional, and very feminine.

A man is expected to either be relaxed about things like this, change the subject, gently steer the person away from the topic, or, say, frown with disapproval over unacceptable statements and behavioral violations unless the man’s words and behavior are seriously out of line. A real man is not supposed to be throwing faggy SJW hissyfits over every little violation of the SJW Miss Manners Manual.

Hence: SJW straight “men” are not acting like real men. They’re acting like a bunch of prissy, fussy, irritable homosexuals, no matter what their sexual preference is. I am not saying these men are gay. I know that their preference is heterosexual. However, I am saying that straight men who act this way are acting pretty damned faggy and pussy.

Alt Left: Absolutely Everything Is Now Officially Racism Now in California

Recently I have had a number of awkward experiences in which my comments were interpreted as “extremely inappropriate” by the people I was talking to. The comments had to do with race and they were apparently inappropriate I would assume due to racism. Here they are:

I was in a coffee shop:

Barista:  “Hey Bob. Joe!”

Me: “Joe what?”

Barista: “Joe Mama!”

Laughs all around. I point out where the phrase comes from.

Me: “That phrase actually comes from Black culture. Apparently this is a racist comment!”

Me: “That comment means,’Joe Mama stand on de corner.’ Your mother stands on the corner. It’s calling someone’s mother a prostitute. It’s an insult.” Extreme racism, plus maybe #metoo crap for unwanted sexual comment.

Me: “In Black culture it is an extreme insult to attack another man’s mother.” Extreme racism!

Me: “You might actually get killed for insulting  someone’s mother in that way. They make a really big deal out of it. It’s a huge insult in Black culture.” Extreme racism!

Barista makes some cryptic remark implying that my comments are extremely offensive!

Other barista shakes his head like he can’t believe I just made such offensive remarks.

Look, I’m sorry. This is just weird. I actually learned this at home at from talking to my parents. They told all of us kids what that phrase meant. I guess my parents are extremely inappropriate! I’ve talked about this a number of times over the years with many different people and no one gave two fucks about. All of a sudden this discussion that I have been having all my life is extreme racism!

More to the point. I have no idea why this comment is even racist. Pointing out that the comment has its origins in Black culture as an insult of someone’s mother is racism? How in the Hell is that racist? It’s simply true. The truth has been racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and bigoted for a long time now in this insane country.

But honestly, truth is a defense against racism. Obviously you might want to phrase certain truths about groups carefully because the Goddamn facts about certain groups are frankly shocking and don’t make them look all that good. But the truth is never bigoted or hateful. That’s preposterous. How can proven scientific fact be “hateful?”

This stuff is just getting weird. I’m obviously not keen on out and out hardcore racist comments, particularly in public where people can hear them. But now it’s like the very mention that race exists at all is profoundly racist and “hateful.” This is bizarre and furthermore, it’s insensible.

There’s no logical reason for society to think like this, unlike we want to live in Snowflake World, where everyone’s feelings are on the verge of falling apart at any time, where folks have their antennas out all day long to make sure that no one says or does anything that makes “uncomfortable,” that most people are fragile weaklings who break down and have panic attacks over the most innocent behaviors and comments.

You all really want to live in Snowflake Land like this where you have to walk on eggshells all the time because everyone is on edge and on the verge of been made to feel “uncomfortable” at any time for any reason? Why? That sounds like a drag. Like no fun. Like party pooper, prig, prudish, uptight, tense, dour no fun.

Here is another one.

In a hair salon where I get my haircut talking about a beauty supply store where they suggested I go to get something I need:

Salon people: “It’s at 41 and Fresno Street.”

Me: “Do they even intersect? I thought they ran parallel?”

Salon people: “Yes, they do. Farther down they intersect.”

Me: “Oh! I know where that is! That’s the Black part of town, right?” Uncomfortable looks around the room like I said something wrong. Actually it is the Black part of town. Apparently saying there is Black side of town is a very racist remark!

Me: “Actually a lot of Black women wear extensions, right?” Apparently extreme racism.

Me: “Black women like to have their hair straight because it looks better that way so they are always straightening their hair and whatnot.” Apparently extreme racism!

Me: “But Black men don’t look good with straight hair. Have you ever seen a Black man with straight hair? Like James Brown? It doesn’t look good for some reason.” More extreme racism.

