Tag Archives: anarchism

You’re wrong about the working class, I hope they kick your Berkeley ass


Imagine a classroom in Soviet Russia. Or Cultural Revolution China. Or perhaps Castro’s Cuba…  Students mirroring similar dogma at eachother, monolithicly. No arguments. It all seems very civilized, until you realize that this false consensus is the direct result of dissenters being shot, or confined to a Gulag.


But here in our insulated, idealist country, we think of that as some far away tragedy of history. It could never happen in the good old US of A…  right?


Well, unfortunately, because of recent riots at Berkeley, we can’t really say that anymore. Now, a lot of those involved or allied will say that, because this action was undertaken by a ‘rebel faction’, and not an established power, it’s actually a righteous insurrection, rather than authoritarian oppression. But given the fact that these are the children of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Microsoft, many of whom are ‘Trustifarians’, their proletarian cred is highly suspect. If you can afford to live and go to school in that area of the country, you probably do not come from a poor background.

Whatever happened to ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?

And let me be clear: I don’t like Milo. I don’t like Trump. I don’t like Ann Coulter. I’m not defending the Nazi-looking guy who punched Moldylocks. I’m no Randroid. In my 20’s, I was a libertarian pot dealer who, confronted with classism in college, started reading Chomsky, and eventually started calling myself ‘libertarian socialist’. I voted for Obama and Hillary. I don’t complain when I pay my taxes. I know that life deals some a bad hand, and as a relatively privileged person, I want to help, to the extent that I comfortably can.

On the other hand, every time I have tried to network with socialists and ‘left anarchists’, what I have found is that their communities are hypocritically dependent upon censorship. It’s necessary to maintain the echo chamber. From liberals blocking dissenters on Facebook to ban-happy Reddit forum moderators, it seems as though censorship, often enforced through violence, is a load-bearing pillar of any socialist movement, whether in China or America.


But what these rich brats throwing fits don’t seem to realize is: there is no difference between China censoring the internet and the moderators of r/socialism banning people who bring up white poverty or male vs female conviction/incarceration rates. And have you checked out r/anarchism recently? It very much resembles the aforementioned communist classroom, with the mirrored dogma, monolithic ideology, primitive tribal circles, and the ban-hammer enforced false consensus. r/LibertarianSocialism has gotten so hypocritically left-authoritarian, I’ve actually started calling myself ‘centrist anti-authoritarian’, just to distinguish myself from both the SJWs AND the ‘alt-right’.

I myself have been banned from these forums, simply for attempting to challenge these brainwashed minions’ postulates with logic, facts, and reason, and have been forced to spectate while such absurdities as ‘Capitalism, not socialism, is Venezuela’s problem’, is passed off as indisputable fact. I can’t help but think that, just like comments-disabled blogs, this community has been engineered to feed into confirmation bias. On the other hand, if you go into r/libertarian and start talking about the exploitation of the working class by business owners, or ridiculous CEO pay, you might get ridiculed, but they won’t ban you.

How ironic is it that George W Bush’s words have become the same words of ‘liberal anarchists?’ Antifa revisionists don’t want you to remember these speeches:

I mean, seriously, I remember there being speakers at my college I wasn’t interested in or didn’t agree with. I didn’t protest them. I just didn’t attend. If it had really bothered me that bad, I would have just changed schools. Let me tell you this: If I were an affluent parent, I certainly wouldn’t send my kids to Berkeley. I’d send them to a school where they could learn something useful, like engineering, computer programming, or molecular biology, not ‘how to bitch like a crybaby when you don’t get exactly what you want out of life’. Are the administrators of Berkeley so nostalgic for their misspent youth in the 60’s that they are actually encouraging this behavior?

The dead canary in the socialist mine, for me, was liberal reddit discussion groups. It’s so easy to get banned from them for saying anything even slightly out-of-narrative. And then, unless you make a new account, you are forced to spectate, while they ask stupid questions of each other like ‘Why do the middle class hate the lower class?’ with the official answer, parroted by everyone ‘Because they are conditioned to.’ When asked ‘by whom?’ They will say ‘The upper class’, but if you ask me, these fucking Berkely Trustifarians ARE the upper class of their generation.Of course, I could explain to them ‘The middle class hates both the upper AND lower class, because they perceive both to be over-privileged loafers, sponging off of middle-class labor (not only that, but many working class people are content not to hate ANYONE, in fact my working-class Christian Republican family is quite active in philanthropy)’, but if I said that, my new account would get banned.

What I’ve found is that, an overwhelming biomass of young, naive idealists seems idyllic, but there will always be some Hitler-esque social politicians who will take advantage, saying ‘I’m against those things everyone hates. Vote for me.’ then when they are empowered by the community, they scapegoat some unpopular person or group for all of society’s ills, putting them in a subordinate social class. Virtue-signaling will always be used for social misdirection in a naive, idealistic college-liberal town.

