Category Archives: Uncategorized

Passive vs Active Sexism

I think we all know what active sexism looks like. The 2016 election has provided us with many examples. Although I am not known as a feminist, I admit that Donald Trump has said some things in his campaign that are deplorable. Ultimately, I believe Donald Trump is a demagogue using common prejudices of the lower class to incite division and drum up partisan support for his candidacy, and  that’s extremely manipulative.


Unfortunately, overt sexism, racism, and other forms of prejudice are not the worst social problems that America’s cultural melting pot faces. As with most social problems, the less obvious ones, left to fester in the dark underbelly of society, are actually worse than the obvious red herrings.

The most obvious examples of overt sexism are the guys who say these sexist things in public, and thus become whipping boys for PC liberals. The weapon liberal society types use against men of this type is social alienation. Regardless of whether his opinions come from ignorance, negative life experience, or being brainwashed by worse bigots, society’s ‘solution’ is to alienate this person.

‘Let him have his stupid opinion in the corner, alone,’ they say, ‘And when he’s ready to start towing the community line, perhaps start including him again (but only at the lowest tier of our social hierarchy).’


The problem? This is meant to set a social example, but ends up setting that community up to be invaded by a lot of ‘false flag’ liberal idealists, which is to say: people who say what they have to in order to get what they want. And so, you end up with these territorial, protectionist White Knights, who espouse feminist ideals, but over time, their behavior, and how it conflicts with their carefully-crafted public image, kind of reveals who they truly are. But by that time, a bunch of beta males have been bullied, and a bunch of women have been sexually exploited, by these wolves in sheeps’ clothing.


So here’s this guy who is a guard dog, his pretentious ego boosted by random sexual encounters generated through schmoozing, and he’s projecting his own sexism onto everyone who challenges the turf of his ever-expanding sexual conquest. And I’ve seen social pressures create a lot of these monsters hiding in human skin.

Many local men in my community have become this through sexual brainwashing. What’s so distressing and disillusioning is how obvious they are to their fellow men, while at the same time fooling naive females. For example, I once worked in an office with several of these types of guys. They were all card-carrying Democrats, many of them outspoken atheists. And in their outward demeanor, they were prone to express very feminist rhetoric.


The flipside of that coin? Most of them went to strip clubs every weekend. They got around a lot more than me. And in private, amongst their male co-workers, there was a lot of what Trump would refer to as ‘male locker-room talk’. One guy gets a blow job from a hot model, he brags to all his friends about it, his elders pat him on the back and say ‘atta boy’. When I talked to the subject of this conversation, which turned my stomach a bit to be included in, she said ‘Oh, I love [your co-worker]. He’s such a gentleman.’ It’s enough to make anyone of social conscience quite jaded, which is exactly what they want. They want to deflate your ego and confidence in society, because that puts you in the corner even more, so there is more for them.

These same people have referred to me as ‘misogynist’ simply for maintaining a male rights advocacy blog, sold me short to women in my community by downplaying my career skills, exaggerating my shortcomings, et cetera… So these people are actually quite sexist. They seek a better sex life at the expense of the have-nots, proving that social capitalists can be equally as ruthless as financial capitalists. And I’m just sitting here, waiting for a woman of my physical and personality type, who is smart enough to see through this bullshit.

suspicious angry young woman on white background

The truth is, women can be very sexist in this way, too. In the same way that men rate women by their bra size, women can often rate men by their penis size, how long they last, et cetera. The worst is when they think of the measure of a man as how many or the quality of women that he gets. This is basically reducing the measure of a man to a factor that they control, and they control it not just individually, but via socially engineering groupthink.

Social democrats are bandwagon-jumpers. They won’t feel guilty about something that everyone around them is doing, because they feel validated by the crowd. Public approval is often more important to them than ethical correctness.


Of course, just because some people are better at getting what they want does NOT make them better people. Here we see the wise at odds with the clever, and most of the bystanders are too stupid to root for the right person, because subtlety goes right over their heads.

And ultimately, the effect of chivalry on women is not positive! The social privilege therefrom makes them more dependent and less skilled. This is a modern social problem exacerbated by 3rd Wave ‘Feminists’, who want to have their cake and eat it too: they want equal rights AND their doors held open for them, which is where they cross the line from feminism into female chauvinism, because privilege and equality simply CANNOT co-exist.


As someone who loves strong, independent, educated women, I lament to see the most beautiful and desirable of females get sucked into this kind of ‘model mentality’, where they think the world owes them a living simply for winning a genetic lottery, they are able to coax men into doing/paying everything for them, and when they get older and their looks fade, they don’t have anything to fall back on! I feel sorry for the end-of-the-line guy who ends up marrying these women, often out of desperation, because they tend to be spoiled, and bitter about no longer getting everything they want for free or being ‘sexually exploited’ by so many men.  They’re simply bad relationship material.


And that’s why I think it’s so important to judge people by their behavior rather then their speech, because so many these days are merely ‘playing politics’, and there’s nothing socially just about it. Conversely, in the age of misinformation, reputation is often a very malleable thing that manipulative social politicians use to keep people apart, turn some people into whores, and others into spinsters.



The Cultural Marxist’s Playbook


What is Cultural Marxism?  Some people define Cultural Marxism as ‘an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities.‘  Others define Cultural Marxism as ‘The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.’  Still others dismiss the whole idea of Cultural Marxism as a ‘right-wing conspiracy theory’, worthy only of a footnote in a German political history text.

I hate to say that I have personally witnessed Cultural Marxism firsthand, in Austin, TX.  It’s a very politically and financially polarized college town, and I believe that Cultural Marxism is prevalent here to a degree, because this town was built to exploit in-group/out-group politics via fraternity-esque social classism, so the practices of Cultural Marxist exploiters play right into that, as well as into the ‘college liberal’ PC/SJW culture.  After all, college is the place where promising youngsters are homogenized into blank slugs for the corporate machine, so that makes it pretty easy for bad influences to hi-jack the signal, and inject their own programming.

Austin residents have actually become so paranoid about becoming the victims of Culturally Marxist local social establishments, that even the rednecks act ‘politically correct’, if only because they don’t want to be accused of ‘intersectionality‘, the irony here being that Cultural Marxism is far more institutionalized than Intersectionality, even in little old Austin, TX!  If you ask me, Intersectionality is a Dallas thing, and Cultural Marxism is an Austin thing.  I consider myself a refugee from Dallas Intersectionality who ran to Austin for some liberal empathy and compassion, only to find myself a victim of Austin Cultural Marxism.

I think it’s totally possible to be the victim of both Intersectionality AND Cultural Marxism at once, or more commonly in direct sequence: If you are a cannabis user, no matter your race, the bigoted government will rob you and confine you to an artificially low social class, and then liberal Cultural Marxists of the community will take advantage of your shitty situation, by selling you short with one compromising situation or another.


I was having a conversation with a local male feminist about Miss USA dumping Tim Tebow because he practices abstinence, and he said that the NFL star needed to be ‘reprogrammed’.  I said ‘What do you think a shrink is gonna do for this guy besides reinforce his pre-existing value system?’  People put way too much stock in shrinks in this town.  It’s a replacement that atheists use instead of religion.  Instead of confessing to a priest, you confess to a shrink. Instead of being advised by a clergyman, you are advised by a therapist. Instead of the dogma being controlled by the Vatican, it is controlled by the academic elite. Instead of Heaven and Hell, there is assimilation and commitment. Instead of a tithe there is an insurance premium. Instead of congregation there is group. Instead of communion wafers there are anti-depressants.

There is very little difference between psychology and religion. Both are for people who are too stupid or scared to think for themselves, and make their own choices.  Anyway, shrinks are professional yes-men who reaffirm whatever you want them to as long as your payments clear.  That’s why everyone thinks they are right all the time here, because they have a shrink that tells them they are right.  It’s probably the same guy telling everyone they are right, even bitter enemies with directly conflicting agendas.  His throwing up a green light in all directions makes me question whether the shrink is a psycho, actually.

Anyway, my point being that Austinites aren’t very good at living up to the stereotype of being good social liberals, tolerant of others’ cultures.  Look what happened when this guy’s Cadillac rims got badly critiqued on reddit.  Perfect example of Culturally Marxist intolerance, complete with appeal to authority in order to induce State intervention:


I don’t know what’s worse sometimes: that Austin has become too ‘Hollywood’, or that it’s the phony, overly-idealistic, snooty, spoiled liberals who hypocritically complain the loudest about Austin becoming too ‘Hollywood’.  Too many princesses, not enough people willing to be subjugated as peasants. Irrational fantasies conflict.  Douchebag photographers and Southern beauty queens manipulating eachother to a point where you can’t tell who is exploiting whom.  What’s sad is that Cultural Marxism has actually been used in extremely closed and elitist modelling communities by Machiavellian moguls who attempt to have a monopoly on beauty.

It seems like there are so many locals who have ‘gone Hollywood’: Models, photographers, SJWs, cokeheads, DJs, swingers, etc… They even had a nightclub party called ‘Damn the Paparazzi’. Yeah, there’s lots of paparazzi around here. You wish your life were that interesting.  Austin people being Hollywood is the definition of ‘pretentious’.  If you could understand the ridiculousness of Texans imitating stereotypical Hollywood culture, and then complaining when actual Californians move here trying to get away from all that, then you would understand the ridiculousness of this town.  Of course, these are the same people who use words like ‘poseur’, ‘inauthentic’, and ‘cultural misappropriation’.


As an avowed socialist, I find it important to say that Cultural Marxism is not exclusively linked to economic socialism, as some of the biggest Cultural Marxists I’ve met here were avid capitalists, people who try to exploit systemic AND inherent imbalances in order to bend the people around them to their wills.  Think of the movie ‘Trading Places’ with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy.  The Duke brothers in that movie broke a rich white man down, and built a poor black man up using the principles of Cultural Marxism, despite the fact that they were avowed capitalists, though some may question how true Scotsmen they could possibly be, if they were willing to abandon business ethics and common sense the way they did, in order to hurt someone they knew to be good, and help someone completely random, of unknown status.  But regardless of their professed and actual politics, cultural Marxists can be easily identified by their behavior.


So what does a Cultural Marxist’s playbook of tactics and ideologies look like?