How on Earth is a discussion of Black people’s hair habits racist, in a damned hair salon for Chrissake, a perfectly appropriate place for such a conversation? Everything I said was straight up truth. Magazines, especially women’s and beauty magazines, talk about this sort of thing all the time. These are well-known facts.

This stuff is just getting weird. I’m tense a good part of the time when I am out, monitoring my every word and action to make sure I don’t do or say something that violates SJW bullshit. It’s not really a very fun place to be. I feel like I’m in a prison, and the world feels like a scary place now where anyone can get offended and upset for any reason at any time about my behavior. This is supposed to be fun or something?

This is making the world into a huge drag where entire subjects are completely off the table at all times. It’s like have turned into a nation of church ladies. Not to mention, SJW offense over the 600,000 things you can’t say and the 300,000 things you can’t do is profound moralfaggotry because it shames people and tells them that they are bad human beings simply for stating inoffensive and uncontroversial facts of life.

Calling people immoral, bad, and evil for fairly innocuous statements and behaviors is the essence of moralfaggotry. Face it. SJW’s are extreme moralfags, some of the worst in our entire benighted land.

Alt Left: SJWism Is a War against Knowledge, Wisdom and Intelligence Itself

I love Polar Bear’s stereotyping. We strongly encourage stereotyping here as long as you are fairly kind about it. He’s been very kind in his posts. You can also stereotype about races in a bad way as long as you make it clear that you are talking about them as a group and not as individuals. It might be nice to also point out that they are not all like this.

Any idiot who gets offended by this because of stereotyping is an SJW scumbag, and they can literally drop dead.

This is a (fairly) nonracist race realist site. Polar Bear’s posts are the meat and potatoes that run this damn blog.

Stereotypes are just patterns. Fools who say no stereotyping are in effect saying that we are not allowed to recognize any patterns at all in other humans because noticing patterns in human behavior is de facto racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigotry, bla bla.

We don’t believe that at this site. We encourage all of our readers to notice all the patterns you want among any humans no matter what sacred group they belong to. Pattern recognition is essential to human cognition and is the bread and butter of human wisdom.

Labeling all patterns as stereotype plunges a dagger into the heart of human intelligence, knowledge, and especially wisdom itself. SJW’s are in a literal war against wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence itself.

That’s dangerous. In fact, it’s a menace.

Alt Left: The Sissy Boy Syndrome and Its Relationship to Male Homosexuality

Polar Bear: I revel in anti-PC but honestly didn’t think “sissy” was. If it’s more offensive than all the other words, I’ll use it more. I’m not one of the jocks looking to swirl your curly locks.

Haha. You didn’t think the word sissy was banned? Who knows if it’s banned or not? These banned words change more often than the weather. Every day I wake up and another word I’ve been using my whole life is banned forever and can get me fired or ruin my life. It’s starting to piss me off. I almost feel like using those words even more just to piss off the SJW’s, who, let’s face it, are really just extreme moralfags.

Any negative portrayal of effeminate men is pretty much out in this day and age. Gay men are our new sacred cows. Why this is I have no idea. They’re not exactly saints, you know.

If it’s more offensive than all the other words, I’ll use it more.

Lulz.

That word sissy is never used except for boys. There are only sissy boys; there are no sissy men. And it’s mostly boys who call other boys sissies. The word’s not really used by adults of either sex, except in retrospect:

“As a boy, he was often called a sissy.”

A lot of gay men openly admit to being sissies as boys. They come right out and say it.

There is a good book about male homosexuality called The Sissy Boy Syndrome. It has a lot about the etiology of homosexuality. 75% of sissy boys grow up to be gay. 25% do grow up to be straight though. There is a direct line from sissy boy to gay man. Make of it what you will.

The % of tomboys who grow up to be lesbians is much lower than for gay men. ~25%, possibly. Many straight women were tomboys as girls. Many of these grew up to be very feminine women.

Women are strange. They move around a lot. They’re a lot less hardwired then men. The essence of the female or feminine character is fluidity: in movement, in thought, in sexuality, in all sorts of things. Women seem to flow their way through life. I look at a young woman flowing along with her head swimming in the clouds and I think of the sea. Of course the Sea as Woman and the Sea as Mother are ancient tropes.