This ostracism is methodical and deliberate, and meant to socially disenfranchise the political opposition. It’s the palpable liberal bias that demonizes financial capital (which I totally understand), but looks the other way on the abuses of social capital by unwashed proles. While they acknowledge the the abuse by the financial establishment, and to a lesser extent the state establishment, they refuse to acknowledge the abuses of the SOCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. They are willfully oblivious to the concept of social capital. And that’s why they are called ‘liberal regressives’, ie, liberals who claim to be progressive, but are actually an impediment to progress, burdening everything with bureaucratic drag. I’m telling you, I’m working class, been working my ass off for the past 20 years, and have even endured government persecution for cultivating entheogens, but as a middle-aged white male, all these people have ever done for me is get in my way, accuse me of being over-privileged, and attempt to stick me with their bills.

Rest assured, if these kids were a rebel faction in Africa, they would be classified as hardline communists, a threat to mineral rights investments, and unceremoniously bombed…  But because they are Americans, they get their right to free speech, even though they deny that same right to others…  Much like the racists on the right, they expect tolerance towards themselves, but refuse to tolerate others. And these crazies are right in my neighborhood, too!  It’s like I’m caught in a gang war, and I don’t want to be mistaken for either side.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to start dressing like a bumblebee and jocking bitcoin, but my point is that it seems to me as that ‘anarcho-communism’ is plain-old COMMUNISM, just as much as ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is plain old CAPITALISM. 50 years ago, anarchism was not thought of as communist or capitalist. It was acknowledged that capitalism requires an authoritarian state to guard the haves from the have-nots, just as communism requires an authoritarian state to quash political dissent. And both hypocritical sides are still doing those things today, but now they have the audacity to brand themselves as ‘anarchist’ while doing it. It’s disgusting!


There has never been a kick-ass punk band named ‘Black and Red Flag’ or ‘Black and Yellow Flag’. It’s just BLACK FLAG. And speaking of punk, here’s a song that I think perfectly sums up this whole stupid conflict:

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 isolate 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’.


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.

‘Safe Space’ is the antithesis of liberal anarchism

The censorship policies of political forums are a bit like those of casinos and private video gaming servers. Some users are banned because they don’t abide by the rules, but the majority of those who are banned, are banned because they cannot be defeated, and no one wants to attempt to contend with them. I feel that most political forums, for instance, /r/anarchism need to post some kind of disclaimer along these lines:

‘These are the forum postulates and biases. If you go against or even question those postulates for a split-second, no matter how right you are in doing so, you will be banned. This is the place where we have all gathered to be wrong together in a specific way. No one is going to appreciate how objectively or scientifically right you are here. Basically, we’ve all drank this certain kind of Kool-Aid, and unless you drink that Kool-Aid as well, you’ll never really be a part of this forum.’


At my age, I wouldn’t have a problem drinking the Kool-Aid, if it were fun special Kool-Aid like they used to make us drink in the commie pinko sex cults of the newly-minted millennium. But postmodern liberal Kool-Aid is nowhere near that fun. These aren’t LSD/MDMA, free expression, good, good lovin’ hippies. These are politically correct, vegetarian, yoga self-deprivation hippies, and their Kool-Aid not only isn’t fun, it doesn’t even physically exist, because Kool-Aid contains refined sugar. Now it’s a metaphorical Kool-Aid, often expressed through interpretive dance, and it’s laced with censorship, repression, political revisionism, material starvation, and outright totalitarianism. And I’ve already drank too much. It’s making me want to puke all over the people who shoved it down my throat.

I don’t have a problem with people who deprive themselves, other than concern for their well-being, my main problem is with people who project that onto others via being judgmental. And there are liberal who are just as judgmental as any conservative. I have an ultra-conservative grandma who thinks refined sugar is the devil, and she would fit right into some of the hippie communes I’ve encountered… It’s funny how much some liberal hippies have in common with Granbo and the Morality Squad…

Watching a hippie meditate, I am reminded of someone in prayer. Through willful ignorance, tuning the mind to an escapist oblivion, she insulates herself from the world, and the consequences of her own actions. “We can’t help some people,” says the church lady, “But we can pray for them.” Why not do something useful, beyond ‘creating an intention’? You are no more help to the world than the average church-goer, and just as judgmental.

I remember I had this crazy friend in Dallas who always wanted to join a commune. One of those self-sustaining places, where they grow their own food and everyone shared everything. And he joined several. He told me he was drugged, and most of them were trying to brainwash him. “But those were the drugs I liked, and they were giving me free doses,” he said, “So I just played along with whatever they were saying, and enjoyed the ride.” He would eventually get kicked out for not being a true believer, and move onto the next community.

Most of those compounds were some kind of cult, usually designed to get the leadership laid and rich. And there are plenty of such groups in the cities as well, with more urban implications. Being exploited by a sex cult means that some underground society is sending its agents to have these contrived relationships with you, and you think they are real, but it’s really just some secret society fucking with you. I hate those kinds of organizations, and I regret any unknowing dealings I may have had with them, in the past, dealings which had more to do with drugs than sex.

It is clear that some liberals’ definition of the term ‘anarchist’ is the one that crystallized within the past 10 years. The word has meant different things in different eras. Thus, you cannot say my writing is ‘not anarchist’, you can only say that it wouldn’t be considered anarchist by the standards of what that word has recently come to mean, via Orwellian liberal revisionism.  But a false consensus enforced by a peer group is no different than one enforced by the State. Words mean different things to different people. A bunch of like-minded people could and have effectively changed the meaning of a word. But if you ask me, most of the so-called ‘anarchists’ of the post-millenium era are actually very typical liberal Democrats, who have re-branded themselves as ‘anarchist’ both for the sake of the mass appeal of an edgy image, and to take the word away from less partisan, unbiased centrist anarchists.

