Archive for the ‘Leftism as a Cult’ Category

Lena Dunham Molests Children; This is What a Child Molester Looks Like

November 4, 2014
Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham, the pre-op version of Boss Hogg, is a minor celebrity who has recently admitted she molested her sister.

Previous to copping that she copped massive feels on her own flesh and blood, Dunham was feted by the fags, Jews, feminazis, and other supercilious jackasses on both coasts for allegedly making a little-watched HBO show called Girls. Girls is so little-watched that it doesn’t even average a million viewers per episode. Truth be told, no one is watching Girls except TV critics, who laud the shit out of it due to the excellent P.R. work done by the show’s producers. The very fact that this failure of a show got this fat hog of a child molester on the cover of Vogue is proof that the concentrations of power in this country are very small indeed.

Now before Dunham revealed herself as a child-diddling fucking deviant, my biggest issue with her was the fact that I don’t think she actually makes the show herself.  The biggest boost to Girls‘s buzzworthyiness came because Dunham was only in her mid-20’s when HBO greenlit Girls, with her ostensibly in charge; thus she was hailed as the “voice of a generation” and a wunderkind, thus getting critics to pay attention.

I immediately smelled a rat, especially when I found out that her parents, Laurie Simmons and Carroll Dunham,  are rich, weirdo avant-garde artists. I remember the J.T. Leroy scandal, and how people in showbiz are so desperate for a hit they’ll make up false fronts, names, etc. just to break in.  All-in-all, HBO taking a risk on a 25-year-old with no TV experience made no sense; but taking a risk on her parents doing the show for her and using her as the front man? That made sense. HBO doesn’t really care about the truth anyway, as its left-wing propaganda shows.

But now Dunham has admitted that she molested her kid sister. Bear in mind Dunham is 6 years older than her sister. In her recent memoir, she laughingly recounts three episodes of abuse to her sister:

  • She admits that, when she was 7 and her sister was 1, she pried open her sister’s legs to view her vagina while watching her sister. There is also an implication at this point that Dunham then stuffed rocks into her sister’s vagina and tries to blame it on her 1-year-old sister.
  • She admits that she used to manipulate her sister into lying in bed on top of her while she (Dunham) masturbated.
  • She admits to bribing her sister with candy and other ruses to make out with her—and calls her methods “anything a sexual predator might do.”

All of which Dunham recounts as humorous and exploratory.

Now I will mansplain a few things to you guys. Sexual deviancy laws do apply to children. Children who touch others is sexual ways are punished, placed in foster homes, and put on sex registries. What Dunham did to her sister are enough that, were Dunham not a privileged celebrity cow, she would be registering with the local police for the rest of her life. And no, that’s not a joke; Dunham has literally admitted to crimes.

Lena Dunham is a molester of children.

Now Dunham is facing a backlash because she not only got away with these acts (perhaps—depending on what the statute of limitations were in the states she did them in), but because she thought they weren’t bad acts. In fact, she has tried to deflect criticism by an ironic swat:

That’s right, you guys, it’s soooo weird that you’re freaked out by her actions. Stop being such a prude! Everyone does it!

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you left-wingers are mentally balanced and/or are morally good. Lena Dunham is their moral and mental leader.

Dunham, being the left-wing ‘tard she is, is desperately trying to stop all dissent. She is threatening to sue people who merely repeat her own admissions to child molestation.

Well fuck you, Lena Dunham.

You’re an unrepentant child molester.

You are an evil fucking ugly cow.

And you don’t even run Girls, a show no one watches.

Just a reminder: The Bible says you should judge

October 20, 2014

Lefties invented and perfected the Big Lie. The National Socialists used it to great effect, but other leftists (Soviets, Cubans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Libyans, etc.) also abused it to death.

One part of the Big Lie is repetition: people will truly believe anything if its said by enough people. Peer pressure wasn’t just something your D.A.R.E. officer told you about to scare you; it is very, very real.

One Big Lie the left likes to tell is that Jesus commands people not to “judge” others, and by judge they mean “say that someone is doing something bad, or that a person is evil.” In fact they often quote Jesus’s words (twistedly, of course): “Judge lest ye be judged.”

Of course they’re lying.

Jesus never says don’t judge someone as sinning or being evil. The context of his quote is that Jesus is saying “don’t be a hypocrite when you judge people.” This is the whole “remove the mote from your own eye” argument-context. In fact, Jesus was condemning the Jewish high priests for their hypocrisy, as they would condemn people for sins they themselves or their family were committing and getting off scot-free.

Jesus had no problem for you condemning another’s sins if you were free of such sin yourself. In fact, in both the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus orders his followers to do just that.

What Jesus hated in sinners was hypocrisy, which the Jewish high council had in droves. Compare Jesus’s treatment of prostitutes, thieves, and tax collectors.  He dines with them because they know they are sinners and want t do better. Jesus curses those who sin and don’t care, or worse complain abut others doing their same sins. Compare, again, Jesus’s treatment of the two thieves he is crucified with—one has no repentance, and demands Jesus save them; Jesus ignores him, likely knowing that, that day, he would see him in hell. The other begs Jesus’s forgiveness for his crimes; Jesus pardons him and promises him heaven.

For example, if you don’t molest children, condemn homosexuals.

Fuck the left. Yay Jesus. Condemn sinners.

Are You Date-Worthy? A Quiz for Women

September 11, 2014

This post was inspired by this unintentionally hilarious article. Go read it, please.