1.  In order to make someone what you want them to be, you must first break down their pre-existing identity.


After reflecting on this anti-Muslim Austin shit, I have this to say: It didn’t become obvious to me how prejudiced, xenophobic, and classist Texans are until I moved from one Texan city to another.  I mean, I had some idea, but I guess in my hometown I was somewhat on the winning end of it.  Don’t get me wrong, there were definitely people who were pretentious about being too rich, too popular, or too pretty for me in my hometown, but at the very least, I had a  place, which is more than I can say that Austin has offered me so far.  Though my hometown’s opportunities for creative people were highly limited, I was at least somewhat respected by the local establishments and institutions, because I grew up there and they could clearly trace my social lineage.

Austin has been highly different: there are plenty of opportunities for my kind of people here, but they are hoarded by a social elite of cliquey protectionists. Even as a person of relatively privileged background (I’m actually the product of a mixed-class divorce, so my background is a bit hard to define- suffice to say that I am familiar with a broad spectrum of social and financial classes), I have been exploited, oppressed, and misclassified by small-minded locals. And so often it is done by people who consider themselves ‘progressive’, often rationalized with liberal rhetoric.

Austinites will not even tolerate ‘normal’ white Judeo-Christian people from Dallas, SA, or Houston, so why do you think they would tolerate foreign national Muslims? Muslims have Christian capitalist conservative enemies here. They also have liberal atheist feminist enemies here. They want a piece of the Austin pie? It won’t come easy. I’m not endorsing that fact, just acknowledging it.  The social conflicts between varying flavors of ideological purism and cultural Marxism will tear a new-jack down in this town.  You start out young, naive idealist College Freshman, and end up jaded, hardened, wizened College Senior.


The locals see outsiders as one of two things: blank lumps of clay to be molded to the local whims, or ‘closed-minded people’, and if you have any kind of integrity or identity, the locals are not going to really respect that unless it’s compatible with their own.  Seeing how petty white, upper-middle class, Judeo-Christian capitalists are with eachother, I can only imagine how they are to a person of completely different race, religion, and nationality.

The local reaction to this Anti-Muslim incident has been blame-shifty as Hell. Conservatives have been blamed (‘Damn intolerant hicks!’).  Out-of-towners have been blamed (‘Only people who don’t understand what Austin is all about would do that’).  Of course, those pointing fingers have no justification to assume that the ‘racists’ who did this were strictly conservative. There are liberals who are bigoted and conservatives who aren’t racist. No one wants to admit that most people are at least a little prejudiced. They actually make ‘non-prejudice’ an ‘us and them’ thing. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, and only encourages socio-political polarization.

The sad reality of which I am a perfect example, is that even if you are a white, Judeo-Christian, and upper-middle-class out-of-towner, there are many Austinite locals who will still refuse to accept you in any but a subservient and assimilating role, simply because you are not from here.  They don’t recognize you as one of the people they went to one of the local high schools with, so you will always be a second-class citizen to them.  There is also quite a bit of ‘Austinite exceptionalism’ going on, where the locals get to be royalty by way of social privilege, and the transplants have to swim or sink due to lack of social capital and independent agency.  Hell, even if you share the same weirdo niche interests with the locals: socialism, environmentalism, New Ageism, atheism, recreational drug use, scene subcultures, alternative diets, polyamorism, etc, they are still going to treat you like a new-jack and make you pay dues, and by the time they finally accept you, you will resent them and no longer want to be a member of their group.

They might use the state to break you down, or your career, or your school, or your church, or whatever.  They might use the counter-culture or the underground to do it.  Whatever they have control of, from the highest office to the lowest dungeon.  Cultural Marxists exist at all levels of society.  And they aren’t just going after religious fundamentalists and conservatives, either, but a lot of them attack the subcultures as well.  Whether you are a punk, metalhead, Burner or whatever, they don’t like that and want you to be more mainstream and mass-marketable.


2.  A fish-out-of-water or newcomer will be easy to control, socially, because they have low social capital and agency, especially relative to the local establishments.


Because they don’t know anyone, trust the wrong people, don’t trust anyone, are either too open- or too closed-minded, and thus predictably manipulated.  Literally any new entrant’s social, legal, or professional status can be manipulated socially by their new community, as these are all dependent upon social class that is malleable by perception.  Remember that money, social class, etc, are all social and legal constructs, and thus can be manipulated socially and systemically by those with more pull than the intended victim.

This is what Ayn Rand would refer to as ‘the Aristocracy of Pull’, as much as I hate to quote Ayn Rand.  Basically a popular, desirable, or especially capable person could be just as socially over-privileged as someone of high financial class, and there are plenty of broke-but-popular performers who are examples of that.  This is why cultural Marxists tend to favor college town environments, because they are full of non-local residents, who are easy to manipulate, because they are young, open-minded, and socially unincorporated with the locals.  In such a town, the local establishment usually exists solely to fleece the college flock.

Because so much of what defines us as people is actually a social construct, with little to do with our intrinsic natures, cultural Marxist can use that to make people into the antithesis of themselves.  Think about it: when you say that someone is ‘classy’, is that because they intrinsically have class, or because they were raised a certain way?  In other words, is that variable internally or externally defined?  Stripped of their money and social support structures, would this person also be stripped of their ‘class’?  What if they are only ‘classy’ because they are cloistered, and haven’t had the opportunity to misbehave?

And that’s exactly how the cultural Marxists strips them of their class by convincing them of this idealistic delusion of a classless society.  You believe in that and let your behavior follow that belief, and you will eventually end up in a lower social class than you started.  Probably lower than the people who sold you down that river.  And you might notice that those people sell a lot of people down that river.

3.  You can control someone’s actions (and therefore the public’s perception of their identities) by controlling their personal circumstances.


A sure sign of prejudice is actively restricting someone from being a good person, and then blaming them for being a bad person.  This is basically just ‘why are you hitting yourself’, where people are put into a ‘damaged goods’ class and then not allowed to be anything but a victim thereafter.

Examples: deprived of money or legitimate employment, a person may turn to crime and can then be intervened upon by rationalization that they are intrinsically a criminal. Deprived of sex or other meaningful social contact, they will act in a predictably anti-social or phonily schmoozing manner, etc…  If you send some black people to consistently antagonize someone or rob them, they may develop racial complexes.  If you tell gay people to mess with them, they are going to become homophobes, etc, which brings me to my next point:

4.  Self-fulfilling social prophecies:


If you tell everyone that someone is a sexist, racist, or classist, the other races, sexes, and classes will treat them poorly, and they will eventually become what you have called them. At that point, they can be victimized in the typical way that sexists, classists, and racists will be victimized by a liberal community. The underlying principle here is that people will become what you have convinced the people around them that they are. Thus, even if you are wrong at first, they will eventually fulfill your expectations, if you put them in the right social conditions.

Note that Cultural Marxists will almost always omit the first part of that story.  The part where you were nice and open-minded when you first arrived in their environment, and one by one, their entire community ripped you off until you then became ‘closed-minded and uncool’.  What they’re gonna tell everyone is that you simply are an asshole and always were, and none of their actions or the actions of their friends had anything to do with it.

5.  Misinformation is the cultural Marxist’s bread-and-butter.


Remember, the cultural Marxist takes advantage of information deficits between you and your community.  Because your community doesn’t know much about you, an unscrupulous person can easily mischaracterize you as this or that.  They can tell lies about your private behavior, past or present.  Single and lonely?  They can create the impression that you are the biggest player in town, and thus keep people away from you by making them believe that you don’t NEED any more friends.  They can convince the world you are feasting when you are actually the victim of famine.

Cultural Marxists love to create this impression of a ‘Participation Trophy Society’, because it creates this false standard that everyone actually got a participation trophy.  The reality is that some people didn’t, and some people’s trophies were nicer than others.  A Cultural Marxist Panglosses that over.  They create the perception of privilege and stability in individuals who have never enjoyed either, just so they can continue to prop up those who have always had both!

They can perpetuate terrible situations for you, using nothing but gossip power.  The thing that they love to do most is convince people that you are the opposite of who you actually are, so that way you will be perpetually misunderstood by those around you.  Even if the well-intentioned in your community want to help you, which they probably won’t because you’ve been demonized, but they wouldn’t know how anyway, because they’ve been misled about how you actually are and what you actually need to be happy.  The misinformationists have convinced them you are a gay, meth-addicted, rapist racist, when in fact you are merely a serial monogamist who smokes pot and prefers fair-haired, pale-skinned ladies.

6.  Social ostricization is the cultural Marxist’s weapon of choice.


The idea is that, even if capitalists or the government were able to build a materially perfect world (I don’t believe this is possible, but assume for a minute), social liberals could still ruin it socially, by making everyone emotionally miserable, usually in protest for some pie-in-the-sky cause that very few people care about.  And they do it with polyamory, race-baiting, divisive echo chambers, etc…  Creating artificial social problems for someone who is otherwise healthy and normal, usually as a means of negative reinforcement, in order to manipulate the target into changing their behavior in the desired way, for the purpose of ending the negative stimulus.

Consider this: a handsome man or beautiful woman moves to town.  S/he has money and education.  Obviously, this person will be high status, and give little consideration to people and things which are ‘beneath them’.  But if you destroy their social life collectively, demonize them professionally, criminalize them systemically, that will bring them down to a lower level of society, and now they will compromise in ways they never dreamed of doing before.  Then this compromise will be fundamentally misattributed to their identity, or some aspect of their core being, rather than to the crummy situation that the community has collectively put them in.  For men, it’s usually a ploy to get to your money, your connections, or perhaps even your extraordinary capabilities.  For women, a ploy for sexual exploitation.

7.  Cultural Marxism is highly correlated with sexual and racial ambiguity. 


Hate to say it, but transgenders, with their ill-conceived notion of ‘fluid gender identity’ are extremely guilty here, as are plain old gays, bis, and polys, all of whom depend upon people with poorly defined self-concepts for ‘new recruits’.  Also, people who want to have sex with those outside of their race, or stick others with inter-racial partners.  These people can all be perverts who tend to prey upon normal people who want to ‘experiment’ in college.  Now, don’t get me wrong: transgenders, gays, and inter-racial relationship advocates don’t HAVE to be culturally Marxist, by definition, but frequently they are.