We men charge through existence like bulls in a china shop. I have to admit it’s fun for a while though. This is the essence of the Young Man: programmed to destroy. If they make it to 30 with two feet still on the ground, men tend to calm down a lot.

Alt Left: Thank You SJW’s: My Gay Cousin Rick: RIP

My recently deceased cousin Rick was gay, closeted deeply his entire life. He would never admit it to anyone though everybody knew anyway.

My aunt and uncle were in denial about his homosexuality, and he never came out. My uncle was always saying, “Rick will find a nice girl some day!” like a moron, and my aunt was hip to Rick and would cynically roll her eyes.

My Mom said, “Rick is the completely opposite of you, Bob. Rick’s never had one date with a female in his entire life.” 180 degree difference, like you two were flipped somehow and you became the anti-Rick and he became the anti-Bob.

She always emphasized one date as if this was very weird behavior. Even back then, this seemed weird. She suspected he was gay.

I met him at his place in Santa Monica once in 1979. I was a punker and he was a former hippie. Lived alone in a small dark apartment filled with books. I saw him in the daytime, but he kept the apartment really dark like it was Samuel Beckett’s apartment in Paris.

He hated punkers and thought they were just evil, so this led to a rather hostile, intense, and charged conversation.

Somehow I mentioned homosexuality. He got very angry and defensive. I shrugged my shoulders and said, “It’s not good or bad. It just is.” He angrily said, “That’s right. It just is.

He thought I was some homophobe, and actually am a bit like that, but I had no hatred for him for being gay, not that day or any other day. He was just a typical paranoid gay man who assumes you hate him when you don’t. He made some other remarks about drugs and gay sex, referring to poppers, and it was pretty clear reading between the lines of the conversation, that he was gay as Hell.

He died recently and this was finally confirmed to me after all these years, but my family acted like even divulging this decades-long family secret to me was incredibly offensive. They told me that he was gay for sure, and he had lived his life with a series of older men in various places in California. News to me after following him through 55 years of life always wondering.

But I guess I had no right to ask or even know this. So, even in death, my family wished to keep my gay cousin Rick locked into the closet, probably forever.

Closets are for clothes.

Somehow this was a big secret, it was offensive to discuss it, and I was a total homophobic bigot for even asking for evidence, after his death, that he was gay.

Thank you SJW’s!

Alt Left: Janice Fiamengo, “The TERF War”

Another absolutely superb video from Janice. Sadly, she identifies with the Right and hates the Left, while really she should only despise the Cultural Left, yet no one seems to be able to do that. Hate the Cultural Left? Ok, that means you hate the Left because the Cultural Left is the Left.

While both the Right and the Left insist that the Cultural Left is indeed the Left, and one cannot be a part of the Left while rejecting the Cultural Left, the Alt Left begs to differ. After all, that’s why we were created in the first place as the Anti-SJW Left or Anti-PC Left. But we are not down with most anti-SJW’s and anti-PC folks because almost all of them are stock conservatives or reactionaries, even the widely heralded but extremely flawed Jordan Peterson.

Our argument is that just because you hate the Cultural Left, you don’t have to go over to the Right. Nope, there’s an alternative – us! And also, just because you oppose Cultural Left boneheads doesn’t mean that the only way to oppose them is via Social Conservative Republicanism, which is arguably just as bad if not worse than SJW’s.

Nope, you can oppose both of these blind irrational or backwards ideologues in favor of a philosophy that opposes the Cultural Left on the simple grounds that it is against common sense, facts, truth, and science.

Of course you can still be on the Left! What was the Marxists’ insistence that their philosophy was a science and their belief in materialism and opposition to superstition, backwardness and obscurantism but a decision by the Marxists to place scientific truth at the forefront of human political theory and behavior?

Anyway, check out the video. Of course, Janice shows, as she always does, how feminism is inherently irrational, self-contradictory and opposed to not only science but truth and common sense themselves. The TERF Wars show once again how irrational feminism is and how it is based simply on reflexive man-hating without examination or criticism of its own theories.