What’s even more hypocritical is that these detractors from anarchist tradition probably will or have at some point in their lives, given a lecture about ‘cultural misappropriation’, even as they have stolen their own self-applied label from a pre-existing cause, and then tried to imply that those who came before them are ‘posers’.  And these are the kind of ignorant, self-entitled, college age ‘anarchists’ who have come up with the idea of the ‘Safe Space’.

This is what writers for the New York Times think about Safe Spaces. And I agree with them, for the most part. Allow me to quote from this article in my own, and respond to it piecemeal.

“…the university would hold a simultaneous, competing talk to provide ‘research and facts’ about ‘the role of culture in sexual assault.’ Meanwhile, student volunteers put up posters advertising that a ‘safe space’ would be available for anyone who found the debate too upsetting. The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments ‘troubling’ or ‘triggering’, a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and ‘sexual assault peer educator’ who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space.

‘I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs’, Ms. Hall said. Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being ‘bombarded’ by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material. Some people trace safe spaces back to the feminist consciousness-raising groups of the 1960s and 1970s, others to the gay and lesbian movement of the early 1990s. In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term ‘microaggressions’ — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea…

It’s ridiculous to say that the whole world, or any space that can properly be called ‘public’ should be just as comfortable to you as your living room, simply because the world is so diverse, and populated by people with conflicting interests. In addition, expectations of public safety should only entail safety from violence and resource starvation, not safety from social scrutiny or potentially offensive ideas, art, politics, ‘verbal assaults’, etc.  If the idea of a simultaneously ‘free’ AND ‘equal’ space is hard to fathom, adding ‘safety’ (from emotional harm, especially) to that list of demands of public space, seems quite unrealistically idealistic.  I think SafeR Spaces might be a good idea, or making things safeR… but total safety is something which can never be guaranteed in a material world, and trying to create it entails sacrifices to liberty that many people aren’t willing to make.

We all know the Ben Franklin quote about liberty and safety (or ‘security’, as it were). You are not safe anywhere. A nuclear bomb could fall out of the sky and kill you and all your friends at any moment, a fact which, if you had been in school during the Cold War, would have been drilled into your head by the public education system. In a more mundane way, you could get hit by a car or a natural disaster. Someone could be upset with you over a trivial personal matter and start a fight with you. You could get caught in the crossfire of a street gang war.  You could trip over your own shoelaces and break your neck!  No one can provide you with universal safety, from the environment, from others, or from your own incompetence, and even if they could, they could just as easily take it away for capricious, petty, whimsical, or arbitrary reasons.  This is the main reason I believe in martial arts training and the second amendment, both of which I feel empower me to protect myself, so I won’t be dependent upon safety provided to me by others.

Everyone should have a private home with art that they chose on the walls, music they like playing in the background, and no people they find offensive.  Some people don’t have this, even in a country with abundant vacant housing.  That travesty, to me, is a huge concern.  Why doesn’t everyone have a private space that is safe and personally tailored to them?  Maybe we need to focus on ending homelessness and establishing a guaranteed minimum income before we, as people privileged enough to have private residences, start whining about how the whole world isn’t as plush as a 9 year old little girl’s bedroom, complete with candy, puppies, personal trainers, and free Starbucks Coffee.  

Rather than being offended by what’s going on in public, I’m frequently offended by what goes on behind my back, in private.  But what I find most offensive, is that some people don’t have a safe home of their own.  Some people don’t have food that is safe to eat.  Some people don’t have a decent job or enough money.  Some people don’t have a doctor.  Some people don’t have an education.  Some people think they have an education, but they’ve really been brainwashed one way or another.  And the brainwashed are voting against my sane perspective in record numbers.  All of that is a lot more offensive to me than some lunatic waving a picket sign, or giving a speech in a college, or on the internet.

One would hope that Reddit mods would understand this, since one of the founders of Reddit committed suicide over censorship and totalitarian state harassment, but the moderators of many political forums DON’T seem to understand at all that, just like in Iran, censorship does not prevent violence, censorship PROVOKES violence.  If people are not allowed to express themselves verbally and artistically, they will often express themselves violently.   Though many mods argue that there are specific places for specific opinions, this is akin to the Free Speech Zones liberals hated so much when George W Bush imposed them on the people who demonstrated against HIM.  And also, they are still banning people from very general forums just for taking an unpopular or disestablished side of a very legitimate polarized ideological conflict.

And how could the internet ever possibly be considered ‘unsafe’?  It is literally a bunch of squiggly lines on a screen.  A screen you can turn off and go outside anytime you want.  That person on the other side of the world who has offended you so badly, probably doesn’t have the ability to transmit his fist through the telephone wires, and punch you in the face through your own monitor.  So it’s not that bad.  It’s all in your head.  If ANY place should be safe to have a no-holds-barred discussion about ANY topic, it should be the internet, if only because discussion participants are so physically far-removed from eachother that it PREVENTS violence over mere words.   I work at an internet hosting company, and we help anyone host anything, from pornography to incendiary politics of all flavors.  The internet is the last free press, and should remain so.