In case of tl;dr, the woman writer complains that women need to start asking men out on dates because men are too weak/stupid/unmacho/ungentlemanly to ask women out on dates anymore.

That’s right; according to authoress Lauren Martin, women deserve to be taken out on dates—proper, old fashioned, man pays-and-buys-flowers-and-holds-doors dates—and the only thing stopping this wonderful thing is the failures of men.


Now, at first, I was going to just link to the article and laugh.

Then I thought, nahhh, I should respond point-by-point, giving the shiv of truth to each and every one of Lauren Martin’s lies.

Then I thought, nahhh, too much work for soon-to-be-forgotten Feminazi whack-a-mole articles like this. Instead, why not give the girls some chick crack—e.g. a Cosmo-style quiz—while at the same time having each question mercilessly fisk and fuck their delicious little egos into fillet, sending them running to their wine cabinet and therapists and Girls reruns and gay bffs and feminazi studies classes for at least 5-10 years of rehab.

Excellent plan.

So ladies, please see the quiz below. Answer all the questions and answer each question truthfully.  At the end, we can tally up your score and find out if you are truly worthy of a man taking you out on old fashioned, fun, dressed-up, he pays, he holds the door, dinner-and-a-movie, flowers-candy-card, classy dancing, sweet-peck-on-the-lips-on-your-front-stoop-but-nothing-more-expected date.

Ladies, Are You Date-Worthy?

  1. Are you a virgin?
  2. Have you had 3 or fewer sexual partners?
  3. Have you ever had a one-night stand/fuck buddy/”it’s complicated” relationship that included physical sexual gratification for either of you?
  4. How many men have you kissed?
  5. How many men have you made out with?
  6. How many men have you given blow jobs to? How many of those have you swallowed? Allowed to cum on your face or body?
  7. How many men have you given hand jobs to?
  8. How many human penises have you deliberately touched?
  9. Have you ever had sex with a black guy? If so, how many?
  10. Are you lying about your answer to question #9?
  11. How many black guys have you kissed?
  12. How many black guys have you given a blow job to?
  13. How many black guys’ penises have you touched?
  14. Have you ever felt attracted to a black guy? Please explain.
  15. Have you ever said out loud that a black guy was attractive, “sexy”, or in any way sexually worthy? How many times and to whom?
  16. Do you listen to rap/hip-hop/whatever marketing word they’re calling it this week? Have you ever been to a rap/hip-hop/etc. concert?
  17. Have you ever had an abortion?
  18. Do you believe abortion should be legal? Paid for by the government? Celebrated as a right?
  19. Are you a feminist? If not, how much of feminism do you agree with?
  20. How often do you masturbate? Do you have a dildo?
  21. Do you vote Democrat, or anything that Fox News would call left-wing?
  22. Are you proud America elected Obama?
  23. Do you think we need more blacks and/or women and/or other minorities in political power?
  24. Do you believe that blacks are held down because of unfair racism against them, and that they are just as smart and good and kind as anyone else, or more so?
  25. Who do you think was right: Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?
  26. Who do you think was right: Michael Brown or the cops of Ferguson, MO?
  27. Do you think nationalized healthcare is good for America?
  28. Are you in favor of affirmative action?
  29. Are you in favor of gay marriage?
  30. Do you believe gays and transgender people are just born that way?
  31. Do you believe gays and transgender people are normal?
  32. Do you want to get married and have children?
  33. Did you major in a humanity? If so, did the title end in “studies” or “theory”?
  34. Do you have a graduate degree?
  35. Are you overweight according to the BMI scale?
  36. Have you ever kissed, fondled, or had sex with another woman?
  37. Have you ever been involved in a sexual encounter involving more than two people? Kissing, making out, and light petting count here.
  38. Do your friends consider you sexually adventurous?
  39. Have you ever taken a naked selfie, or one where you are dressed provocatively? Have you ever sent it to a straight male or posted it where a straight male could see it?
  40. Are you on Twitter?
  41. Do you think a man should be king of his castle?
  42. Do you think a woman should obey her man?
  43. How often do you get drunk? (note: “tipsy”=drunk for the purposes of this quiz).
  44. How often do you use recreational drugs/illegal substances? When was the last time?
  45. How often do you date or have sex outside your race? Races for this quiz: White, East Asian, South Asian, Arab/Persian, Native American/Red. If you are considered “mestizo”, you may claim both races. Jews can group themselves by skin color here.
  46. How often do you date or have sex outside your ethnicity? Your ethnicity is the country of origin of your parents’ ancestors. Don’t be obtuse; if you’re a mutt but mostly Northern European, use most of those countries, but if you’re 100% Irish or Chinese, use that one nationality alone. Jews count as a separate ethnicity here.
  47. Do you go to the same house of worship for services at least 2x a month?
  48. Does that house of worship have only male clergy? What percentage of the administrators are female?
  49. Do you believe in your religion’s teachings? Do you believe in God (or gods)?
  50. Does your religion/church support homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, government-provided healthcare, or any other planks of the Democratic party?
  51. Do you have a gay bff? Is he promiscuous?
  52. Do you believe a woman should have a career when she is 22?
  53. What is the proper age for a woman to start having children?
  54. At what age do you want to have children?
  55. Would you or have you ever gone backstage or on the tour bus or into a VIP lounge with a male celebrity?
  56. Same question as #55, but with the condition that you have been on or have gone on at least one date with a guy that went well and you two are texting?
  57. For older girls: were you Team Aniston or Team Jolie?
  58. Have you ever cheated on a man you were dating? Kissing, making out, holding hands, touching each other’s bodies, foreplay, sex are all cheating.
  59. Have you ever competed with a man for a job or promotion?
  60. Is it ok for a woman to cheat if she’s lonely, depressed, or she’s fallen out of love with her man?
  61. Did you ever beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  62. Did you ever want to beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  63. Can you cook a complete meal? Do you do so at least 3 times per week?
  64. Can you clean? Is your home/apartment/room clean?
  65. When not dressed for work, do you dress feminine?
  66. When not dressed for work, do you wear dresses? How often?
  67. Do you watch reality TV? Talk shows? TV dramas? TV scripted comedies? Which ones? How many hours per day?
  68. Do you watch pornography?
  69. Do you have tattoos? How many? How large? Are they visible when wearing any of your own skimpy summer outfits?
  70. Do you believe organizations and companies should be allowed to be all male and exclude blacks?
  71. Have you ever flashed anyone?
  72. Do you swear? How often?
  73. Do you ever say or think that you get along better with men rather than women?
  74. Is there a box of condoms in your room?
  75. Do you believe a woman should look pretty for her man?
  76. If you are overweight, are you ruthlessly trying to get underweight?
  77. Have you ever participated in or cheered on a Slut Walk?
  78. Do you believe women have a responsibility to dress appropriately?
  79. Do you believe single mothers are good mothers?
  80. Do you believe in divorce?
  81. Have you ever been divorced?
  82. Do you agree to raise any children in the religion, town, and way your husband decides?
  83. Do you believe sex is about intimacy, or is more physical?
  84. Do you believe a woman in a serious relationship/marriage has a duty to sexually please her man even if she isn’t in the mood?
  85. If you get into an argument with a man, would you ever throw a drink at him or hit him in anger? Note that “playful hitting”=hitting. If so, and he punched you or slapped you hard, would you consider that fair?
  86. Do you know that regret is not rape?
  87. Do you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report,” any kind of talk show, “The Today Show”, anything on MSNBC, or anything on Bravo or E!?
  88. Do you listen to top 40 radio? What about NPR?
  89. Have you ever embarrassed a man who was trying to flirt with you? Ask you out on a date? Get your phone number?
  90. Have you ever liked a man, only to have your gfs/gay bffs dissuade you from dating him?