Think about it: these people can say that race is a social construct, and they can even get people to believe that, but the only way to truly eliminate race is to make everyone a mulatto with no perception of ethnic roots.  Now, I don’t have a problem with black men going after white women.  I really don’t, unless it’s the same one I want.  Some white women can only be satisfied by a black man, and that’s their prerogative.  I’ve had white women discriminate against me for reasons far pettier than skin color, ie: I wore the wrong jacket, so I figure if a black guy finds a white woman who’s into him, more power to the guy.

On the other hand, that leaves a lot of black women jilted, and who do the Cultural Marxists try to set them up with?  That’s right: beta white guy!  Beta white guy will settle for a black girl.  We’ve kept him single for years.  He must be desperate by now.  All the skinny white girls passed him up, because we called him ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, and that’s so uncool.  Now’s his chance to prove us wrong.  Stick him with a black girl. Make sure she’s overweight, too, get some body-type acceptance going there, as well.  Basically, let’s give the beta white guy Precious.  He should be thankful he gets anyone.


Of course, once you’ve gotten the beta white guy to fuck a black chick out of desperation, you can just as easily accuse him of exploiting woman of lower social and financial class by subjecting her to a possessive and exploitative patriarchal relationship…  That’s pretty much what liberal revisionist historians did to Thomas Jefferson.  Sorry, I’d fuck a black girl, but I don’t want to be accused of being a ‘slave rapist’ 200 years from now. And the misinformationists are getting so bold that they now do that to people within their own lifetime!  Of course, I guess it all depends upon whether or not you got the girl off.  Let’s not pretend, even for a second, that there aren’t feminists out there who will, post hoc, call sex that was, at the time consensual, ‘rape’.


My point:  I can’t hate black men for liking white women, or women with paler skin than themselves.  I like white women, especially those more pale than myself.  I’m just saying that biracial romance, on a mass scale, creates logistical complications that can leave some people out if they don’t want to compromise, and still others never even get offered the opportunity to compromise!

Of course, the feminist matriarchy will always intervene to protect a woman’s right to be romantically racist, ensuring that they are never made to feel racist for maintaining racial romantic preferences, but they most certainly don’t offer men this same service.  It’s more likely they will racially ad hominem the man who prefers some races to others in dating.

8.  Cultural Marxists tend to be atheists.


Look at the bumper-sticker above.  Did a Cultural Marxist make that?  NO!  A multi-culturalist did.  A Cultural Marxist, like Stalin, doesn’t want anyone to have a religion or a culture unique to their geographical region, genetic heritage, or even their personal tastes!  Cultural Marxists are globalists, Statists, and Authoritarians.  A multi-culturalist celebrates diversity, and a Cultural Marxist wants to eliminate it altogether.  That’s the difference between the two.  Cultural Marxists aren’t the KKK, and they aren’t the Black Panthers either.  They are people who are intolerantly GREY.  They want everyone to be generic and interchangeable, with no relative strengths, weaknesses, or individually defining characteristics.

Let’s all be interchangeable Lego blocks for the Cultural Marxists.  Anyway, I’m not much of a religious person, but I do see value in spirituality, the religious component of world culture, the historical significance of figures like Christ, Buddha, etc…  That’s more tolerance than you will get from an atheist.

9.  Cultural Marxists use your desires and needs to get you to conform to their expectations.


You new in town?  Well I guess you want employment, social accommodation, food, and shelter, right?  Well, then you are going to have to do/be A, B, and C, because all the employers, landlords, and social groups around here only accept those who are A, B, and C, and they specifically hate X, Y, and Z, so you better not be those at all!

The lines you hear from Cultural Marxists are often generalizations about the local community that imply you must conform with local expectations in some way in order to fit in socially (and often by extension professionally, and even legally).  In other words: ‘No one around here hires Republicans’, or ‘Everyone around here hates Male Rights Advocates.’  Key words: no one and everyone.  I always tell those people that no one likes generalizers, but the irony is usually lost on them.

The bottom line: Cultural Marxists cock-block you, deny you employment, etc… for ‘liberal reasons’… but the end result is a stagnant or even regressive society, so you can’t really call them ‘progressives’… They may think of themselves that way, but their deliberate misapplication of liberal ideologies does not lead to a progressive society. Also, most of their ‘crusading’ behavior is entirely self-serving, but masked as altruism.

10.  Cultural Marxists are con artists who fly false flags of liberal idealism.


‘You’re not racist, are you?  That’s good, because I’m collecting for inner-city children’s basketball teams.’  You don’t want to be racist, so you give that guy your money.  He goes around the corner and spends it on crack.  You find out it was a scam later.  You feel stupid.  You stop trusting black people.  Black people pick up on that, and start calling you ‘racist’.  It’s a negative feedback loop created by liberal pettiness.

The sad truth is that liberal ideals are commonly the basis of urban scams.  Growing up in Dallas, I learned to ignore the word ‘Hey!’ when traversing the ghetto, because a zillion experiences interacting with ghetto people had taught me that if you make eye contact with that person, their next words will be, ‘You got a cigarette/dollar/ride uptown/spare kidney?’  Of course, when you ignore people in this way you are at risk of being called ‘racist’, no matter how many taxes you pay or how much you donate to local charities.  ‘There goes that racist classist who doesn’t even want to acknowledge the poor or blacks.’

Of course, these same people will not hesitate to stereotype white people via Privilege Politics, and all of the racist assumptions they entail.

11.  Cultural Marxists tend to be non-confrontational backstabbers and well-poisoners.


Think about it.  If someone called you racist, sexist, or classist to your face, you’d be able to defend yourself pretty well, right?  You could probably provide examples of past incidents where you have helped the less fortunate, express some kind of current idealism, or even produce witnesses of the female, ethnic, or financially destitute variety, who could testify on your behalf.

That’s why cultural Marxists almost NEVER confront their victims directly.  Their whole goal is to create a public misperception of you that will totally ruin your social life, without ever giving you a chance to refute or respond, by quietly gossiping about you, behind your back, taking your statements out of context, caricaturizing the negative aspects of your personality, exaggerating your problems, lying by omitting your strengths, and generally depicting you to others in a way that’s extremely biased against you, personally.

12.  Cultural Marxists are hypocritically stereotypers and misrepresenters, of both groups and individuals.


All men are sexists, all Muslims are terrorists, all Capitalist are greedy, all Republicans are bigots, all drug dealers are sexual exploiters…  Sound familiar?  ‘If so-and-so is X, then that means they are also Y’.  This is the kind of bad logic they use to alienate individuals or even entire categories of people from the community.  Basically, Cultural Marxists MISREPRESENT their enemies by speaking for them, often inaccurately or poorly, misrepresenting hyperbole as objective fact.  Note that there is a thin line between that and Hunter Thompson/Jello Biafra -esque ‘Gonzo Journalism’.

13.  Cultural Marxists blame the individual even if their environment (and those who control it) is truly to blame. 


This is called the ‘fundamental attribution error‘ or simply ‘victim-blaming‘.  And what’s ironic is that we typically think of this as a conservative misconception:  The rich blaming the poor for their shoddy circumstances in life, white people blaming black people for the consequences of racism, or misogynists blaming the female victims of rape.  Most liberals generally acknowledge this to be bad, but that doesn’t stop them from hypocritically doing it themselves, to others.  I find feminists are especially bad about this type of hypocrisy, bitching about conservative victim-blaming even as they indulge in stereotypical liberal victim-blaming, the favorite target of which is the white male, Christianity, Capitalism, etc…

Liberals victim-blame their enemies and opponents, and they do it by deliberately creating a bad social situation for someone, and then blaming them for it by saying, ‘He did it to himself’.  One example I heard of this was when someone accused me of ‘alienating myself’…  what an absurd accusation, as alienation and ostricization, by definition, are things that the group does to the individual, not vice-versa.  This accusation was literally doublethink, but it flew easily in a community where logic and critical thinking abilities are not championed or even possessed by the majority of group members.  Which brings me to my next point:

14.  Objectivity and critical thinking are the bane of Cultural Marxists. 


Check out this article accusing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook of ‘damaging public discourse’.

The only thing Facebook has destroyed is the mainstream media’s ability to make everyone think alike. The author is not lamenting the death of consensus, she is lamenting the death of false consensus, the ability of a ‘Ministry of Information’ to force ‘consensus’ on people who don’t consent.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the problems that misinformation poses, but those are caveats for the reader, not the publisher. We all have the right to express our subjective opinions, and if the reader gets taken in by falsehood, fantasy, or bias, that’s their own damn fault for not fact-checking. If you want to prevent the repercussions of that, teach critical thinking in public school. Oh, but liberals hate critical thinking, don’t they? It causes people to question their bullshit.

Anyway, the greatest threat to public discourse is ‘politically correct’ people and religious fanatics, both of whom insulate themselves and others into ‘echo chambers’… polarizing society by saying, ‘I’m only going to pay attention to those who agree with me, and pretend that everyone else doesn’t exist.’  Which brings me to my next point.



15.  Cultural Marxists create and employ social echo chambers in order to create and exploit divisions between people. 


These people literally FEED ON BIAS.  They also feed on social division.  If two people are not in communication with eachother, they can exploit the rift between them by perpetuating their misunderstanding of eachother.  This often relies upon completely false stories.  In the case of a rich kid in college, there are a million ways to exploit him.  Unscrupulous people could blackmail that kid for anything he might not want his parents to know, or anything that might change their image of him in a way he didn’t want.

The bad guys could also go to the kids parents’ tell him, ‘Your son has gambling debts/bangs cocktail waitresses two at a time/got my daughter pregnant’, etc, whether it happened or not, simply as a means of getting Mommy and Daddy to ‘handle it’ with money.

Exes are often exploited the same way.  ‘How’s my ex I never see anymore?’  ‘She screwed your best friend.  Now you should screw hers.’  Also, an obsolete or stereotypical understanding of a person could be used to mischaracterize them by reputation to those they haven’t seen in years or have ever met at all.  In other words, they tell you some bullshit about an individual or a group, and then try to get you to do something stupid in reaction to that.  I know a woman whose parents’ divorce made her believe that all marriages were lies, all paternity was spoofed, and she went down a pretty perverted social course after that.

The point is that people who don’t communicate with eachother are not likely to possess accurate understandings of eachother’s personalities, and Cultural Marxists use that to exploit people who are cut off from eachother.  Once a person is persona non grata in one camp, a Cultural Marxist will create a dogma about that person that gets repeated and handed down from person to person…  and because that person isn’t a member of that group, everyone just assumes that dogma is true, whether it is or not.