Feminism is not science. It’s not even political science. It’s Politics, sure, but so what? A lot of utterly irrational ideologies fall under the category of Politics. Politics is inherently dirty, low-down, pathologically dishonest, and utterly emotional and irrational: that is its very nature. Saying that feminism is not a science but is instead a Politics is no compliment. Sorry, ladies. Back to the drawing board?

Alt Left: I Guess Gay Marriage Wasn’t Enough

All right, this is just stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Transsexual Insanity

An example of transsexual insanity.

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

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

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

Alt Left: Banned from Alternet Again

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

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

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

Moderator is probably a feminist woman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot agree more with that statement.

The Insanity of the SJW War on Tulsi Gabbard

SJW’s declared war on Tulsi Gabbard because she used to be against political homosexuality. She was raised in a very socially conservative household that had an anti-gay agenda and she made a few public statements here and there that the gays don’t like.

But since then she has done a complete 180 and now earns a 100 score on the gay Humans Rights Campaign’s scorecard.

So why are they mad at her?

She used to be not nice to teh geyz! So what! What she did and said wasn’t even that bad. At that time, lots of people were against gay marriage, like more than half the population. My parents were against it most of their lives. I guess my parents are Nazis!

She was worried about gays brainwashing kids in schools, which is a bit of a reach, but really now: why do we need to have homosexual activists coming into the schools of little children teaching them all about the teh geyz and the trannies and all the rest of the Freakshow?! I mean come on, little children do not need to know about this or be taught about it.

Little kids are not particularly homophobic anyway. Mostly they don’t even know what sex is or even what it means to be a homosexual. I had no idea how humans practiced oral sex when I was 11-13. I had to be told what a blowjob was. I hadn’t a clue.

Yes, boys think it’s bad to be a “queer,” but they don’t even know what that means. They just know it is something you don’t want to be, which is an excellent concept for any straight boy to imbibe. Yes, extremely effeminate little boys are bullied, and rightly so. We had two screaming queens in our 5th grade class. Of course they got bullied. Were they born that way? Did they have some genes that made them act like screaming faggots?

Effeminate boys are bullied and the rest of the boys get the message: “Don’t be effeminate or you get your ass beat!” An excellent message for any straight boy to be taught. Tulsi also got in trouble for calling the gays pushing this stuff “gay activists,” which is exactly what they were and are.

Nowadays these idiots go into schools and teach little children stuff like, “Well, if you are a girl, and you like girls, maybe you are gay. If you are a boy and you like boys, maybe you are gay.” Yeah, way to go idiots. Great message to teach to little children.

Your average little kid only has friends of their own gender. An 11 year old girl much prefers her girlfriends to boys, who are gross. A boy the same age prefers his male friends to yucky girls who have cooties. So all these little 11 year old children are getting the message that they must be homosexuals. Way to go gays! Or maybe that’s the idea? Recruitment anyone?

Anyway, Tulsi was raised in a fundamentalist Christian upbringing that was very anti-gay. She imbibed some of that. Her parents were active politically and teh geyz declared war on them. As an impressionable young woman aged 20, she made media appearances defending her parents from these pests. As any young woman that age might well do.

Anyway, she has completely come around and she supports the whole Gay Agenda Package whole cloth. There’s not one i or t she doesn’t dot or cross. But that’s not good enough. Apparently her mind is not pure yet.

Teh geyz have discovered that evil Tulsi is a thought criminal! Oh noes! SJW’s put thought criminals in prison for life, literally. Why? Because Tulsi averred privately that her views about geyz had not changed, even though she supported them 100% politically in overt speech and behavior. But that’s not ok. Because thoughts have to be pure. And Tulsi is still guilty of harboring illegal thoughts. Which means she’s a raging Nazi.

Look. I don’t care what you think. You can think whatever the heck you want to! You can have any opinion you want. I don’t even care if you like me or not. Just pretend to like me and we’re all good. As soon as you walk out my door, you can curse me as a scumbag, but I won’t care if I don’t hear it. If you are good to me, I don’t care about how you feel about me deep down inside.

I don’t care how you think of feel about anything deep down inside. Your thoughts are your private abode. You can run amok in there or do whatever in tarnation you want to, and as long as you don’t tell anyone, it’s all legal.