Quiz Answers

As you can see ladies, the questions really answer themselves, don’t they? That is to say that, immediately upon reading each question, you knew–almost instinctively–what answers would be correct and render you still date-worthy, and what answers would be wrong and render you not worth it for a man to take out on a date. You knew it in your gut, though you hated the fact that you knew it, and that you knew it so well.

And, for some of you, what hurts even more is that even for so-called left-wing men, the “correct” answers and the “wrong” answers remain the same. That is to say that, even though certain men that you would date would express the views that my questions are stupid/don’t matter, you know instinctively that such men still would greatly prefer the “correct” answers.

Some of the questions are super-damning for wrong answers, while others aren’t so much deal breakers.  I mixed and matched according to my whims and what struck me at the moment. Like a good psych quiz, I asked the same questions different ways, and followed easy questions with hard ones, just to keep you off balance. I’m awesome like that.


But I don’t need to really tell you if a certain wrong answer is super-damning or merely hurtful to your date-worthy chances; if you aren’t sure, ask a few gfs, or even your token gay bff. The more offended they are by a certain question, the more you can be certain that that question is a super-damning, automatic-disqualifier if you give the wrong answer.

By the way, this list is by no means exhaustive; I barely grazed the anti-male area of family law, for example. But it is comprehensive enough to give 90% of women out there a very, very good idea of what men want out of women, and, equally as important, what they, in the strongest terms, do not want.

What Date-Worthy Really Means

What Date-Worthy really means, ladies, is whether you are worthy of a long-term, locked-down relationship/marriage. You know that and we know that; that’s why, when you really like a fuck buddy, you’ll start whining or setting up circumstances—such as meeting for drinks around dinner time before you’re going to fuck—that will encourage him to lay down some change, hold a door, and otherwise be a boyfriend-on-a-date.

You know that if a man invests his money, time, and charm in public on you, it starts to lock him down into relationship status. Men who put time, money, and effort into courtship behavior are setting themselves up for relationships, whether they know it or not. It is instinctual and natural; when we invest effort into something, we expect it to mean something.

Once upon a time, most middle class women in America gave the “correct” answers to all the questions on this quiz. This is why men then took women on formalized dates; such women, because they gave the correct answers, were deemed date-worthy, and dates were designed to further test the waters for lifelong commitment, i.e. marriage. Other women—the sluts of their times—were not taken on dates; they ended up as bar floozies, prostitutes, yoked to underclass or unrespected men, or else lonely and alone in their lives. Johnny the Good Boy didn’t marry Suzy the Floozy, he married Mary the Good Girl.

And here’s a very important part you ladies need to hear: Johnny married Mary because it was a good deal for Johnny. Johnny got a loving, virginal wife who never compared his faults or shortcomings to past lovers; obeyed his word; respected him; cooked and cleaned for him; stayed feminine for him; gave him regular, faithful sex; and all-in-all remained a loyal wife.