And they use intermediaries to do this, mostly.  You might not realize that the person who made you feel some way about someone or their category was actually being directed to do that by some disconnected third party who has taken an interest in shaping your worldview.  Multi-culturalists, on the other hand, are uniters, not dividers.


16.  Cultural Marxists tend to profess to be ‘non-judgmental’, but are actually the most judgmental of all.

They say they accept everyone, but in actuality accept no one.  They have nominally accepted you so they could dissect and diagnose you under the pretense of acceptance.  These are dangerous people to fall in with, because they sell you short by telling you to suspend your judgment, and then later victim-blame you for having ‘bad judgment’.

Those who pretend that there are no consequences to being non-judgmental are pretty easy to lose respect for when you watch their cycles of social drama play out a few times.

The ‘non-judgmental people’ act like they are these compassionate, enlightened people… the reality is that they are psychos who enjoy watching people get hurt. In not calling a whatever a whatever, they are really just setting people up for failure and selling them short, all in the name of ‘not stereotyping others’… It’s easy to get taken in by that kind of ideology when you’re young, but if you mature at all as you age, you lose respect for those emotionally detached, selfishly manipulative people acting like they are trying to help everyone get along. 

Basically, Cultural Marxists are the Spin Doctors of social perception, and based on whether they like you or not, they can use their powers for or against you.  But there is so little consistency in how they wield those powers, it is difficult to think of them as having any social or intellectual integrity.  On the forums and in theory, these people tend to be idealist who have this all-inclusive ideology that accepts everyone…  except ‘bigots’, of course.  In real-life practice, they are actually extremely socially manipulative and petty.  These are kick-banners and false-consensus-perpetuators and groupthinkers.  Of course, ‘they say it don’t be that way, but it do.’

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil2

17.  The natural enemy and polar opposite of the Cultural Marxist is the ideological purist, but that doesn’t make them right, or any better.


The conflict between ideological purism and cultural Marxism is the conflict between ‘my way is the only way’ and ‘you can’t have a definite, exclusive identity, because that offends someone’. Both are problems in America. Two extremes to avoid. Happiness lies in the middle ground, swaying to whatever side suits your current purpose.

In Austin, you have your typical Texas bigots: ‘I’m white, Christian, conservative, and capitalist, and everyone is wrong but me.’ And it goes without saying that those people are a drag. People who want to maintain the status quo, materialists, social classists, religious fundamentalists, etc…

But then you have your cultural Marxists, who are a liberal reaction to that, and they are not much better (in fact, in extreme cases they are much worse). It seems like they mostly exist to take advantage of college kids, who are geographically displaced, socially disconnected, environmentally overwhelmed, and don’t really have fully-formed identities.

Basically, what I have found is that there are two types of bigots in Texas (or anywhere): conservative bigots and liberal bigots. The conservative bigots only respect people like them, and the liberal bigots only respect people who remain nebulous about their identities… The middle ground between those is the multi-culturalist, I believe.  But while multi-culturalism is a very fine and American goal, it is often used as a false flag to mask Culturally Marxist intentions, and thus exploit naive idealism and altruism until there is none left in this world. 

Finally, the last piece of advice I can give you is to remember that no matter where you go, they will somehow try to turn you into something that you are not, in order to suit the petty agendas and biases of their particular geography and society.  But a person of integrity, who knows who they are, will always maintain their exclusive identity, no matter what situation they find themselves temporarily entangled in, rather than simply ‘going along to get along’ by ‘doing as the Romans do’.


Why Prostituion Ultimately Creates More Misery Than Joy


When I was a hustler, ‘pimp’ was a well-intentioned ‘compliment’ applied to me that I never really appreciated.  My business was narcotics.  Yeah, I knew pimps.  I knew hit-men.  I knew money-laundering embezzlers.  But all I did was grow and distribute an illegal flora, had little to do with any other kind of syndicated vice, and viewed the relationships I had with those types as necessary evils at best.  I can’t speak for all drug dealers, however, there are many who are very anti-prostitution; even though they are civil libertarians, they still consider the sex industry evil, and refuse to contribute to that injustice.  In other words, the sex trade and the drug trade are not necessarily tied together.


The best hustlers want nothing more than to legitimize their trade, which is relatively harmless in and of itself, and that means keeping their contact with the rest of the criminal underworld down to a bare minimum, because we don’t want to be lumped in with that lot.  Also, unless you want beef with the law, the upper class, and other gangsters, it’s in your best interest to be a good example, don’t step on anyone’s toes, and keep your nose clean.  Moreso even than a person of privileged background, the kind of spoiled brat who is your constant customer.  They get to have fun and go buck with their parents’ money, but you have to keep your head down to make yours.  That’s the way the socio-economic class system works, and lowly career black-market criminals, no matter how successful, will never be on the winning end of that.

So I always resented this label of ‘pimp’ that some people mistakenly applied to me, maybe because they saw me dressed to go out, or with a few women, none of whom I was actually sleeping with, as they were merely platonic companions.  Pimps are the kinds of figures that get idolized by naive, over-privileged suburban dude-bros who don’t really understand the ugly nature of pimping and prostitution.  Their fraternities throw these stupid ‘Pimp and Ho’ costume parties, if a guy is known to be especially lucky with the ladies, they call him a ‘pimp’, etc…


But the reality is, pimps are terrible people who get your little sister strung out on meth, so they can peddle her ass to all your homeboys, and anyone else who needs an easy lay.  The only people who idolize pimps are bourgeois poseurs who have never actually met a real pimp in their entire life.  For everyone else, to call them a pimp might as well be to call them a slave-driving rape-enabler.   In other words, unless you think like a total d-bag, it’s not really a compliment to call someone that.


Then there are the lassiez-faire libertarians who think that prostitution should be legalized, as they believe it to be a ‘victimless crime’.  Now, as someone who is intimately familiar with the criminal underworld, I can tell you that prostitution actually has a LOT of victims. That it’s a really insidious, dirty business. Self-entitled whores are basically social exploiters and misinformationistas who take advantage of sex/drug addicts and the deliberately alienated… not to mention that often times, the women (especially if migrants) are indentured servants, slaves to debt, who are never allowed by their pimps (or the limitations of their practices) to make more than their cost of living, so they will never be free until they get too old, are put to pasture, and at that point they are basically up shit creek, because they never went to school or developed any skills.  But even in the best of scenarios, where there is no pimp or artificial, unnecessarily high administrative overhead, where the woman is merely using the internet to sell her self, prostitution is still another form of wage-slavery.


There are many who say that, just like the Drug War, the illegality of the sex trade is what causes all the problems with it, and not the trade itself.  While I follow their reasoning when it comes to prohibition of narcotics, I draw the line at the sex trade.  The evil inherent in prostitution, or even just promiscuity, is independent of artificial government-made taboo. Because that’s where you get into exploitative and downright oppressive social power structures built upon the syndication of vice.   But most people are not directly aware of all that, especially the customers, who don’t really have any interest in being aware of the damage their patronage causes.  I was aware because I was a friend to many ladies of the evening, the one to whom they came to cry upon a friendly shoulder.


And the Drug War only makes sexual exploitation worse and more common.  Because the implied threat of government punishment allows for all kinds of artificially-induced compromising situations.  Strip clubs launder drug money sometimes, and then the dancers have to keep the cops, judges, and politicians happy, if you know what I mean. But that’s a side effect of the Drug War more than the enforcement of anti-prostitution laws.  In a world where illicit sex is accepted, but drugs are criminalized, you are going to see some strange bedfellows born of compromising situations, believe me. 


I honestly believe that fake sex with a prostitute is usually bad and unnatural. Syndicated sex prevents real love and natural sex, which are far better, from happening.  When sex becomes a business, that business has to expand and conquer more and more turf, until it sucks in all of the resources.  This can make unspoiled beauty hard to find, to a point where the local modelling agencies, strip clubs, and prostitution rings really ARE the reasons why you can’t find a pretty girl who ISN’T materialistic and disloyal.  These operations generally try to have a monopoly on beauty, leaving gentlemen their leftovers and remainders, constantly sucking in the youngest and freshest starlets.  Also, the prostitution industry’s ‘marketing methods’ can often be quite insidiously deceptive and socially despotic.  Turning people out is bad karma, basically, and has social consequences that the owners and patrons alike refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for.


One proponent of legal prostitution told me that prostitution prevents rape.  Other people think that prostitution is rape.  I mean, it’s forced sex that happens because of the coercion of capitalism, and most of the money earned goes to the landlord, the electric company, the grocer, the department store, the pimp, the drug dealer, etc…  Which means that the hos are just doing what they have to do to pay bills, often struggling to cover the costs of an exorbitant standard of living, and never get any real money.  One has to imagine that, in a socialized society, where everyone is materially equal, their basic needs including education taken care of, no one would ever feel materially pressured to have sex with people they weren’t actually attracted to or in love with.  But then the old fat rich guys who run the world would never get laid, and they ain’t havin’ that.


Still other people think that marriage is prostitution, and in some cases, I agree.  There are third world countries where 45-year-old Western males can buy the virgin marriage of indigenous third world teen girls, and in that case I think the ‘marriage is prostitution’ people are right.  Or in the case of many mixed-class American marriages.  Most of Donald Trump’s marriages to Eastern European immigrant sex-slaves probably count, on some level,  as prostitution.


When I talk about how prostitution is wrong, a lot of guys disagree, and I have to explain it to them in a way that appeals to their self-interest:

Right now, there are probably like a BILLION dudes not getting laid, because of one simple, universal truth:

Lying whores talk shit, and naive girls believe them.


The dudes who ARE getting laid, are either in long term relationships, or they are whore-mongering johns having bad sex with nasty, disloyal whores.

I’ve seen it so many times, in so many cases: the reason a guy is not getting laid naturally is because of lying hos, either in his past or present environment. Even if he isn’t their customer, they want him to be a customer, so they attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying that he already is a customer. Either that, or a promiscuous ex is talking shit, and naive people who believe ho stories take her word over his. 


Whores, both male and female, can often be the biggest cock-blockers, and that’s how they stay in business.  Remember that they make their money not by being sexually liberal, and giving sex away, but by being conservative, and controlling the sex lives of others.  Many women who describe themselves as ‘feminists’ fall into this category as well.  Modern liberals, especially of the PC/SJW variety, have become more proficient cock-blockers than the Church ever was. 