So now people not only have to be perfectly pure SJW virgins for life, pure as driven snow or the Ivory Soap girl, never having committed even a single SJW transgressions in word or deed, as there is no forgiveness or redemption in the world of Calvinist SJW’s.

That’s worse than Communists. With the Communists, confess your sins, get re-educated, get with the program, and you’re all good. Communists don’t care what you used to think. It’s about as important as what you used to look like, and believe me, no one cares what you used to look like. And everyone else ought to feel the same way that they do.

What do I want to know about some person? These things: How does this person speak and act now? Are they still racist, homophobic, bla bla (insert postmodern cardinal sin)? Nope? Well then who cares what they used to say or do or especially think? It’s literally not important.

It’s alarming the way these freaks are condemning people for life. Even Dante let you work it off in Purgatory. These SJW’s are worse than the sternest moral prigs. They’re worse than Dante. And he terrified his neighbors even all the way back in the 1400’s.

Alt Left: Joe Biden and the Wuss Left

The Sissy Left leftwing radio station I listed to has some “male” announcer who was talking about problems with Biden’s candidacy with some other leftwing wuss. “Yes we are hearing a lot of things about Joe Biden now. It’s not looking good. He touches women!” That was the first I heard of this stupid BS. And I thought WTF. Listen to what this leftwing girly station just said! They said Biden is having a real big problem with his candidacy because he touches women!

That’s literally what they said. Who cares what they meant? What’s the message that’s getting sent? It’s the simple age old feminist message that touching women is wrong and evil. Not only that but mainstream feminism has always held that touching women (ie sexual harassment) is a form of aggression and violence!

Joe Biden puts his hands on your shoulders, and that’s violence! Damn! Did she have to go to the emergency room? I sure hope she didn’t get hurt too bad! Can you imagine that? Putting your hands on a woman’s shoulders? What an evil misogynistic psycho! That’s almost as bad as Ted Bundy!

Think about it again. What’s the message?

Touching women is evil. Men who touch women are evil sexist misogynist abusers who must be fired from their jobs and have their careers destroyed.

You think that sounds nuts? It is, but that is exactly what they said, right? And that’s been the message of #metoo all along. Touching women is evil. Kissing women is rape. Making a pass at a woman is assault. Asking a woman for her phone number is sexual misconduct.

Solution? Easy. Quit touching women. Quit kissing women. Quit making those evil passes at women. Quit abusing them by asking them for their numbers, for Chrissake! That’s so gross and creepy!

I am proud to say that the Alt Left is one of the only political movements to take a stand against this folly. Both political parties are completely cucked. The men are all sissies and the women are all feminist harridans. We on the Alt Left are absolutely, resolutely pro-sex!

When both the Left and the Right have taken up sissiness and Puritanism, we are the movement for real men and real women, for free love, for doing it in the streets! We are the movement against all forms of Puritanism, Victorianism, censoriousness, Comstockery, sex-hatred, repression, and priggishness.

The Alt Left supports men touching women! Hell yeah! Do it all you want or can get away with lol. The Alt Left supports men kissing women! We love that. Do it all the time if you can get away with it.

We support asking women on dates and for their numbers! Go for it! Don’t be a pussy. Ask them out, boys! We support making passes and sexual advances, both wanted and unwanted. Go for it! Flirt away!

The Alt Left is the movement that values heterosexual flirting above most other things in life. If she doesn’t like it or tells you to stop, you need to stop now or soon. As long as you do that, there’s no such thing as sexual harassment, and #metoo doesn’t exist.

There’s nothing wrong with making women uncomfortable! The Alt Left fully supports the right of men to make women uncomfortable, and the other way around for that matter! You are going to make people uncomfortable in life. It can’t be avoided.

Love sex and getting tired of all this petty, bitchy, girly, fussy, sexually uptight repressive Victorian bullshit? Tired of both the Sex-Hating Left and the Sex-Hating Right? Join the Alt Left! The only pro-sex movement remaining on the Left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Why the Alt Left Exists

This is why there is an Alt Left. Click to enlarge.

This is why there even is such a thing as the Alt Left, in case you were wondering. Because in a sense we are opposed to all the nonsense and weirdness you see in this photo.