Today, I’m writing a bug report against the Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox spell-check dictionary, which does not include the words ‘misandry, masculist, or masculism’, thus making these words appear to be illegitimate when typing them into a web browser. The fact that such major communications companies would conspire to slip such terms down the memory hole is abhorrent corporate policy, reflects a palpable liberal bias, intellectually discredits the feminist cause by way of hypocrisy, and it needs to be addressed immediately. They can delete these words from the dictionary, but not from our minds.

The other point this article makes, and a point I’ve made many times in the past as well, is that when people are surrounded by nothing but the coddlingly supportive their whole lives, it leaves them unable to face contention, think for themselves, or defend their opinions. So, whatever college cloisters these young minds from, they will eventually be unable to contend with in the real world.

“…This new bureaucracy may be exacerbating students’ ‘self-infantilization’, as Judith Shapiro, the former president of Barnard College, suggested in an essay for Inside Higher Ed. But why are students so eager to self-infantilize? Their parents should probably share the blame. Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote on Slate last month that although universities cosset students more than they used to, that’s what they have to do, because today’s undergraduates are more puerile than their predecessors. ‘Perhaps over-programmed children engineered to the specifications of college admissions offices no longer experience the risks and challenges that breed maturity…’

The concept of ‘self-infantilization’ is something I thought of a long time ago when I said that over-privileged suburban kids tend to have an ‘extended adolescence’ that lasts well into their 20’s and sometimes 30’s. Also, ‘self-indoctrination’ (‘I’m not going to watch/read/listen to that because it might offend me’) is quite common among such spoiled and sheltered people. And those people who refuse to imbibe certain media will still criticize it, even though they have never given it a chance. So they aren’t just indoctrinating themselves, but others as well. They are literally accusing people of being closed-minded for listening to Slayer or reading Mein Kampf, when they themselves are guilty of being so closed-minded, they have never even studied these kinds of offensive media in a detached and scientific, aesthetic, ironic, satirical, or historical way. I personally love to listen to people I disagree with, because it helps me understand them, and sometimes they even change my opinion!  Wow, what a concept.  I was born a pretty typical, middle-class straight white cisgender male Gnostic Christian who has read and continues to read a diverse array of literature, such as the Satanic Bible, Asian, Yiddish, and Hindu Mysticism, many books on the occult, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Noam Chomsky, PJ O’Rourke, Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, and several books on evolution, psychology, neuroscience, and astrophysics.  And I enjoyed most of it, and incorporated quite a bit of this education into my personal worldview!

So many people define ‘open-mindedness’ as: ‘willing to live in persistent delusions’ rather than ‘willing to listen to and incorporate the perspectives of everyone into their own worldview’. Most people become hostile when their delusions are challenged by the sane, and that’s what ‘safe space’ policies are all about: institutionalizing reactionary liberal politics and biases. The fact that so-called ‘anarchists’ would embrace such prohibitive rhetoric is really disgusting, because it’s everything a real anarchist hates.

“But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer. This logic clearly informed a campaign undertaken this fall by a Columbia University student group called Everyone Allied Against Homophobia that consisted of slipping a flier under the door of every dorm room on campus. The headline of the flier stated, ‘I want this space to be a safer space.’ The text below instructed students to tape the fliers to their windows. The group’s vice president then had the flier published in the Columbia Daily Spectator, the student newspaper, along with an editorial asserting that ‘making spaces safer is about learning how to be kind to each other.’

What’s really fucked up about this is, if you read the article, they talk about not just wanting to make public spaces ‘safe’ (for everyone of a certain bias), but also trying to make private bedrooms ‘safe’ in this exact same way. And people were actually volunteering for this! This gets into that Family Guy show where the FCC was censoring reality, going into Peter Griffin’s shower and putting a real-life black bar over his junk.  This is one step removed from making ALL spaces public, and completely eliminating the concept of privacy altogether.Family_Guy_FCC_PeterAnd given that there are seriously some lesbians who honestly think that all hetereosexual intercourse is rape, and they will likely be on whatever committee that decides the standards for ‘private bedroom safety’, do you really want that to happen? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this horrible idea.  Homosexuals, feminists, and transgenders already exert enough social influence over my sex life (or lack thereof) as a heterosexual male, and I don’t really want them in my bedroom, nor do I feel that polyamorists and homosexuals are qualified to comment on the dynamics of a monogamous, committed heterosexual relationship, nor do I feel qualified to comment on THEIR personal relationships!  Because, as someone firmly of the monogamous, hetero persuasion, I really have no idea how transgenderism, homosexuality, and polyamorism work.

Last fall, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, apologized for causing students and faculty to be ‘hurt’ when she failed to object to a racial epithet uttered by a fellow panel member at an alumnae event in New York. The offender was the free-speech advocate Wendy Kaminer, who had been arguing against the use of the euphemism ‘the n-word’ when teaching American history or ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.’  ‘It’s amazing to me that they can’t distinguish between racist speech and speech about racist speech, between racism and discussions of racism,’ Ms. Kaminer said in an email.