The idea is that making sex harder to come by naturally will force men to give up more than it is actually worth to get it.  And for a man in his middle-age, ready to settle down, the modus operandi of liberal feminist communities is to communally conspire to cock-block him until he has gone so long without sex that he is desperate, and that’s when they get him to compromise: either by hiring a prostitute or initiating a relationship with a single mom, an ugly woman beneath his own beauty class, or damaged goods looking to redeem herself.  Remember, conservative women, whether whores or monogamists, are like a union, and free-spirited sluts are the scabs.


Prostitution is ultimately bad for the girls, too.  Sex-positive female chauvinists think they are in control, and might sexistly consider themselves the winners in the battle of the genders, but usually they waste their money and their youth, get ruined for marriage, and end up pathetic old spinsters, or in unhappy marriages wrought with tensions created by their former promiscuous lifestyles. 

The definition of a chauvinistic relationship is when one or both parties involved believe that they are getting the better of the other.  In addition to describing many dating relationships, especially those that resemble bullfights, where the woman waves her red flag, and the man charges through it, only to find she was merely playing a game with him, this also describes prostitution perfectly.   The whore believes she is getting better of her johns because they are paying her to engage in an activity that most would consider recreational.  The patron believes he is getting the best of women because he is using his financial privilege to bypass the social customs normally required to get laid.  But it’s pure chauvinism whether outright prostitution or merely a superficial relationship based on game rather than real compatibility.  Brass tacks of the matter is: when you get older, these kinds of cheap flings have no appeal.

Some people say that prostitution is for someone who “can’t afford” a long-term relationship, as if marriage were a class privilege. The truth is that a serious relationship is usually a financial boon for both people involved… What most people can’t afford is to fuck around with a bunch of gold-digging, back-stabbing, nasty hos.  To have that shit in your background and reputation is the kind of baggage that will opportunity-cost you a healthy marriage in the future.


Bottom line: Prostitution exploits both men and women.  Prostitutes ruin their own lives, and frequently ruin the lives of their patrons as well.  All so the gears of capitalism can be lubricated with sexual coercion.

Finally, I have to note that the only real experience I have with these types of women is from living in a ‘non-confrontational’, ‘non-judgmental’ community… No one ever corrects anyone, and that’s why they are perpetually wrong together, in all of their various ways.  So there is a social liberal component to this as well, and it’s all these brainwashed feminists who refuse to call a whore a whore, or acknowledge that prostitution in all its forms is a serious social problem.  And because of communities like that, innocent men get suckered sometimes.  Which is exactly why they need to be warned.  This isn’t a problem that should be Panglossed over.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil2

8 Reasons Why Younger Women and Older Men Marry Eachother

1.  By a time a man hits middle age, most of the women his age have had sex with more people than him. 

This is the social reality men face:  It’s easier for women to get sex than it is for men to get sex, and women typically take advantage.  So by the age of 30, most of a man’s female cohorts (the women in his chronological generation) have probably slept with way more people than he has, unless they are unattractive.  If a man is expected to choose between an unattractive woman his age, who hasn’t been around, or an attractive woman his age, who has been around, if he is in a good social position (college educated, interesting person, with high earning potential), he will reject both types of opportunities in his age bracket, and go younger.  This seems more fair to him, especially if he is physically attractive.

2.  If a woman is not married by the age of 30, she probably isn’t marriage material.

Women have many opportunities to get married, and typically, if they haven’t tied the knot by age 30, then they are either dedicated to a promiscuous lifestyle, or they have some defect that makes them unattractive to men.  For a man looking to make the ultimate lifetime commitment to a romantic partner, neither of these options is very appetizing.

3.  Women don’t age as well as men.

Most women hit their peak of attractiveness in their early to mid twenties.  Men, on the other hand, get more ruggedly handsome as they age, and the peak of that typically isn’t until their 30’s or 40’s.  So if the initiation of relationships happens through sexual attraction, it’s more likely to happen between an older man and a younger women.  Obviously, as the relationship matures, it becomes less about looks, and more about emotional attachment and life goals in common, but in order for that bond to have a chance at forming, there has to be an initial physical attraction.

4.  Available middle-aged women are harder to find.

Think about it.  Who goes out a lot, and is easy to meet?  18-25 year-olds.  If you go out looking, these are the people who are easy to find.  Past this age, most people get sick of the bar scene, and stay in.  And besides, most women over 30 are already married, anyway.

5.  Younger women tend to be more ideal, and have more potential.

As women go through life, they tend to become more jaded.  This is the product of going through bad relationships.  And it makes them cranky, unpleasant, and stuck in their pasts.  The potential for backsliding with someone from their past is greater as well: an old ex could come out of the woodwork and attempt to get them to cheat on their current spouse.  Women with romantic baggage have issues that no one really wants to deal with.  Men, on the other hand, become more dismissive of their pasts as they get older, and more hopeful that the next one will be ‘the one’.  Men idealize younger women as ‘having it all ahead of them’, as opposed to women who have ‘been through a bunch of guys’.  For older men, attractive women are more scarce, and thus they appreciate them more than a younger man with more options.

6.  It requires a prettier woman to get middle-aged men aroused. 

When men are younger, they are more eager for experience, and less judgmental of a female’s flaws, both in appearance and personality.  As they get older, their tastes become more refined.  They know what they want and what they don’t want, in a female romantic partner.  They are better at recognizing the red flags for women with personality disorders.  So the same caliber of woman who got him off in his youth will no longer ‘do it for him’ when he is older.  The fact that middle-aged men are past their sexual peak means that they are no longer willing to shack up with just anyone anymore.

7.  Older men have their shit together

Men in their 30’s are more capable than men in their 20’s.  They make and have more money.  They are more able to handle any problem that might come up in their own life, or in their partner’s lives.  They are tougher.  They last longer and are better in bed.

8.  Older men are more interesting, personality-wise.

The naivete that men find attractive in women, typically isn’t attractive to women, in men.  Young men are ‘douchey-er’…  More hormonally driven, more eager to get laid, less eager to share a more intimate emotional connection, and less willing to commit.

A Working Class Perspective on the Internet/Campus ‘Social Justice Warrior’ Movement

peaceful-protest-creates-real-political-change-world-changing-ideaspeaceful-protest-by-greg-klet1. When college liberals, suburbanite offspring who still live with their parents, and Trustifarian ‘California Anarchists’ complain about ‘privilege’, these complaints often apply more to themselves than to common people.

This is what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’.  When the most privileged students in the most idealized and insulated universities in the country complain about ‘privilege’, it appears to the working class as if those people are hypocritically complaining about themselves, and yet putting the burden of enacting change onto others, many of whom are ill-equipped to enact any kind of meaningful, mass-scale social change.  Long story short, if you are angry about class or racial privilege: start a charity, do community service, but ‘raising awareness’ by haranguing Joe Six-Packs on relatively proletarian internet forums, not only does that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING positive for your cause, it actually discredits your cause politically, in the minds of many, and pushes those who would otherwise be supporters away.

What I have found is that, deprived of the ability to meaningfully go after the Koch brothers, SJWs will take out all of their rage on a more accessible, working-class person who looks like or shares traits in common with the Koch brothers.  Psychologists refer to this as ‘transference’.  It’s also called ‘hitting the easy target, because the people you are really angry with live in gated communities with armed guards’.  Even if someone is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, unless he has billions of dollars, and is directly responsible for administrating systemic oppression, prejudice, and exploitation, you have no right to hold him accountable for all of that, as if he is ‘one of them’, by way of affiliation or even common opinion, especially if he is in the same (or lower!) socio-economic class as yourself.

Also, it should be noted that, in a lot of ways, the rose-colored glasses of liberalism are a class privilege.  In other words, a charmed life leads to an idealist’s outlook.  Cloistered white girls tweeting about non-racism from the suburbs will be seem silly to urban people, whose rose-colored glasses were smashed by the bullies of the ghetto, long ago.  A playboy millionaire celebrity claiming to be a feminist, and admonishing unknown, working class-males for ‘not being feminist enough’, on the Ellen Degenres show?  Easy for him to say, especially if he has three prostitutes waiting for him in his dressing room, or is happily married to a fellow attractive celebrity.  It’s a lot like feeling morally superior to the poor, simply for being able to afford ‘health’ food, and ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘ethically manufactured’ products.

Finally, it seems to me that people who were raised by well-off liberal parents, who spoiled their kids, do not seem to understand that a person raised by conservatives, with their lassiez-faire ‘Tough Love’ parenting philosophies, may in fact be less privileged, even if their parents are wealthy.  Liberals tend to assume that all families intra-share their wealth, just because theirs did.  But that’s not actually how all families work, so it’s very unfair to assume that someone is a ‘wealthy conservative’, just because their parents happen to be.

2.  Democrats think that popular people being shitty to unpopular people qualifies as ‘social justice’.

causes-cartoonPicture this scenario: a man tries to pick up a woman, and she slaps him in the face.  Is that progress?  No!  It’s the same thing that has been happening for many generations.  It’s a status quo of people in different social classes mistreating eachother.  There’s nothing progressive about that. And yet bad social manners and the mishandling of awkward situations happen constantly, not just in one-on-one situations, but in outsider versus the group situations, all the time, especially in liberal communities such as Occupy protests, anarchist communes, Burner gatherings, and radical subreddits.

That’s the average Democrat’s twisted sense of ‘social justice’: bandwagoning, communal co-dependence, ridiculing the underdog, and trampling the rights of the statistical minority.  It’s basically a more pretentious form of gang warfare.  ‘You are wrong, because look at all of these people on MY side.  And we have collectively decided to ban you.’  I’m sorry, but it’s fucking juvenile to treat people this way just because they think differently than you, or because they refuse to pander to popular misconceptions.  The extremes to which this abuse of social capital and insensitivity towards the socially poor are taken has gotten ridiculous, otherwise, I wouldn’t even mention it.  But it truly has gotten ridiculously petty.  Postmodern liberals have repeatedly proven that social capitalists can be just as ruthless as financial capitalists.

Social maturity, on the other hand, is to respect their perspective enough to reconcile it with your own, and perhaps even realize that you are just as blind to their perspective as they are to yours, both of you are probably right in one way and wrong in another, etc…  You don’t have to respect someone’s opinion to respect their perspective.  Real progress is people from different walks of life understanding and being compassionate to eachother, even when interests conflict.  Social conflict is inevitable and commonplace, even in ‘the best of all possible worlds’.  What is remarkable is conflict resolution via real consensus, which often entails mitigation of the concerns of both sides.