Granted there have always been people who were strange in terms of sexual gender, orientation, proclivity, or other ways. There have always been all sorts of sexual deviants and sexual perverts. Humans are very weird sexually, so it’s to be expected that there are going to be a lot of people who are sexually weird, perverted, or deviant.

I’m not opposed to that. I’m a bit of a pervert myself as a matter of fact. If there are a thousand perversions, I’d probably try 999 of them just to be an asshole and give the finger to everyone on Earth, especially uptight Puritanical society (feminists, I’m looking at you!).

But I wouldn’t get hooked on any of them because I am not a sex pervert. But a lot of people are. They get wired up that way in childhood and adolescence, and in general it’s not fixable. In most cases, perversions are no big deal.

There have always been non-heteroseuxals, small numbers of effeminate homosexual men and masculine lesbian women. It’s not normal but most can’t help it, and they probably got wired up that way. It’s ok for ~3% of the population to be gay or strange in this way.

But most importantly, homosexuality is not normal. Effeminate men who only want sex with men and disdain sex with women are strange. It’s not normal. Men are supposed to be masculine and desire to have sex with women while disdaining sex for their own kind. Women are supposed to be feminine and want sex with men and disdain exclusive or predominant sex with women.

I’m not against women being bisexual. I talk to bisexual women all the time, and I’ve even dated a couple. I just think they should like cock too and preferably prefer cock to pussy. Because once you start getting large numbers of women who prefer other women to men sexually, Houston, you’ve got a problem.

There have always been odd men who dressed up like women. Mostly they were homosexuals. They have always been strange perverted men who dress up like women as a sex perversion. But they mostly kept it to themselves.

There have always been butch lesbians who look and act very much like men.

But in general, none of these folks ever insisted that they were the opposite sex. It’s ok for men to be feminine or even effeminate. They’re still men for God’s sake. I don’t want it to become common, but there have always been these men. It’s ok for women to be masculine to very masculine. Of course they’re still women, anyone knows that.

Transsexualism is bizarre. Mostly there are no such thing as transsexuals. They’re all just mentally ill. Now I’d be the last one to want to discriminate against the mentally ill. I work with crazy people all the time. I’m even a bit nuts myself. 50% of the population has a disordered personality in the sense that they have traits of personality disorders. So having personality disorder traits is basically normal in humans.

We all have symptoms of mental illness at one time or another. Few of us will make it to the end without breaking mentally in one way or another, typically a mood disorder like Depression or some Anxiety Disorder. If you can make it to old age before you have your first breakdown, I’d say you are doing well.

That’s ok, but people should try to get as sane as they can. In spite of that, a lot of people are mentally disordered in some way or other even with the pills and therapy and whatnot. It’s ok if you can control your symptoms and try to behave as normal and non-disordered as possible.

I’m against discriminating against people with mental disorders. Most can work at jobs just fine. I’m against people harming people with mental disorders in any way. I’d have to support harming myself for Chrissake.

The Left in general was or should have been in favor of full rights for all these folks, the non-heterosexuals, the effeminate men and masculine women, and all of the sexually perverted as long as they don’t hurt others.

But in the past most of this was under wraps. Sure the guy next to you at the office seemed totally normal until one day you found out from his wife what he was really like in bed. He was weird as Hell. In the past, you said, “I don’t want to hear about it,” and moved on. Everyone else said the same thing. What happened in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

But now the weirdos, the freaks, the strange, the odd, the bizarre, the mentally ill, the perverted, and the sexually deviant are parading their oddness for all to see instead of keeping it behind closed doors or in their damned bedroom where it belongs.

The Left has become the champion of all of this bizarreness and abnormality to the point where it seems like they have declared war on the normal, the non-deviant, and the non-disordered. We are all supposed to be strange in some sexual or gender way now. It’s almost bad or uncool to be normal. Tens of millions of people are under vast pressure to quit acting normal and start acting weird and deviant.

Further, there’s nothing remaining of the Left. The Left stands for the Cultural Left Freakshow of oddness, weirdness, strangeness, craziness, deviancy, perversion and all manner of oddity against people who simply behave normally because normal is uncool now. And it doesn’t really stand for anything else. This is the Modern Left. That’s all there is. There’s nothing else. It’s nothing but a carnival freakshow.

Furthermore, why must the Left champion these odd folks with the wink that in order to be hip, we all need to act this way?