Feminists and other special interests will always try to make ‘Safe Space’ about race or gender.  But it isn’t always about that!  It can be purely political as well. You can go into a socialist chat room and say that liberals use mass media and the power of groups to oppress and exploit the individual. You can go into a capitalist forum and say that the wealthy use the means of production to exploit the working class. Both of these groups will claim to be your victim, traumatized by mere words, and they will request you be banned, mostly so they don’t have to compete with arguments that far outstrip their own.  And in doing so, both parties are only proving you right.   

They say this ‘Safe Space’ crap is all about public (and increasingly private) safety, and avoiding ‘life-long repercussions’ of the ‘trauma’ of being publicly made a fool of in debate, but in reality, this is just a cheap tactic to protect themselves from debates they cannot possibly win, because their ridiculous ideologies are castles in the sky, with no basis in objective reality. You could have a whole corporate board room full of people married to an idea, or trying to sell an idea, and you could go in there and say that their idea violates the laws of physics, business, ethics, or whatever, is basically impossible, and rather than thank you for your perspective, and being the only one brave and honest enough to go against the groupthink, and telling them not to waste any more time or money speculating about the impossible, they will instead call you a ‘hater’ or ‘not a team player’, claim to be the victim of your trauma-inducing speech, and throw you out.  Years later, when they have lost all their money and stature to the bad idea you tried to warn them away from, they will still hate you for saying, ‘I told you so.’

Some say that these ‘free speech’ and ‘liberal control over public opinion through censorship, revisionism, and mass-media’ arguments are the bastion of racists, homophobes, and sexists, and in a way, they often can be, but there are many political, social, and business situations where dissenting opinion and lone wolfism are key to avoiding the pitfalls of committee thinking, and providing the kinds of quality assurance that turns sketch-pad designs into solid, finished products.  Which is exactly why total inclusion into free speech, knowing and accepting that there will be conflicts between those of differing values and priorities, is such an important cornerstone of American society.black_defends_kkkThere is a reason the KKK likes me, even though I don’t much agree with or care for them. It’s because I would stand in between them, and anyone who tried to stop them from peacefully expressing their message, even though I find it incorrigibly offensive.  Just like this black lady did! I also understand a lot of the kinds of negative life experience that drive people to those kinds of associations, and have pulled quite a few people out of them.  In order to do that though, you have to be non-judgmental about swastika tattoos acquired in prison and stuff like that, and realize these people are redeemable.  That’s how you convert prejudiced people to more liberal ways of thinking instead of judging them and driving them to the other side: you understand them, take compassion on them, and forgive them, which is something rarely done for them by social liberals, who would rather shun them, thus ensuring that they stay on the other side.american_history_x_1998_5Maybe I shouldn’t talk about racial issues, but I feel in middle age I have to, after years of youthful optimism and sacrifice for special interest agendas, explain why I have internally backed off to a more centrist position on the matter. You see, liberal philosophy doesn’t allow white people to ever assume that we aren’t racist. We are supposed to acknowledge that all white people are inherently racist, without admitting that people of all races can or may not be racist, because then that devolves into the assumption of race war, which is seen as a tenet of more conservative ideologies. This internalization of general prejudice is supposed to evoke within white people a drive to overcompensate for our supposed racism by specially treating other races, which is both racist itself, and patronizing to those we treat this way. There is only so much good one can do for others in this way.

Public admission of one’s own inherent or life experientially-derived prejudice is never met with a positive reaction, even though it’s what we are supposed to, as good liberals, do. But in modern society, no one helps a person who admits he or she has such a problem, instead, those who are honest with themselves and others about their personal racial issues are often ostracized and looked down upon, instead of enabled to change for the better. So this creates repression, false standards, and divergent mental states.

I think growing up partially in the ghetto and spending my formative years amongst people of many races, it helped me avoid subconscious racism by exposing me to other races and cultures from a young age, so from that experience, I learned that such people are extremely similar to myself, and I need not fear them, a truth to which many sheltered suburban kids are blinded by a cloistered upbringing. Anyway, in the neighborhood I grew up in, over-privileged white people were the biggest trouble makers, because many of them went there to deliberately act the fool, whereas the poor of all races were just sort of stuck there.

But really it’s another lose-lose catch-22. If you don’t admit to prejudice or bias, you are said to be in denial. If you do admit to prejudice or bias, even if you have expressed a commitment to changing for the better, your admission will still reflect negatively upon you.  I suppose the best thing to say is that one has committed oneself to non-racism and non-sexism, even while acknowledging that the imperfections in human nature may not allows us to be perfect in achieving this goal.  But that can be a very difficult thing for an idealist to acknowledge, though. For someone to begin life with the assumption of non-racism, to then, in midlife, take a good, hard look at oneself, and admit, ‘Crap, I have been racist and maybe I still am a bit racist, or maybe I became racist in recent years…’ That’s really depressing for someone who has always thought of oneself as perfect in their disposition and without bias of any kind. Hence, I think, the emotional repression and denialism. 