These are what the “correct” answers mean to men: she is worthy of a man’s time and investment because she will reward the man with what he wants. And this is why your “wrong” answers today hurt you so much inside: you instinctively know that your actions have devalued you so that investing time, money, and effort on you isn’t worth it to a man today, unlike, say, your grandmother. Ladies, you are much less worthy of love—less “date-worthy”—than your own grandmother. Unlike your grandmother, you ladies aren’t a good deal for a man today.

Another way to put this for women is to stop thinking “what do I want out of a man” and start thinking “what does a man want in a woman.” Men—especially men in the PUA community—spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what he has to offer to a woman to get what he wants. Women would do well to wonder what they have to offer to a man to get what women want—dates, intimacy, long-term commitment, etc. And it ain’t just sex, ladies; no man every went to war, worked for 40 years at a worthless job, or built a mansion for a prostitute or the easy chick down the block.


What Happens When You’re Not Date-Worthy

You’re fucked.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

There are some things you can do to mitigate the damage your “wrong” answers indicate. However, that is left to another post and time. I will say this much: many times the Rubicon cannot be uncrossed; the bell unrung; the die uncast. But despite this, you can at least mitigate such damage—and not in the ways you’re probably thinking.

Strong Fathers=Strong Anti-Feminist Daughters: Margaret Thatcher

April 25, 2013

I watched a documentary tonight on Margaret Thatcher, the recently deceased, long-time right-wing British prime minister. It aired tonight on New York’s local public television station, and surely the commies there must have gnashed their teeth, as it mostly praised the “Iron Lady,” whose politics led Britain from near bankruptcy and turmoil of the 1970s caused by left-wing policies to the prosperity of the “Cool Brittania” 1990s (which Tony Blair’s left-wing Labour Party took credit for, but only by adopting much of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic policies).

Now the documentary flashed back a few times to her youth. Thatcher was a plain-faced girl; she was no great beauty in her youth, despite several politicians trying to paint her as such. She had a rather man-jaw appearance for her time (still more feminine than the muscular beasts of today, however), as well as a lazy eye. She was, all in all, a good example, physically, of the common potato-sack English country girl that have disappointed many a foreigner foraging England for tasty bits to eat. They are not as fat as American girls, but we still have a baseline of beauty in the U.S. (excluding our descendant-of-slave women, natch) that exceeds England’s roses; no wonder so many English men fantasize about an American lass (Ted Hughes, John Cleese, hell, Russell Brand anyone?).

Given her flawed appearance and above-average intelligence—she was an Oxbridge girl— in today’s world, Mrs. Thatcher would have been told, nay, ordered to think that she was a lesbian. And had her father left her family, as so many do today, or been a weak man, her lack of father figure would have made her easy prey to the feminist lies that so easily slip in when men do not slam the door in their faces. Dykes would have stalked her to and fro, and “sexual experimentation” would have been set upon her to fill the void of a father figure. She would have grown to hate men, loathe men, blame men for to loving her, not taking care of her—and demand the state fill the void. The wolves of perversion most easily slip into meadows where no sheep dogs lie to protect tender, weak lambs.

But no; she had a strong father.

One solid reason for the rise of feminism—the “feminazi loop” as I think of it—is the percentage of women and men who grow up with single-parent (re: female) households. The more this has increased, the more feminism has risen. And the more feminism has risen, the more men have checked out of marriage; the more weak men, subservient to women, have bowed down to their wives and feminism; and the more transient men have become “temporary daddies” to the daughters of the women they fuck. All this allows daughters to feel a whole in their lives where fathers should have been, to feel abandoned, and to have that abandonment easily turned to hatred for the men not in their lives.

But Margaret Thatcher’s father was different, as the documentary (and evidence) shows. Thatcher’s father was not the bumbling simpleton of modern sitcoms, content to be pushed around by a domineering wife–which is the story a feminazi would have you believe causes strong women who lead. Nor was he some terrible tyrant who inspired great hatred in Thatcher for his evil, making for a narrative about Thatcher being some social crusader against evil Patriarchy. Nor did he abandon the family, thus making some narrative about how Thatcher learned how to be strong from a “strong, independent womyn,” i.e. her mother.

No: Mrs. Thatcher’s father, Alfred Roberts, was a self-made man (a dirty term to many British) who built himself from a poor boy with no employment into a successful businessman, local politician, and local church leader. He lectured strongly but lovingly to his daughters, and probably encouraged Margaret, the smart but plain one, to do chemistry at college (which she did major in) so that the plain girl could have better prospects for a husband (as nerdy men would be less picky) or a solid career should no man take her (STEM degrees, then as now, never suffer for demand like fluffy humanities do).

But his most important job was as the moral and intellectual shaper of his children’s lives. He lectured them from the pulpit and the dinner table. He emphasized frugality and never spending more than what you had, and lived by such an example—he seldom, if ever, borrowed money. He encouraged modesty and femininity in tune with self-confidence; a combination any historian can recognize in the best females of history, but is alien to the twisted dogma of feminazis today. He filled his home with the intellectual discourse of conservative-libertarian thought that he followed, and made his daughters read the same. He taught them that self-reliance was one of man’s highest goals, and that shame, not greedy palms, should mark the hands of those who needed a handout. People, not laws of the state, should help those in need. He enforced Christian, patriotic, dutiful morality upon them, through example, lecture, and testing. And he kept them from the idle froppery and lazy self-indulgence that many rising-class families can suffer. He demanded a feminine daughter, and he got her.