3.  Liberals are just as bad about stereotyping people as conservatives are, they just have different heuristics for doing so.

heuristicsSome liberals think that all white males are inherently over-privileged.  Some conservatives think that all black males are inherently criminals.  Both of these stereotypes are wrong, and it is unfair to assume those kinds of things of anyone without a very clear understanding of their individual background.

What’s even worse is when people stereotypically bundle someone with causes that are commonly associated to eachother.  ‘Oh, you’re Christian, so you must be a Republican capitalist, right?’  Not necessarily.  Then there are the binary thinkers: ‘You’re not a Democrat, so you must be a Republican.’  Apparently the ‘enlightenment’ required to be a social liberal does not make one immune to committing common logical fallacies.

Finally, the worst is guilt-by-association and straw men.  ‘You have contributed material to an MRA forum, so you must be a psycho like Elliot Rodger.’  Or, ‘You identify as Christian, so you must believe the world is 6000 years old.’  What I see constantly is liberals holding non-liberals accountable to the most extreme conservative positions, even if that particular non-liberal happens to be a moderate or a centrist.  All of these kinds of assumptions represent a willful ignorance to the many shades of grey and nuances between polarized mainstream political positions.  But the sad truth is, that politics have become so polarized in this country, the center looks extreme to both sides.

4.  The SJW misinformation echo chamber is real.

echo_chamberThere is plenty of misinformation that goes around on the right: Climate change denial, Biblical literalism, denial of privilege gap between economic classes, etc…

But there is also plenty of misinformation that will not die on the LEFT: All-natural, homeopathic medicine, the misapplication of new age spirituality/Eastern religion, and just the other day I had a conversation with a rather intelligent, well-informed person in which he said, ‘This 23% gender wage-gap needs to be solved…’  If you think that’s a valid statistic, I urge you to watch this:

People read this shit on Tumblr or hear it on Rachel Maddow, and they don’t question it.  They just move on with their life operating under a faulty assumption, thinking anyone who disagrees is ‘ignorant’, because they haven’t read and blindly believed the same biased media source that they themselves have.  Noam Chomsky wrote a book called ‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media‘.  It’s all about how commonly propagated media manipulates public opinion, not through force, but through persuasion and selective censorship.  Everyone should read this, and bloody THINK ABOUT IT!

What’s worse is when this kind of misinformation goes around socially, not about general politics, but about individual people in the community.  ‘So and so, whom neither of us really knows all that well, is a junkie/rat/slut/sexist/racist, etc…’ goes around the grapevine in liberal communities, is often accepted as fact because the source has a higher degree of social capital than the target, and it OFTEN isn’t even true, or is some biased person’s subjective take on a half-truth.

If the person being discussed REALLY has a problem, and that problem is VERIFIABLE, then it should be addressed openly, but starting behind-the-back rumors like that is often a cheap social tactic to alienate the target, because the person saying that is insecure about the potential threat this person poses tot heir social position in the group.  In other words, ‘Don’t buy his cookies, he’s a sexist.  Buy my equal-opportunity cookies instead.’  This isn’t liberalism, it’s a marketing tactic, designed to appeal to those of certain biases. So when you hear someone say: ‘That person has a problem, let’s help them’, that’s a real liberal, but when you hear someone say, ‘That person has a problem, let’s ban them’, you should realize that you are being manipulated by someone who is trying to boost their own social status by stepping on easy targets.

How are you going to assume that you are right about national politics when you allow others to manipulate you into misunderstanding the people in your own local community?  Which brings me to my next point:

5.  SJW communities are mismanaged by naive idealists who, out of misguided principles, frequently trust the wrong people, and the wrong information.

cliffI’m coming from a town full of confirmation-biased liberals who only believe what they want to hear, or what suits their ideology or personal interest.  There are many local liberal communities who will automatically extend ‘sympathy privilege’ to a traditionally oppressed person or class, without regard to that person’s individual merit.  ‘That rock and roll singer ALWAYS gets to have a microphone.  Today, let’s give a microphone to this random transgender person.’

But does that transgender person have the ability to be compelling and entertaining?  Maybe the reason the singer always has a microphone isn’t because he is white or male, but because he is good at singing.  Maybe if the transgender were good at singing, they would be given a microphone more often.  And never rule out the possibility that, in addition to being transgender, that person could also be a lying, manipulative psychopath, who shouldn’t be given any social influence.  Just because they align with one of your pet causes, does not make them infallible as a person.

Also, they could TOTALLY be merely playing to your biases.  Maybe they aren’t what they claim to be, but they are simply imitating that, because they noticed your bleeding heart has a soft spot for that particular cause.  The most obvious case of this is the insincere male feminist.  How many foxes will liberal communities let into the hen house, just because they pretend to fit your idea of what a good person should be, they towed the party line, or they played the victim card?

6.  SJWs seem to progressively keep moving further and further away from the ideal that two wrongs don’t make a right.

male_tearsThis is where ideas like ‘White Man’s Burden’, ‘Affirmative Action’, and ‘Charging Men More‘ (as if men don’t already pay for more stuff, anyway) come from.  Gandhi, a real liberal, once said ‘An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind’.  Unfortunately, most liberals are nowhere near as enlightened as Gandhi, in the exact same way that Christians are ‘so unlike their Christ’.

7.  Some of these liberal special interests certainly seem to be rationalizing their own selfishness via ‘revolutionary’ politics.

pw_anarchist_illustrationIf you believe that you have a right to lie, cheat, and steal by way of ‘revolution’, then you are no different from the privileged class who consider it their inherent right to lie, cheat, and steal, via ‘the system’.  Why do white people get robbed by black people?  Because some black people have come to ideologically believe that whites ‘owe them’ for injustices that their great grandparents committed against black people.  So the question is: Who has the greater ‘sense of entitlement’?  The jailor, or the recently released prisoner?

8.  Hypersensitivity over slips of the tongue and ‘micro-aggressions’ makes SJWs look weak and insecure compared to people who have actually been through some real shit.

There is a class of humans living on this Earth who lead tough lives.  We live in the ghetto, we went through a war, we were beat up every day in Junior high, we have been incarcerated, we have experienced long periods of poverty, we have experienced long periods of social alienation, we were abandoned by our families at a younger age than many people, we worked very hard for very little money most of our lives, and yet through all this, we endured.

Then, there are a class of people who get hysterically offended because of a suggestive song on the radio, a violent movie playing in theatres, foul language on television, or something someone said to them, in passing.

Which of these do you think is the more privileged class?  Do you find it ironic that the more-privileged class is calling the less-privileged class ‘over-privileged’, or should this gaslighting be recognized as dangerously misinformative?

9.  Redefining legal concepts such as ‘violence’ to incriminate more people only serves to feed the growing prison-industrial complex, while simultaneously making you look like the ‘Boy who Cried Wolf’, thus undermining legitimate claims of violence.

Recently, a transgender person posted on a mutual friends’ Facebook wall: ‘Using the wrong pronouns to refer to a transgender is an act of violence.’  No, I’m sorry it isn’t.  It might hurt you emotionally, as if someone has not considered your feelings.  It may make you feel frustrated with the ignorance or social negligence of another person.  But it isn’t violence any more than someone cutting you off in traffic with no signal, in fact, it’s less violent than that, because there are no rolling, three-ton steel death-traps involved in a verbal altercation.

And no verbal altercation should be criminal in an emotionally open society that values free speech and social cohesion.  The reality is that we are moving towards a society where it is illegal to be angry, and this has only made people angrier.  Political correctness and emotional repression come at the cost of society, and the only people who benefit are courts and jails.  It’s another example of unrealistic idealism having very real negative consequences, consequences which ultimately make the affected society less ideal.

10.  Abandonment of ‘all-inclusive’ principles has created a class of liberal elitists who tend to be self-cloistered group-thinkers with a strong sense of ‘false consensus’.

groupthinkFalse consensus is often the result of banning dissenters.  In-group/out-group social politics will have you believing the lies of those with whom you are familiar, and mistrusting the truth of those you don’t know. Until your whole community is merely a group of liars who believe eachother’s lies, and reject the perspective of any outsider who is immune to all the groupthink.  Often it only takes one liar to be trusted in order to brainwash an entire community, and a small contingent of coordinated liars are even more dangerous to the credibility of truth.  And the worst part is, these communities tend to trust people based on hypocritical stereotypes such as ‘women never lie’, or even ‘people who cater to my ego by agreeing with my opinions surely wouldn’t lie’.

Gullible fools believe lies because they trust eachother. Those who are the most heavily invested in lies are the angriest when a dissenter tries to speak the truth.  Malevolent shepherds call dissenters ‘paranoid lunatics’ because these social demagogues are insecure about the source of their own social power.


11.  A non-SJW’s bigotry is assumed to be a result of his privilege, while an SJW’s bigotry is assumed to be a result of lack of empowerment.

If I’m not afraid to go anywhere in the city, and you consider some places ‘scary’… Guess what? No matter what kinds of controversial opinions I have expressed, YOU’RE THE BIGOT.  If you are afraid to ride the city bus because you are afraid of rape or robbery, that is bigotry. If you are afraid to go into biker bars because of all the weird heavy metal people there, that is bigotry.

Of course, there are people who will say that I am only unafraid because of ‘white male privilege’. This completely ignores three facts: 1. I have been robbed by random black people in the ghetto. 2. I have been harassed and brutalized by the police. 3. I am just as susceptible to rape as any woman.

So to assume that this whole system is set up to protect me, and that I, with my supposed imperialist military guard, are the reason everyone else is scared, that is stereotypical bigotry.

Take responsibility for your fear, realize it is irrational, and don’t be afraid to go anywhere, no matter what kinds of bad experiences you have had in the past with ‘those kind of people’. That is open-mindedness.  Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is that it’s a shame to let your own prejudice keep you from doing something that you might like if you gave it a chance. There is a firm line between prejudice and simple lack of interest, though.

Conversely, Dylan Roof was probably not an ‘over-privileged white male racist’.  More than likely, Dylan Roof had a very poor education, dysfunctional family, and few meaningful friendships.  So maybe it wasn’t ‘white privilege’ that drove Dylan Roof to his hateful opinions and actions, but intellectual and social malnourishment.