What living in a repressed society teaches you is, ‘if you have issues, don’t talk about them’, because the people willing to admit they have issues, and talk to others to work on them, are ostracized, and the people who deliberately conceal their issues get to indulge them. My ex and I were once conversing about Chappelle’s show, and why it went off the air. I had always been a huge fan of the show, its creators and stars, and was very sad to see it go. My ex was of the opinion that Chappelle set out to start a racial dialogue, and was eventually horrified by what came out of it. This caused a crisis in his social conscience, even though the show was well-loved by most.  My experience is that when white people try to do what Chappelle did, they fall flat on their faces and end up looking terrible.

Also, I remember once watching an episode of King of the Hill with my friend and his Dad. Background on me and my friend, is that we were both long-haired liberals at the time, who appreciated the show for entirely different reasons than my friend’s Dad. While he was empathizing with Hank Hill as a fellow redneck, my friend and I as college liberals were laughing at Hank Hill. So while many people who watch that show are laughing at Hank Hill’s expense, many are laughing with him at the situations that modern society puts a lower-middle class, somewhat uneducated white male through.

While both of these popular television programs could sometimes be classified as sexually or racially offensive, I reiterate that everything is offensive to someone, I mean, we all have different perspectives, so who am I or anyone to say that certain speech oughtta be prohibited just because it is unpopular, or I don’t personally like it?  Free speech is a key principle this country was based on, and I’ll stick to the principles even if I don’t agree with all the ramifications.

And if Nazi rhetoric is a trauma trigger for some people, if masculist rhetoric is a trauma trigger for some people, than why would you refuse to acknowledge that feminist rhetoric, which often recalls the words of everyone’s cheating ex-girlfriend, can also cause some people to be re-traumatized?  Another thing I’ve noticed is that women, as part of the liberal special interest kabal, seem to get a free pass on racism. I know women who have, either subtly in their behavior, or outright in sincere speech, expressed racism, and yet no one called them out for it. It seems like the most highly scrutinized for racism are white males. Which is perhaps why I myself can be a bit self-conscious about it at times, whether this is necessary and productive, or not. Maybe the KKK is offended by the Black Panthers.

Maybe I find this aggressively vitriolic feminist to be obnoxious:

But we all have to tolerate eachother, anyway! Merry Pranksters, SDS, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, feminists, sexual deviants, etc… all of their demonstrations used to be deemed ‘offensive’ by the mainstream, in fact they were intended to be so. Now, those same forces are saying that they have the right to not be offended in public spaces.  For a bunch of special interests groups who themselves came to political power and social prominence via public demonstration, to then turn around and try to use that social capital and systemic influence to say that all the people with whom they disagree should be prohibited from demonstration, is ridiculously hypocritical.  In fact, it’s not just hypocritical, it’s despotic.  As in, the tactic of a dictator: take power via a certain means, whether military, financial, propaganda, or all three, then deny those means to anyone who might dethrone you.  

Finally, what really bothers me is that these so-called ‘Safe Spaces’ are likely to be administrated by certain kinds of people (such as: women, gays, transgenders, other races, other cultures, other social and economic classes) who tend to be biased against ME, as a straight white male.  Because it is falsely assumed, via liberal bias and common stereotype, that I am over-privileged, I am often the target of these people, who rationalize lying to, cheating on, and stealing from me, via some kind of vague, pseudo-revolutionary revenge against ‘the system’.  I am not, nor have I ever been, any more a part of this system than they are, am far removed from any benefit of it, and have been just as oppressed by it.  But because I am white, Christian, and male, I get put in this fascist, elitist box by people who know almost nothing about me or my background, as the product of a suburban Baby Boomer couple’s divorce, who grew up with a single mom in the ghetto.

Of course, when people naturally assume you’ve been over-privileged your whole life, either via their own biases, or their belief in outright lies told by your enemies, then they take for granted that you’ve always had a Safe Space, and always will. It never occurs to them that you’ve never been safe in your whole life, and safety, security, stability, and comfort are things that they themselves know far more about than you.  By assuming and propagating that you are an over-privileged white male, they continually keep you under-privileged relative to themselves.


Some liberals will take a random white male, and imply that he has this long list of privileges, all of which which rarely apply to the random white male, even if some of them do apply to the average one.  For instance, I don’t think of being monogamous as a privilege at all. I feel like I have been made by society to suffer for my monogamous tendencies most of my life. Also, being attractive is just as likely to draw hate and exploitation as it is to draw love. The middle class gets screwed by the upper and the lower, so I don’t see the privilege there either. Neurotypical privilege I most certainly don’t have, as a manic depressive.

Now, I like to believe that most people in this day and age, even Texans, are not ideologically racist.  But pragmatically, how do people of different cultures share the same resources without conflict?  American society, I have found, is culture clash plus a class war.  I want to turn this pond into a park, but someone else wants to make it a bath house.  I want to marry a beautiful woman, but the community wants to turn her out, cut her into little pieces so that everyone gets a slice.  And so we wage wars against eachother, using systemic, economic, and social powers to do so.  And yet so-called ‘socialists’, who say they don’t acknowledge class or are blind to it, are often in denial of the class war.  Just like ‘color-blind’ people are often ignorant of racial conflicts.

I have also noticed that those who are so anal about safety and making everything safe, tend to live inherently insecure or unsafe lifestyles that they demand society accommodate.  Kind of like the woman who is obsessive about cleaning, because she herself is not clean.