Who cares about these odd people? Why are they so damned important? Why are they more important, than you, me and all the rest of the regular folks? Yes, they deserve full rights, of course they do, especially if they keep their blatant oddness, like men wearing women’s clothes, behind closed doors where it belongs.

Of course non-heterosexuals deserve full rights, but why the obsession with 2% of the population that are homosexuals? How about if we talk about them 2% of the time (all they deserve) instead of 50% of the time? Heterosexuals are a good 92% of men, and most bisexual men lean straight. 93% of men are not gay or bisexual. 98% of women are not lesbians. 85% are heterosexual and most bisexual women lean straight. 93% of women are straight or lean straight.

Why don’t we talk about straight people? About masculine men and feminine women? About women who love men and men who love women? About people who don’t wear their sexual perversions on their labels with a button?

Is this the most important project of the Left? Champion the odd and unusual and disdaining the normal and typical? Do we need to talk about all this strangeness all the time?

Can we stop disdaining regular non-deviant folks for a minute? Can we maybe say it’s ok to be normal, to be a regular guy or a regular girl, to be a manly man or a girly girl?

Can we stop showering hate on masculinity except in the case of lesbians? Can we quit screaming at men to stop being masculine?

Can we please stop shaming and condemning women who desire to be feminine (talking to you, feminists), which is after all the normal and natural way for all human females? Can we stop praising women and girls who dress and act exactly like boys and men as the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Can we quit acting so Goddamned weird and maybe act normal for a change instead?

This is why there is an Alt Left, in case you were wondering. A lot of us have had it up to here with the celebration of weirdness, deviancy, perversion and mental illness on the Left. A lot of us think it’s ok to be regular guys and regular girls. A lot of us don’t understand why the Left can be the same way.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: Letter to a Boy, 2019

Growing up a boy in the 21st century is not easy. The unhinged ideology of feminism has stifled many aspects about the very nature and essence of being a boy, and it is not right.

– You will be told nothing good about your gender because apparently there is no pride in being a boy.

– In society you will experience a system that is tilted against you by branding you a young offender just for typical male behavior.

– Your female peers will be encouraged in every stage of their educational journey and you will not.

– You will be blamed for the oppression of women by just being alive because it contributes to the «upholding of the patriarchy».

– You will be told in university that you’re a rapist in waiting, and you will be forced to attend consent classes.

– Your natural love and affection for women will be described as something awful, making you afraid to even say hello to a woman. One inappropriate remark or a single accusation of making one can destroy your reputation forever.

– If you try to speak out against these injustices, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics.

But despite all of this, young man, I am not worried for you. Because you are a male. We males have overcome impossible obstacles before, and I trust we will again.

But until that day comes young man, you’ll have to live through all of this. And for that, I am sorry.

Alt Left: An Argument for the Utility of a Four Year College Degree, in Anything, Yes, Anything at All

I would like to make an argument for the utility of a four year college degree in absolutely anything at all with possibly a few lightweight exceptions.

Here it is:

I majored in General Ed in junior college. I have a Masters Degree and a genius level IQ (over 140). 😉

Most of the work coming out of Studies departments nowadays is quite poor. Sociology, Anthropology, and Pedagogy are badly corrupted by PC. My own field, Linguistics, is a PC hellhole. Even Psychology is becoming badly corrupted.

You would be surprised that Criminal Justice is actually a very liberal field of study. Generally considered part of Sociology. All of the social sciences are very leftwing, History included. Also a notorious black hole of theory, as no one really knows what causes crime or makes it go up or down.

I suppose you do need to write well even in a Studies field. I have met some people with “Studies” majors, one a feminist with a Gender Studies degree. They were often very intelligent. Not sure what good the degree is.

You know, 30-40 years ago, many entry level jobs said “a Bachelors degree in anything.” This was intelligent as these folks felt that getting a BA in most things is not easy at all, and the person probably has at least a 105 and probably a 115 IQ. They probably don’t have a 100 IQ.

On top of that, the BA should have at least taught them the critical thinking so necessary in the workplace. I still believe that a degree in anything shows that this person has been taught the critical thinking skills necessary for higher level work in our society. So those junk degrees are at least valuable in that sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy reading!

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

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

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

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

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

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter I – The New Working Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such policies should include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III – Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter V – Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: 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: SJW’s Have Declared War on Normal People and Normal Behavior

Jason:

The whole “macho thing” depends on the occupation. @Robert Lindsay might disagree – but there’s a world of difference from James Taylor singing “Shower Me People” to an auto mechanic crying. One is permissible, the other isn’t.

Anyway, obviously, being sensitive doesn’t work in the teaching, correctional jobs, construction, auto repair – a host of other occupations.

Well, the thing is that apparently I am not macho at all, but I can fake it enough that I have worked in extremely macho workplaces, and those men all pretty much accepted me. You just look at how the other guys act and talk and try to imitate them. If you already have some masculine core from your youth, you can plug into it. It’s not that hard, guys.

Of course women pretty much didn’t accept me because women are far more demanding than men when it comes to masculinity. Toxic masculinity is 100% women’s fault. Men display toxic masculinity because women demand it and won’t accept anything even 1% less. As long as women demand it, men will do it.

At those workplaces, you talk the talk and walk the walk, and everyone will be ok with you. And go along with the general vibes. At this security guard job I had where the atmosphere was extremely macho, the subject of homosexuality came up, and I said, “Fuck fags,” in a sort of disgusted, dismissive, but soft tone of voice. Most of the other guys said, “Yeah. Fuck fags.”

One man said, “Hey, you know in Laguna Beach, they got a fag mayor now! Can you believe that? A fag mayor!” I just shook my head as if to say, “That’s bullshit.” This was 1984, 35 years ago, and it was much more ok to talk like that then than it is now. I was also a lot more homophobic than I am now. I’m not sure I would say that now.

You don’t have to believe the things you say, but it helps to play the part. There aren’t any gay men around, so no one gets hurt. And that talk won’t get anyone hurt because any man who talks that way already is not keen on male homosexuality.

I remember at that same job, this Jamaican guy was walking with me, and I had tied my sweater around my waist. He said, “Damn! You’re embarrassing me!” So I tied it around my neck, and he said, “That’s better.” Apparently he thought tying your sweater around your waist was gay. Maybe it looks like a dress. Sure that’s homophobic but so what? If you are working with a bunch of homophobic guys, you have to play along. You don’t really have a choice.

I sort of agreed with him anyway. From that day on, I never wear my sweater around my waist. I always wear it around my neck instead. I don’t want to look faggy. Hell with that.

One time I was talking about sex with my girlfriend at the time, and I said she stuck her finger up my ass. This caused loud guffaws. One of the guys recoiled and said, “That’s gay! No woman is going to stick her finger up my ass!” I just laughed and said, “So what? I’m getting laid.”

Then another guy (the same guy who talked about the gay mayor) made a huge smile and said, “Is that some good pussy, Bob?” I said, “Yep, real good pussy!” and they all started laughing and saying, “Good pussy!” and slapping each other on the back and giving thumbs up signs.

Of course all of this conversation is banned now as Nazism and evil hatred of women and gays, but the thing is, this is how real masculine man talk and have always talked. And if you go anywhere on Earth, you will find that masculine straight men act approximately this exact same way.

These insane SJW’s are coding what has been normal behavior for thousands of years as evil, hatred, fascism, bigotry, and Nazism. It isn’t any of those things. It’s just the way normal, straight, masculine men normally talk and act, always have, and presumably always will.

I remember back in the wide open 1970’s when things were very liberal and wild, almost all straight men acted exactly like this, and no one cared. There were a few SJW thought police around, but most of the hip people hated them as the killjoys, party-poopers,  prudes, and churchladies that they are. SJW’s are like a dour-faced guy who raids your party and drops a turd in the punch bowl while yelling, “Party’s over!”

Back then, the world would have laughed if SJW’s said, “Mick Jagger said the word bitch. He’s a misogynist and we must boycott all his records!”

If they said, “Johnny Rotten said the words cunt and fag. He’s a misogynist and a homophobe. Everyone boycott his records,” everyone, including every punk on Earth would have laughed right in their faces.

Leftwing men have turned into the most pathetic bunch of sissified girlymen on Earth.

SJW’s have declared war on people, especially men, acting normal.

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.