The Charleston Shooting: How Liberals Perpetuate Racism/Sexism by Shunning Racists and Sexists

Imagine your cat dies and you are depressed about it. You go to a doctor. They refuse to recognize that your depression is a situational affliction. They say you have life-long problems with depression, and always will. They try to put you on drugs for it. They want to give you a diagnosis that stigmatizes you and disqualifies you for certain jobs. Are the doctors altruists trying to eliminate depression? NO! They are capitalist opportunists taking advantage of your bad, but temporary, situation.


It’s the same with racism/sexism. You get out of a bad relationship and you are mad at women for awhile, so they call you ‘sexist’, and stigmatize you for life with that label. You get robbed by minorities (it still happens in the ghetto, yes) and express anger about that, and then they call you a ‘racist’.  Are the liberals trying to eliminate racism/sexism? NO!  They are opportunists trying to use a liberal basis to force you out of the community so they can take your share.  And they come off as noble Social Justice Warriors instead of mere selfish, manipulative social politicians. Meanwhile, in alienation, your wounds only fester untreated, no one seems to care, and you are driven to lash out, often violently or through a terrorist attack.

Anti-racists and anti-sexists too often shirk social responsibility to be all-inclusive, even of those afflicted with such problems. And that I think creates a collective negligence that only makes racists worse, left to fester in a ‘me-against-the-world’ mentality where whatever scapegoat their ideology has created for them is responsible for all their problems… when in fact, it’s them and their community in general, refusing to address and rehabilitate these people (and yes, racists are still people, too). Shoving them under the rug with the poor, the disabled, etc…

I think there is a big difference between the hypothetical wealthy, deliberately elitist racists, like the Fox News people, and lower-class guys who are simply alone and frustrated.  This is like the difference between the shepherd and sheep.  The deceiver and the deceived.  The propagandist and those they fool.

The common racist/sexist is uneducated, poor, unpopular, disenfranchised, and they blame the liberal society for that. They blame women for collectively slandering and excluding them. They blame minorities for taking opportunities to better themselves which they feel are at their expense…  This is the dark territory of the ‘Angry White Male’, AKA the ‘Average Frustrated Chump’.  I am not an advocate for this type of person’s extremist ideology, but I understand their frustrations, and how liberal societies can exacerbate them rather than assuage them.  I don’t want to come off as sympathetic to racists, but merely empathetic.  These are sick people who often come from under-privileged backgrounds, and society never really addresses or helps them.  Instead, it assumes they are over-privileged and ultimately the source of their own outlook.

But none of this is seen as a problem by the liberal society, until that person’s frustration with their life causes them to do something violent. And that is the negligence of a liberal society that doesn’t seem to care when someone falls down that racism hole or is driven down that dark sexist path. A society that doesn’t try to talk them out of it, but is perfectly content to let them wallow in their own bad attitude. A society as much to blame for extreme racism as extreme racists themselves are to blame.  Because anti-racists and antisexists often perpetuate a cycle of grievance and vendetta between the races and genders, ostensibly while ‘protecting their community’ from those afflicted by prejudice.

Whenever somebody tells me that they hate some category I’m in, like metalheads, hackers, writers, etc… I always feel compelled to do them one better and be like, ‘Well we don’t hate you, so why hate us?’

But I feel like the racial situation in this country has become. ‘They hate us so we hate them.’

And among so-called adults, I think that’s just fucking immature. And once again, I am tainted by this observation.  While I’m not defending anything, I’m saying that shunning racists and sexists, denying them social capital and agency, it only makes them more racist and sexist, because they are isolated with nothing but that ideology.  You have to expose such a person to the positive aspects of those who are different from them, other cultures and genders, in order to convince them that they aren’t bad.

But the current trend is to ban racists and sexists, deny them the benefit of multicultural communities and meaningful contact with the opposite gender. And like I said, this only confines them to their prejudiced ideology. Modern society does not allow those who have slipped into racism or sexism to come back from it.  The perception is that a prejudiced person doesn’t ‘deserve’ to experience the best of the culture against which they are prejudiced, because they obviously aren’t ‘true believers’.  But it’s the prejudiced person who needs to see that good side of other cultures the most.


They think such a person should wither away and die and not be a bother to the community anymore. But that rarely happens, because those people tend to go out not with a whimper but with a bang. Why was no one Principal Sweeney (the character from American History X) to this kid, reaching out to him, educating him, coaxing him to change his mind?  Where’s the Robin Williams shrink to be better than all the snake-oil salesmen, and actually help this kid? Because they were too busy judging him and shunning him, and that only made him more steadfast in his twisted ideology.  I say this not as a sympathizer, but as someone who has studied prejudice in all its forms, trying to find a cure.  Because as a practitioner of an alternate lifestyle, I too have faced prejudices from society: an institutionalized cultural prejudice known as the Drug War.

As a German-American Gnostic Christian, I have struggled with my own prejudices against self-righteous Pharisees.  But I don’t think Jesus categorically hated Jews.  I think he was merely angry at the faction of the Jewish clergy that opposed his socio-political agenda, had him cast into the gutter, and ultimately made a deal with the Roman government to assassinate him.  But what Jesus preached was extreme inclusiveness.  That when we cast out our enemies and detractors, we only deepen the divide between ourselves and them, and ensure that we will stay enemies, continually blaming them for an animosity against us that we have only fed by ostracizing them.  And I think that can apply to racists and sexists, too.

A lot of times, when you label someone as something, that’s what they will be. You have confined them to that category and won’t let them out of it. Which is stupid, because a lot of these people, their rage at women or minorities or whatever is totally situational, and their attitudes could easily be changed. And yet they are labelled as such by amateur social politicians taking advantage of their shitty situation by using social labels to keep them in a hole.  Real activists don’t do that, they work with racists to bring them back into the light, like this lady who worked with German Skinheads.  Because prejudice against the prejudiced is itself a prejudice.  You can’t cure prejudice with prejudice, and you can’t end prejudice by refusing to understand these people’s point of view, instead shunning them.  This accomplishes nothing.

A person who just got out of a bad relationship is not a ‘sexist’ just because they have trust issues wit the opposite sex. A person who just got out of jail where they were brainwashed by Nazis shouldn’t be labelled a racist their whole lives. These kind of situational afflictions, when generally applied to a person’s character, become a stigma that is just another excuse not to socially include them, so that way others get their share of the community.  I suppose, as a student of psychology and a sufferer of a revolving door of mental afflictions, I will never understand a society that stigmatizes and politicizes a mental condition, even an offensive one like Tourette’s, racism, or sex addiction, instead of TREATING and CURING it.

The thing that sucks about the racism and sexism labels is that they are applied at the drop of a hat. You said the wrong thing to a woman while you are drunk, so she tells all her friends you are sexist. You used the ‘n-word’ while singing along to a rap song, so you are racist. Forever and ever, no matter what you do with the rest of your life, they won’t let you be anything other than that. Supposedly these are open-minded liberals who believe people can change and you shouldn’t confine anyone to boxes, but they do it all the time. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, career racists will seduce a vulnerable kid like the Charleston shooter. Racists are like religious fanatics. They will try to get to you in your darkest hour. They will try to get you to blame all your problems on minorities, a convenient scapegoat for all of your own deficiencies.  And I know that because I’ve done time in jail, which is often a recruitment center for racists and white power gangs.

The most obvious time it happened to me was while I was incarcerated. You are locked up with bigger, scarier people, and you are generally scared of everyone. Then some huge white dude comes up all friendly like and says the other races have a gang and they want to rape you. So why don’t you join the white gang? But the white gang is just a bunch of big bullies trying to rob you, and exploit your bias by turning you into one of their soldiers. And they use this exaggerated racial conflict to convince you that their gang is necessary, or that the ‘other gangs’ are worse, or that it’s not all merely the same gang.  But honestly, the juicer gangers of all races, even my own, were never my peeps in jail. I stuck with my peeps: short skinny smart guys of all races.  We had a book club.

In my experience, liberals are people who say that they are against artificial classes, but they still are classist. They label some people ‘problems’ and say they government should ‘handle’ them. But even when the government ‘handles’ a ‘problem person’, when they get out of jail or rehab or whatever, does the liberal who condemned them to that quarantine want to help them reintegrate into society? Hell no, they are socially classified as ‘damage goods’.

Moral of the story: liberals are people who profess the value and legitimacy of the system, but still have no faith in it. And the way they treat ex cons, especially those created by culturally prejudiced authoritarian communist ‘public works projects’ like the Drug War, it really shows how little faith liberals have in this system they advocate… for others, but not for themselves.  If you really believe that prison ‘rehabilitates’ people, instead of making them worse, I invite you to dine with ex cons in your private home. With the good silverware and fine China. I have. Because I’m not a hypocrite, and I never advocated for the Prison-Industrial Complex in the first place.

Which is exactly why I believe there should be outreach for those who are ‘at risk’ of racism and sexism. But hypocritical liberals never do that. They think that shunning bigots will somehow improve their outlook. It doesn’t; ostracism only reinforces their prejudice.  If in the lower classes, you are only exposed to the bad examples, and deliberately kept from the good examples, this will only reinforce your prejudice.

Nor does censorship or denying history keep us from repeating it!  I remember the first time an anarchist, not a Nazi, told me I should read ‘Mein Kampf’, if only to be able to contend with its perspective. I have to admit, I only read a very small percentage of it. It’s terribly-written. All I can think is that maybe it said some things the Germans wanted to hear at the time, albeit inconcisely, and in awkward language. I don’t think it made me prejudiced. Bad experiences did that. And I still fight a daily fight to resist the prejudices that plague an open-minded person who got exploited too many times. But no, I was never partial to Nazi ideology; as a young anarchist punk in the 90’s, that would have been sacrilegious.