I have always referred to myself as a ‘libertarian socialist’, in polite circles anyway, because it is a polite way of saying ‘left-anarchist’, ‘anarcho-socialist’, or ‘anti-authoritarian’. The problem is that I also consider sexual graft and deception to be forms of ‘force’. So that puts me off with most traditional left-anarchists, who consider it their right to lie, cheat, and steal, by virtue of ‘revenge against the system’, not realizing that they are no different from the privileged class who consider it their *inherent* right to lie, cheat, and steal. Now, many liberal anarchists will use the doctrine of ‘free association’ to rationalize promiscuity, but that’s mostly because they are willfully oblivious to the social privilege that promiscuity creates, and how that privilege can be oppressive to or exploitative of the other people around them.  These are painful lessons I learned from the aforementioned commie pinko sex cults of yore, which I have long since renounced, because they exploited me, excluded me, teased me, and stole my opportunities in college.  Also, I’ve never met a polyamorous person who was completely honest. As far as I can tell, polyamory is unethical in all but the most ideal of circumstances.  

And for all their talk of free association, r/anarchism’s carte blanc ostricization of and bias against TRPers and MRA’s is a flagrant violation of the principles of free association.  The mere act of communicating with the opposition does not necessarily entail alliance with them.  I don’t necessarily agree with all the stuff posted in TRP or MRA. These are lines of communication I keep open as much to be contrarian towards them as to agree with them. Also, all leftists use mass media to warp public opinion from the truth. Whether it’s something as grand as Hollywood mainstream propagandists, as pervasive as TV news networks and yellow print journalists, click-baiting internet news sites, as petty as the shit-talking, rumor-spreading misinformationist down the way, or as frustrating as the internet forum moderator who bans people she doesn’t agree with, whose arguments she lacks the verbiage to defeat. So that’s my problems with the left.  Of course, people on the right use mass media to manipulate others as well, mostly in the form of advertising and organized religion, neither of which I am a huge fan at all.

I don’t need yet another lecture from a 22-year-old Californian who identifies as ‘anarchist’, but is actually a typical liberal Democrat, about how Anarcho-Capitalism is fascist bullshit.  I figured that out a long time ago, because I live in Texas, which is a reptile pit full of those exploitative, oppressive, prejudiced, victim-blaming assholes.  Conservative libertarians are the most obnoxious hypocrites in the world. They cause the problems of others, then blame others for their problems. They set up rigged business, social, and political competitions, then when you beat them anyway, they say, “You ruined my business, asshole. You may have won the battle, but you won’t win the war. I’ll see to it you never work in this town again.”  They use the government as a shield or a safety net, then blame the government for everything. Not only have businessmen turned the art of manipulative marketing and swindling, making people feel like crap without buying their defective, over-priced product, you go to any business school and they will teach you that by virtue of having capital and being friendly with the establishment, you have the right to rip people off. Through employment, usury, contracts, lawyers, etc… Most business involves lying, taking advantage of differences in value systems, etc, to a point that it has become a science that is studied.

On the other hand, communists are social and political liars, with a sense of entitlement equal to that of most conservatives.  Either way, you have people who rationalize lying, cheating and stealing because it’s what the other side does, and they have to compete somehow with the ‘other side’. But these people are so similar, I don’t see it as two sides anymore. Two sides of the same bad penny, perhaps. In my experience, the ones who complain that your speech has incurred emotional distress on their part, are the same people who deliberately, materially starve out anyone they don’t agree with. Pettily, these people will use their social capital to starve you over politics, like Stalin starved the Jews.

And in starving the contrarian, these liberal Democrats posing as anarchists will style themselves Rosa Parks for boycotting (or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it ‘girlcotting’) you.  The obvious difference being that when Rosa Parks and her friends boycotted the bus system, they were fighting the establishment, but when the group does this to an individual, they ARE the social establishment.  So it’s like saying Stalin was using ‘non-violent resistance’ when he refused to feed millions of people.  Remember that it will always be easier and more appealing for happy fascists to eliminate people they deem ‘negative’ than for them to eliminate the negativity FROM people, thus redeeming them, instead of turning them into enemies.  Most of these so called ‘liberal anarchists’ wouldn’t shy away from using guns to enforce their biased idea of social justice, as long as that gun wore the auspice of a government that is completely under their control and shares their particular bias.

Then they talk all this shit about tolerance. Tolerance means allowing people to live and prosper even while there are expressed disagreements between yourselves and them. Then they say you are repressed. But they are the ones who are repressing their honest opinions and valid emotions, and attempting to suppress yours! Then they say you are closed-minded. But your mind is open to all sides of a conflict, and their minds only seem to move in the one direction permitted by their social alliances and democratic group-think principles.  These are the same people who will PC Witch-Hunt you for being affiliated with other groups they don’t like, such as MRA’s, NRA’s, anti-Zionists, etc…  And ban you from their forum on the mere basis of your past or current communication with those they see as ‘the opposition’.