As a result, Margaret Thatcher did not grow up hating men, become a lesbian, sire brats out of wedlock, or demand a totalitarian welfare state. Instead, she valued men, especially her father. As the documentary points out, he was largely the most important person in her life; one of the only ways to make her lose her cool was to insult him. She loved the man, and his strength gave her the strength to save her nation. She never doubted herself, or used her femininity to claim that she was a victim (Hilary Clinton, anyone?); she refused to have herself, or her nation be womanish victims, as her piercing actions against the many union rioters (stirred up by KGB agitators, no doubt, and forerunners of our Occutards) and the Argentinians in the Falkland Islands war show.

Perhaps the most touching moment of the documentary is her T.V. interview following her victory in the Falklands, where she is happiest that not one more British solider or sailor will be at risk. This is especially touching considering that, just before, the documentary showed peaceniks blaming her for “needlessly” attacking Argentinian ships. Mrs. Thatcher angrily replies she attacked a ship “supposedly” not doing anything for one reason—to save British military boys whom those Argentinian ships threatened.

This women loved masculinity, and masculinity in one of its highest forms: military men patriotically dying in battle.

The shame cast on all feminists is that this towering figure of history—this woman–is never possible in a feminazi-made world. It was only a strong father that could make a daughter love men, deplore left-wing thought and all its weak, blame men, celebrate female-illogic bullshit.

Strong fathers=strong women. Women unafraid to love men, and to rip man-hating feminazis and other leftists a new one.

R.I.P. Iron Lady. For you truly were equal parts lady and iron.

The Wake of the Boston Marathon Massacre: New York Wi-Fi Down by Homeland Security

April 16, 2013

I live in NYC, and when I got back home tonight after Boston was all over the news and New York went on high alert, suddenly wifi was down in my apartment.

Note: not the complete internet. Just Wifi. In fact, my router was giving a “wifi ok” signal the whole night, but it still couldn’t be picked up. If I connected via a wire to the cable/internet system, however, it worked fine. Still is doing so no, 1:23am EST.

My smartphone had 3g access, but also couldn’t access ANY wifi—even the free ones I used to sneak on when I didn’t have wifi of my own.

Remember that NOTHING happened in NYC at all.

Plausible theory: I think DHS dampened wifi around the city, in the fear that 1) wifi was being used to set off the bombs; and 2) that 4g/hardwired networks were easier to monitor.

Reports from Boston are already and also saying that several cellphone towers ” were shut down” from “overload” and the “internet” was overloaded —several remote feeds of news crews from Boston were extremely fuzzy.

DHS has the ability to shut down wifi, people. And cellphone towers. And did so when push came to shove.

Just a friendly warning. Fuck the left.

Men of the West, Listen to Aurini’s Gold

March 13, 2013

Men of the West, listen to Aurini’s gold.

Sharia law is looking very good, ladies. Beat you into submission and silence, castrate the niggers, stone the fags, re-promote male leadership and greatness.

Leftist chickens…are coming home…to roost.

lol. Another Nigger-Fucker Gets What She Deserves

March 5, 2013

lol. Another nigger-fucker gets what she deserves.

A painful death and a short life at the hands of her ape-lover.

Remember ladies: when you’re screaming for help as you’re being raped and murdered by the “diverse” guy you went out with, the “racist-sexist-homophobic patriarchal assholes” that you shit on daily, that used to unflinchingly protect you from these uncivilized monkeys…will now only laugh and cheer them on.

Enjoy the decline, bitches!

A Note on Israel

January 30, 2013

NB: I am not a Jew, nor do I have any strong feelings for or against Judaism as a religion or racial identity.

In looking at Israel, I have noticed that what gives it resilience is the fact that it has re-united the pre-industrial ideals of nation and race.

As I will explain in later posts in leftism as a cult, in pre-industrial societies, race and nation were united. Governments were founded by the local race of people to serve the land the race controlled, which was called the nation. Religion was a proxy for race—to be a member of a race, you accepted the local form of worship; even Catholicism, despite left-wing revisionism, was highly diverse in local practice.

Thus, when people (such as the Romans) appealed to “patriotism” during wartime, it was not merely an illusory appeal to some made-up ideal used as an opiate to the masses. It was a real appeal to blood—patriotism was merely defending your extended family against human beings much less related to you.

The post-industrial age blew apart this unification for the first time in history. America’s radical experiment in a republic based on property, not race (and its proxy, religion), proved to be very strong—strong enough to unite disparate races in defying the greatest military on earth, destroying savage nation after savage nation, settling a huge continent, and growing fat and wealthy. The French Revolution was a bloody civil war that destroyed a government built on blood and replaced it with a government built on mere human existence—which, of course, fell to one created solely on military talent. Numerous further revolutions of the 19th Century overturned blood-based governments and created ones based on election.

Israel, however, through its UN creation, specifically re-created the race + nation state. Judaism has, since the destruction of the Second Temple, enforced racial inter-marrying laws, to the point it is fair to describe Jews as a specific ethnicity–and, since 1000 A.D. or so, have shown an higher average intelligence relative to the local population as a whole. IN the 1940s, using the Holocaust for leverage, Jews were granted a land based solely on Jewish Matriarchal lineage, and have allowed themselves to enforce their borders based on that. To further this racial nation, Jews have resurrected the old priestly caste idea, forcing every Israeli citizen to subsidize the super-religious class of their society, a class that in turn ruthlessly pushes for singular Jewish racial identity, an identity that strengthens the government by creating generations of people who are blood-devoted to the Israeli nation. The fierce fighting of Jews for Israel is based on the old idea of patriotism, consciously re-created by Israeli nation-builders.

Israelis also have no problem dealing with sub-standard gene pools in their race. Whilst it sends chills down my spine that such a thing could happen in my ostensibly non-racial, non-religious based nation, I am less bothered by it happening in a race-based state to members of the same tribe, since there it is more like a smart cousin tying the tubes of his retarded cousin so the smart cousin doesn’t have to waste his time taking care of any offspring for the retarded cousin. Family v. strangers. Certainly if a retarded cousin of mine wanted to come live with me and sponge off me, I would make sterilization mandatory.

I wonder if, after the collapse of America, we should move back to such race-nations. I’m a mutt, so I am confused at how this would work for me—probably just choose a group and reject my others. But Israel, unlike pluralistic societies of the West, is thriving, not declining. But perhaps the Jews, as they have done so many times since roughly 1000 A.D., are showing us the correct path to take.

Leftism as a Cult? Part 1: Natural Human Instincts and A Short History of Pre-Industrial Leftism

January 25, 2013

In my exploration of my hypothesis that leftism is a cult, I first wish to touch upon the history of leftism in human culture, starting in the pre-industrial world. As a note, this history I present is all very truncated.

Four questions occur at this point: 1. What is leftism? 2. Why desires drive people to embrace leftism? 3. Where do these desires come from? and 4. What was leftism like in the pre-industrial, but post-civilization world?

1. What is leftism?

Leftism is the belief that the power to make all decisions should be taken out of every individual’s hands and vested in a small group of people; see also totalitarianism.

2. What drives people to embrace leftism?

There are three driving desires in making a person a leftist.

The first is the desire by certain folks to have a Big Chief make their lives easier. These are the stupid people, who, having limited ability to understand the world, merely want to live without the burden of deciding how to live their lives. So they embrace an ideal where an all-knowing, parental-figure like person will save them from the stress of decision-making. When a person or group of people appear promising to make the stupid’s life better and give them things, and that person appears intelligent and likeable, the stupid people rally around their new Big Chief and gladly trade their liberty for promised safety. There is also the desire that if they are a good soldier and promote the leftist-Big Chief takeover hard enough, they may be rewarded with spoils. The more leftist the society, the less worry these people endure, as they do not have to tax themselves with thinking of the future, as Big Chief has promised to run their lives.

The second is for those people who desire increased power and are good at social climbing. These folks are smarter. They have talents lie in social interaction, saying the right thing at the right time, and being able to work behind the scenes to gain power. They, too, like the stupid, might believe in the idea of the Big Chief who will save them all, but also want power by getting close to the Big Chief being able to advise him or manipulate him, and enjoy a greater standard of living and power through merely being good at social jockeying. They may also desire to be a Big Chief themselves, thinking themselves worthy. The more a leftist society, the more riches and power these people can gain.

The third is preservation of existing wealth and power. As Milton Friedman pointed out, established businesses are no more in favor of free markets than communists; the former want to limit or eliminate any newcomers in the area via law, just like the latter. Whether people acquired wealth and power through war or business, once established, they seek to limit entrants who could dispossess them of their wealth and power, so they become fervent proponents of heavy government regulation (too keep start up costs and growth costs for competitors too high) and government support of existing business (e.g., bailouts, too big too fail etc.).

3. Where do these desires for leftism come from?

These desires are rooted in animalistic, instinctive tendencies.

Animal societies closest to us are also founded on Big Chief philosophy. Chimps, apes, and other mammals in packs have the males fight for dominance. Some animals only allow one male per group; others have multiple males, but one Big Chief male is lord and leader, and gets the majority (if not all) of the procreative sex. The group falls easily in line behind the Big Chief alpha chimp (or lion or whatever). Those rare times the group doesn’t follow the old alpha Big Chief is when another male challenges Big Chief to a duel—to see if the old lion (or chimp r whatever) can still beat the younger blood to remain Big Chief. But it’s not a change in how the group is ruled, merely a replacement of one official with another.

If you believe in evolution, you believe this is our history. And these animal group dynamics worked for much of our evolution; they kept us safe from harm and kept us breeding. The lesser members of a pack saw Big Chief as almost a god; the more intelligent and stronger members saw him as a rival, but also saw a power structure that they could exploit—whether by challenging Big Chief to a duel, or kissing up to him to be rewarded with spoils. As we evolved larger brains, these animalistic rationalizations became instinctual in nature. After all, those pre-society ancestors who bucked the Big Chief’s ways and the group’s conformity….ended up dead.

The human desire for Big Chief government comes from our pack-monkey past.

4. What was leftism like the pre-industrial, but post-civilization world?

In short, it was worship of a lone ruler—whether it be a king, emperor, or some other title.

The genius and genesis of human society occurred when Big Chief’s stopped demanding all property and women from lesser men. Somehow, some Big Chief’s realized that a Big Chief who got everything (i.e. totalitarian) actually got less than if he allowed non-Big Chief men to have some property–or at least if it appeared that the non-Big Chiefs got property.

This incredible logical leap—the Big Chief’s quantum leap of granting property to non-Big Chiefs—laid the foundation of civilization today: property rights.

Big Chief saw that if he gave men some property, they would do more for him—-like organizing into armies, toiling on a farm to feed everyone, or treating the sick. Suddenly, a Big Chief didn’t just come and take a woman from you and keep you from breeding, or steal your food from you; he might demand your daughter as a concubine, or a tenth of your grain, or free checkups, but not everything you owned. Of course, lesser men didn’t fully trust Big Chief’s promise not to take, so they demanded some sort of assurance. Out of this distrust of Big Chief’s final actions came laws and courts of law, which established for all those interested the promises of Big Chief and penalties against him.

Those non-Big Chief men, when assured that Big Chief would allow them their rationed bit, worked hard to build society better, since they could now keep a portion of the world. Incentives matter.

Of course, many animal packs are not complete totalitarian regimes. But it took a Big Chief to consciously limit a property grab from other men—not merely to instinctively back off a beta male’s fruits. It was he Big Chief’s rational thought to not do an act for future gain that started civilization.

But despite this conscious, logical leap at the dawn of civilization—roughly 10,000 years ago—we still had millions of years of evolution behind that where Big Chief instinct reigned. Millions of years of Big Chief-ness versus only 10,000 years of learned, conscious contradiction of Big Chief-ness—well, it seems pretty obvious that a knee-jerk Big Chief-ness is going to still be around today, barring massive mutation.

So people naturally have an affinity for Big Chief government. So various governments throughout history that are established as firmly decentralizing powers—i.e. anti-Big Chief governments—nonetheless slowly, over time, fall into Big Chief governments. As they do, they erode the gains made by anti-Big Chief governments, as people become less willing to produce more and support the nation more, since Big Chief government takes more and more of their fruits. These nations do one of three things: 1) fall back into barbarism, as Big Chief mentality fully takes over; 2) they are conquered by other nations and become almost complete slaves; or 3) citizens revolt and re-establish some sort of anti-Big Chief government.

A good example of this is the Roman Empire. Founded as a weak kingship, the kings gradually usurped power to become intolerable totalitarians. The Romans revolted and established the republic, with lots of checks, balances, and dispersal of power. But gradually, power became concentrated in fewer positions of government, whilst others became ceremonial. This whittling away of sovereignty became so apparent that Julius Caesar wanted to, in one fell swoop, declare himself emperor and remove the old republican ways. The Romans killed him for it, but shortly thereafter, his adopted son Octavian did just that, only with the veneer of the old republican positions still around, just with no power. Several emperors later, the farce of pretending Rome was a Republic was over, and the emperor barely noticed or paid heed to the idea of being checked by any institution–Big Chief government had returned in full force. It is here you can trace the decline of the Western Roman Empire—to a withering husk easily conquered by barbarians in 476 A.D.

Now, every generation, nation, race, and time period has produced intellectuals to justify Big Chief government, despite all logic being against it. These Squealers serve the local Big Chiefs, trying to become the favored pets of an almighty ruling class. Whether it be the intellectuals and artists who glorified Caesar and Augustus’s totalitarianism (notably, Virgil); to the philosophers of the Ottoman Empire, who argued for a world-wide caliphate; or Catholic philosophers working under various power-hungry popes (such as the enormously influential Innocent III), Big Chief Squealers have always been around to justify absolute dictatorships with glee and illogic. And they have been necessary, as it is quite contrary to all observation that a dictatorial government will save us all; naturally, the people must be convinced that it is correct, and their natural instincts towards Big Chief government will take over after being properly “pushed” by the Squealers.

As concerns our present moment in the U.S., we must look to the immediate pre-American revolution Squealer-philosophy prevalent in Western (especially English) thought, as it is one step removed from the present Squealer philosophy. That is to say that the Divine Right of Kings philosophy was the precursor to our current mode of Big Chief philosophy. I want to detail a bit of it and its failings, because this will greatly illustrate where our current Big Chief philosophy came from, and also to demonstrate how vapid Big Chief philosophy is in retrospect.

In the Renaissance period in Western Europe, local kings broke away from the Catholic Church’s powerful influence, (an influence largely brought about by Innocent III’s machinations, but that’s another tale). In England, Henry VIII broke cleanly off from the church, despite having previously been named “Defender of the Faith” by the same church. Much of Northern Europe followed suit. Meanwhile, those strong nations closer to Rome such as Spain and France, instead of breaking off, took turns invading Papal Lands and controlling papal administration.

These Renaissance kings, after gaining power lost by the papacy, in turn, sought to strengthen and protect their power. So their Squealer-Philosophers, soaked in religion, came up with the idea of the divine right of kings. Previously (such as in the Middle Ages) , such an idea had been ludicrous; officials, not God, crowned kings, so kings were not divinely inspired, but their powers were granted them by other lords. What is more, kings had been, in many countries, elected, not born. Finally, European kings in the Middle Ages were merely “firsts among equals“, not dominating figures; many local dukes and lords openly rivaled their king in power. It was only in the Renaissance that suddenly opposing the king became an act of religious apostasy.

Under this philosophy, kings sought greater command of greater power in their regions. Their excuse was their divine right to do so, and, because God had chosen them, they were uniquely qualified to run the country better than whomever held the power previously. This all went swimmingly—until you got a guy who wasn’t perfect.

For Americans, two most important histories of this Divine Right of Kings period are England and France; the former, because it controlled America and influenced all of its law; the latter because most intellectuals of America and England looked to France for the majority of their non-native influence at this time.

England experienced the full force of bad divine right of kings in the 16th and 17th Century, resulting in numerous overthrows of the so-called “divine rulers.” This may seem odd from a modern Anglo-American perspective, where the propaganda dictates that the English monarchy is the unchanging soul of British patriotism; that, whilst its powers have been eclipsed by the Westminster system, England’s monarchy is permanent and traditional.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I can skip over the War of the Roses, as that occurred before the Divine Right of Kings philosophy took hold; though its very existence shows the English monarchy was anything but permanent or “divine.” But when Henry VIII separated his country from the church and started a divine right administration, what followed was a hundred and fifty years of England’s constant overthrow or near-overthrow of reigning, supremely powerful monarchs:

Mary I (aka Bloody Mary)—a strict Catholic, Mary I sought to re-establish the religion her father zealously, with mass executions. Her subjects revolted and plotted against her.

Elizabeth I—Whilst Hollywood and English propaganda like to portray her as a beloved, great leader, she was anything but. A slut who never married or produced an heir, her subjects constantly plotted against her, and, if not for a fortuitous storm in April 1588 and that a great commander replaced by a lousy one, she would have been deposed by a combined force of Spanish troops and Catholic British loyalists. She was disliked for being seemingly indecisive in her actions. There were constant plots against her.

Charles I—his ascension to the kingship of England sent all three kingdoms of the U.K. into bloody conflicts. Ultimately, he was deposed and beheaded by his subjects.

Oliver Cromwell—You would think after deposing an unpopular ruler, the very next guy installed as dictator would at least work hard to be well liked. Wrong. Cromwell, a vicious and brutal man, dealt with uprisings until his death.

Richard Cromwell–Oliver’s weak son, deposed in less than a year after his father’s death…restoring the monarchy to the son of the beheaded Charles I, a man known as Charles II.

James II–following the restoration, perfidious Albion lived up to her reputation and deposed the very next ruler, James II, in favor of Dutch king and his Scottish-English queen, William and Mary.

Thus, for a hundred and fifty years, whilst operating under a “Divine Right of Kings” philosophy, England was murdering or exiling its kings, appointing new ones, and, for sixteen years, operating without a king at all—just a dictator with a different title. Bear in mind this period also included the founding of Jamestown, the founding of Plymouth colony, and the founding of Boston—i.e. American colonists abroad were constantly having their Big Chiefs removed, with little or no say so, but also whilst operating under the Divine Right of Kings philosophy. America was not immune to the hypocrisy of the Big Chief philosophers of the time.

As such, the Big Chief philosophy in the English-speaking world was under serious pressure.

Things seemed to fairing quite a bit better in France, the closest non-English speaking culture to the Anglo world. Despite the French Wars of Religion and the Mad War, the French had continued to heavily centralize their state, concentrating more and more power in the hands of its king and his retinue. Then, to the great delight of Big Chief philosophers, there came the emergence in the 17th Century of the great French king Louis XIV, the Sun King.

Louis XIV was everything that contemporary Big Chief philosophers promised a Big Chief would be: a certified genius in several areas, Louis XIV won military battles, beautified the country, a great statesman and speaker, and sponsored artists of high artistic caliber (as I will explain later, this latter accomplishment is very key to his (and any ruler’s) celebration by Big Chief philosophers and historians). Picture what a left-winger says Obama is, but in reality—you know, with accomplishments to back it up. ” “L’État, c’est moi”— “I am the state”— he is supposed to have said.

So Big Chief philosophers of the Anglosphere tended to ignore or downplay the English troubles with Big Chiefs (“Hey, they restored the monarchy, didn’t they?”) and highlight France’s success with the system. The English monarch, though weakened by the Parliamentary advances, still claimed a large swath of absolute power, especially in colonial relations (important later). Meanwhile, the French monarchy saw no reason to reduce it’s tyrannous kingship’s power following the death of Louis XIV—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Yes, the Divine Right of Kings philosophy was teetering, but govern time, people would have forgotten its failures if only a few more geniuses took over (hoped the Squealers).

But in the 18th Century, Anglo-Divine Right of Kings-Big Chief philosophy would suffer three final, fatal, revolutionary blows–1) the American Revolution; 2) the French Revolution; and 3) the Industrial Revolution. These three events would utterly destroy the Divine Right of Kings as the major Big Chief philosophy in the Anglo-West, and force the Squealers back underground to compose a new Big Chief philosophy in order to bring everyone under the glorious yoke of dictatorship.

Leftism as a Cult?: A Tenative Hypothesis

January 20, 2013

I’ve had a rather murky epiphany as of late. If it holds true, it could provide to myself and other anti-leftists a wealth of power and knowledge in combating the evil that is leftism. And it comes, strangely, from fire-bomber Ann Coulter.

I do not know quite how to take Coulter—is she a career-driven loudmouth who only takes extreme right wing opinions because she thinks it will give her more fame? Is she genuinely adhering to most or all of her extreme beliefs? Or is she merely a right-winger who deliberately pushes more extreme right wing views to “give space” to more moderate righties? I do not know. But in thinking about her thesis in Godless: the Church of Liberalism, I have realized that she was on to something.

Certainly she was not the first, nor the most articulate in pointing out that left-wing ideology is like a religion to adherents. However, to the generation of people who became politically aware in the 1990s and 2000s, she is the loudest voice asserting this.

So I’ve explored this issue, and concluded that the idea the leftism is a religion is both right and wrong. It is right to say it is a substitute spiritualism for leftists. However, it is wrong to say that leftism is a religion.

Instead, leftism is, I tentatively believe, a cult.

Any assistance from readers in helping me flesh this out in the coming weeks would be greatly appreciated. I plan on a series of posts explaining my belief that left wing thought is a cult.