The book was actually given to me by a centrist contrarian who wanted to broaden my horizons, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in commie bullshit or fascist bullshit. And I have to say, what that era of my life did for me most was get me to study and personally debunk all forms of prejudice, reverse or otherwise. It wasn’t until midlife I realized that life experience and maybe even inherent nature had still infected me with prejudices that wouldn’t be realized until then.  But don’t ever admit your prejudices to a crowd of liberals, because even though all white liberals are supposed to admit they are prejudiced, those who do are typically judged and shunned by other liberals, often those in denial of their own bias.

diagnose_racismThe problem is not earnest Social Justice Warriors, but rather, phoney, hypocritical ‘Social Justice Warios’:

stop-appropriating-italian-culture-getting-sick-of-all-these-social-justice-warios-cyanide-and-happiness-comic-1434334541I think that Wario is the perfect pop-culture analogy of the PC hypocrite.  Mario and Luigi are the real heroes.  Wario calls them out for doing something that HE HIMSELF is guilty of: Cultural misappropriation.  The reason?  He is jealous of them being the protagonists, and wants the attention they are getting.  Thus I define the ‘Social Justice Wario’ as: A hypocrite who flies a false flag of Social Justice, but is in fact only in it for selfish or nefarious purposes.

There is literally no difference between PC shaming and the guilt-trippery of religious fundamentalism. Liberals and conservatives both use shame and guilt to control people emotionally, insidiously.  And the end result of both kinds of guilt-trippery is the same: repression.  Division.  People keeping themselves from eachother.  Secrecy.  Two-facedness.  Divergent mental states.  People afraid to say what they really mean and be judged for it.  A closed society.

Race War, Gender Wars… these special interest politics really only serve one function: to keep the proletariat divided and conquered, keep us distracted from the only war that really matters: CLASS WAR. Class conflicts are painted as racial/gender struggles in order shift the blame from the government and upper socio-economic class…  While at the same time playing the race/gender card whenever they are held to any standard of responsibility or accountability.

Why do women tend to be less racist than men? Because of gender roles. They aren’t thrust into competitions with other races, and they aren’t locked in cages with racists. So why would they understand that mentality?  In fact, women are the ones who benefit from racial competitions for their affections, between men.

Near as I can tell, poor people are racist because they are poor, uneducated, and denied opportunity. And that applies to black people and white people. Poor white people live in the trailer park and listen to racist country music. Poor black people live in the ghetto and listen to racist rap music. Both types of people need education, love, and investment into their potential to be more than that.  Anti-racism is, in many ways, a class privilege. At the top there is plenty, so why give in to racial conflict (unless of course convincing others to be racist is the source of your wealth, but that’s not true of all rich people)? At the bottom, they are fighting for scraps and blaming eachother for the bad situation of their general class.

In other words, the poor of all races are far more susceptible to racist mentality, because they are put in shitty competitive situations with eachother.  Situations that Universal Healthcare, Free Post-Secondary Education, and Universal Basic Income would eliminate, so the rich would end up paying to alleviate racism caused by systemic poverty, instead of profiting from and deliberately perpetuating racial conflict.  I don’t care if you are LGBT, a minority race, a feminist, a pacifist, a supporter of the arts, an anti-prohibitionist, or any other typically liberal thing… If you are not a socialist, to me, you are not truly a Democrat. Class war is THE DEFINING ISSUE of our times, and all this other shit is just a smoke screen put on by capitalists and their political government lackeys, to distract everyone from the ONE ISSUE that should take precedence over ALL liberal social issues…


Obama has taken advantage of random public shootings to advance his gun control agenda, just like Bush took advantage of 9-11 to advance his war-mongering agenda. There, I said it.

I’m sorry, but when you routinely send drones into foreign countries that end up killing little kids, no one buys your phony tears, Mr. President. You want to solve domestic conflicts, then you have to end the class war. This is not an issue of mental health, gun control, or even racism. It’s about providing the kind of equal opportunity that eliminates jealousy and classism. Do that, and no matter how many guns people have lying around, no one would have any real motivation to hurt anyone else.


Slut Privilege and Socio-sexual Power Structures: how sex cults and sexual collusion are used to oppress and exploit the individual

Social Capital Theory states that ‘social networks have value’, as there are ‘collective or economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups’.  How does this apply to sex?  In many ways.

Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round‘ opined the Dead Kennedys in their final cutting-room floor compilation ‘Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death‘.  Unfortunately, they were not far from the truth, as sexual coercion is a major behind-the-scenes motivator in much of human behavior, especially in sexually repressed societies.

Sex has been used to influence the outcomes of trials, legislation, and even elections.  Sex has won and lost wars.  Sex has made or broken celebrities.  Sex has floated or sunk major industries and businesses.

Imagine a workplace where almost everyone is having sex with eachother, except for a few isolated individuals.  Would it not stand to reason that those included in the office sex club would be treated better than those ignorant to it, left out of it, or those who willfully abstained?  Sex creates emotional bonds, making those we have had sex with seem to be crucial, whereas those with whom we share no sexual bond are considered unimportant, or expendable.

This phenomena is the underlying basis of what some have called ‘slut privilege‘.  Contrary to popular liberal stereotype, slut-shaming is not the only consequence of promiscuous behavior, nor is it an undeserved consequence.  Because, what most social liberals refuse to admit publicly, is that a promiscuous person actually has MAJOR SOCIAL ADVANTAGES over a more prudent monogamist.  These advantages could have positive effects on one’s career, finance, social life, or even systemic influence.  Which is exactly why it’s SO DIFFICULT to take complaints of slut-shaming seriously.  Even if slut-shaming could be considered bullying, the social benefits of promiscuous behavior FAR OUTWEIGH any social stigma that might be incurred via promiscuity.  Hence, I would argue that sluts SHOULD BE made to feel ashamed of themselves, as should any exploitative, oppressive, or manipulative person.

This is made obvious to most women as early as junior high: the promiscuous girls get invited to all the parties, whereas the girls who don’t ‘put out’ are often ostracized or looked down upon.  Sex has been the basis of many social networks, and as stated above, SOCIAL NETWORKS HAVE VALUE.  The woman who gets around will have more access to capital, job opportunities, and many other amenities, whereas the woman who doesn’t is often limited to her own abilities.  And the same could apply to a very attractive or desirable male.

And we’ve only so far covered one-on-one sex.  Group sex adds a whole other dimension to this social influence and privilege.  Imagine a whole network of promiscuous people working together, across borders and between businesses.  It would be easy for them to recruit new members, and add the abilities of these new members, even systemic or financial capabilities, into the repertoire of this ‘fuck mob’.  In fact, the more sexually repressed a person or society is, the easier it would be for such a sexual organization to coerce them.  The deliberate creation of taboos such as sex and drugs are often used to exploit repression.  And there’s no law against it, in fact, institutions of law often support these kinds schemes, even if unwittingly.

Most men would love to have a menage trois before they die.  It’s on the bucket list of most men, however ethically complicated this Earthly desire may be.  If a sexual organization could offer this service to a man, what would he be prepared to give up for it?  Money?  The favorable decision in a child custody case?  The suppression of a potentially damaging publication?  The falsification of scientific or medical data?  Nuclear launch codes?

That might sound laughable, but it really isn’t.  Because such organizations really have infiltrated governments and multinational corporations at high levels, influencing their behavior in ways that affect millions of people.  In the Cold War, for instance, some of the best spies were beautiful women, who used their sex appeal to gain access to privileged information in the context of industrial espionage.  Or on a pettier level, perhaps the pretty girl with big boobs gets promoted over the uglier guy who does a better job, either because she is sleeping with the boss, or maybe he just likes looking at her better.  Hence, often times, when an irrational decision is made by a stakeholder or even a governing body, it is often speculated that, in order to make such an unlikely thing happen, ‘somebody must have fucked somebody’.

Now, because these kinds of sex cults are often secret and exclusionary, herein lies the exploitation of the ‘Average Frustrated Chump’.  He doesn’t know why he isn’t getting laid, or why other people seem to miraculously have better job opportunities than him.  His existence is lonely and without help from anyone.  Meanwhile, his co-workers, bosses, police, and perhaps even legislative representatives are all in a gang-bang behind his back, and using their socio-sexual alliance to oppress and exploit him in workplace, social, and democratic contexts.  Resources, opportunities, and systemic influence is stolen from this hapless outsider by sex cults, and he often never even realizes why.

Because sex is considered taboo, these organizations say that their secrecy is necessary to avoid persecution, but in reality, the secrecy of these organizations is all about rule from the shadows, and exploitation by subterfuge.  Not only is the Average Frustrated Chump kept in the dark to these organizations, but he is secretly slandered by them, his sexual, social, and even professional value discounted by their false consensus and defamatory propaganda.  As the old adage goes, “Democrats lie together.”  And to themselves as well.  The first step in blaming the victim is refusing to acknowledge that your behavior victimizes other people.  Because the Average Frustrated Chump is deliberately alienated by society, he is less productive, and then he is blamed by that same society for this.

But these kinds of sexually-based social power structures can even be oppressive or exploitative of their membership, because they are almost always hierarchical.  In any sex gang, there are the people who have the most money, are the most beautiful, or the most ‘fresh’, and these people are often given preferential treatment over lower-ranking members of the group.  So, not only is the person left out of the group exploited by a gang that takes any available resources and opportunities for itself above outsiders, and has a high ability to do so, but the lower-ranking members are also exploited, often made to ‘make their bones’ by turning tricks for the gang.

A person of wealth, means, beauty or power is often courted by these groups, who use such an individual for their own purposes, without even revealing to this mark the existence of the over-arching sexual organization.  Which is really sick when you think about it.  A man’s money and power often make him a target of these kinds of organizations, who send their agents to mess with him, under the pretense of genuine romantic relationships.

On a more street level, organized crime often uses prostitution rings to protect drug rackets.  If a member of a drug ring is busted by police, he can often ‘take care’ of the charges against him by bribing the cop with sexual graft, if he has prostitutes under his command.  It’s not illegal to get the cops laid, cops need love, too, right?  This is why strip clubs are so often used as money-laundering and cop-appeasing facets of drug cartel type organizations.  The women who work there are on drugs such as methamphetamine or ecstasy, which drive them to promiscuous behavior, and then that promiscuous behavior is used to coerce and bribe police and financial institutions.

Now, there are many who will make the argument that polyamory is perfectly ethical.  I am not one of those.  Besides the social and emotional baggage it creates, I’ve simply seen prostitution used to corrupt far too many institutions, both public and private, and the cost is often human decency.  Cry as they might for ‘social justice’, sexual deviants are often a major source of political and financial corruption, and this is why sex in politics and business is so frowned upon.

Sex as a means of cultivating privilege at the expense of others, or dominance over others, is a perversion of human decency.  Sex should be an expression of love and affection, not power or control.  This is why monogamy is still the most ethical of sexual practices.