Though I have written for the MRA cause in the past, I have tried to get away from focusing strictly on MRA stuff because there is so much more to life.  I would say about 10% of the shit I write on the internet is MRA, and I only started writing it after being screwed over by a bunch of girls.  However, my MRA writing gets 90% of all the attention, and most people refuse to acknowledge that I have written about any other topic. It doesn’t matter much anyway, as I have just about said everything I have to say on the topic. Other MRA’s are already starting to copy my arguments and that was my intention the whole time.  I have so much more to contribute to the world, in fact, if the shitty liberals and conservatives of this state were ever to let me have a decent lifestyle, I would be writing about completely different topics besides politics.

It’s one of those things where people say, “You are obsessed with _____.” When in reality, ______ has only taken up a small fraction of my time and public personae. So I am forced to reflect that accusation. “Maybe YOU are obsessed with _______, because it’s the only topic about which I have written that you continually focus upon, gleefully ignoring every other topic I have written about.” Seriously, do you think people approach me in public or even on the internet and say, “Let’s have a conversation about guitars, or punk rock, or metal, or computers, or classic Japanese sportscars, or ANYTHING ELSE I have written about on the internet?”  Most of the time, no. They want to discuss sexual politics, especially the women, because they are obsessed. Because creating social power structures through sexual graft is the source of their social capital, and I am attacking it, as I do all power structures. 

But other liberals are liable to turn their backs on you when you do this. Being denied a microphone is just as oppressive as being denied a gun, or having either jammed into your back by a faction of special interests controlling the government, whether that faction happens to be Haliburton, or the American Unity PAC. Then you have so-called ‘anarchists’ who use the ‘safe space’ and ‘trauma trigger’ rhetoric to rationalize censorship and revisionism. I’ve seen this on Reddit quite a bit. You go into the socialist forum as a contrarian who questions commonly accepted ideas, they will ban you without addressing your points. It’s no different than being black-listed by wealthy Republicans for being a socialist, an experience most of these spoiled Californian Trustifarians are too privileged to have ever endured, but Yellow Dog Democrats and liberals in the South know all too well.  I’m sure it’s real easy to be a socialist or a trade unionist on the West Coast or the East Coast, where the slums got so much soul.  You try that shit down here, and you’ll get starved and possibly beaten by the establishment, and yes I speak from personal experience.

Furthermore, in terms of personal injustice from this kind of hypocrisy, I will say that, although many have made the demand that I provide them with, comply with, or contribute to their ‘Safe Space’, no one has ever offered ME a Safe Space. My life has been fraught with rampant thievery and violations of my rights, often perpetrated by these same liberal whackos so butthurt over Safe Space. What they want is an all-encompassing, world-wide Safe Space for a bunch of freaks to run amok, and to put normal people, who fall well within the bell curve of sensibilities, in a fucking cage. And I’ve been in a cage before.  Let me just tell you.  I’ve been put in a cage, after a police SWAT invaded MY PRIVATE SAFE SPACE, and took MY HARD-EARNED MONEY, for cultivating an illegal organism which I sincerely consider a religious sacrament.  The people behind this happened to be liberal Democrat women, who held positions of power in the state government (yes this happens sometimes, even in Texas).  I consider the way the government has treated me, as a spiritual and therapeutic cannabis user, a flagrant piss-soaking of the First Amendment.  Now let me ask you, when’s the last time you heard of this happening to a feminist, or a gay person, or a transgender, or a polyamorist, strictly because the government refused to tolerate their culture?  Sexual liberty was legitimized many decades ago, and most of the sexual deviants of this generation know nothing of real persecution.  I know people who have done 5 years in the pen for carrying plants across an imaginary line.  I talk to them when I want to talk about oppression or how their lives have been ruined by the establishment’s prejudice.

In my opinion, we all want a safe space, but some people take way more space than they need or are entitled to, and then some people don’t get theirs. And many ‘liberal’ people are automatically going to assume that a straight white male is categorically one of those who takes too much, and not one who has been denied his fair share. Well, I’m an example of the latter, and I can think of several special interest examples of those who have taken too much. I won’t name names, but they are people from all walks of life: lesbians, transgenders, people of other religions and other races, cultures, economic and social classes. And there are people similar to me, SWM who claim to be Christians, but who have taken far too much, and I hate those people most of all, because they discredit MY KIND, in the eyes of many.  These are the bad examples that liberals use anecdotally to imply that I myself am over-privileged, in the same way that Neo-Nazis imply via crime statistics that all black men are criminals.  Yes, I know that most of congress are white males who claim to be Christian.  But have you ever noticed how most white male Christians hate congress?  Because they represent us so poorly.

In summation, we all need a blank canvas to paint on, a medium to publicize our work, a bar where everyone knows our name, a boss who knows how to employ us, friends who enjoy our company, a landlord who tolerates our living there, a bank willing to do business with us, a country whose politics we can feel comfortable enough with to be patriotic about, etc… And it isn’t me who has denied these things to anyone, in fact I have provided these things to many… But all the people making all this noise about Safe Space for themselves are the same people who have denied it to me, and this is why I have absolutely zero respect for those people.  I am NOT the one who has denied them a safe space, nor have I taken away their rights to go out and express themselves in public.  They are the ones who have taken these rights from me. And let me finally say that when it was conservative Republicans trying to censor and prohibit liberal Democrats from demonstration, I was against that, too. I think Simpsons said it best: