Thursday, 5 May 2016

International/National Socialists and the Jews

Communist Jew-hatred.
I don't think it's strictly true that National Socialists (Nazis) , International Socialists (Leftists) and Islamists only fuse on the Jews.

They all agree on collectivism, anti-capitalism, a commitment to violence, hatred of democracy, conspiracy theorising, Manichean world-views (not just about Jews) and so on.

However, it is Jew-hatred that is the prime locus of alignment – and has been since the 1960s (if not well before).

Then again, this hatred of the Jews from Leftists, Nazis and Islamists also ties in to their embracing anti-capitalism and collectivism. After all Marx himself (yes, a Jew) made a fatal connection between Jews and capitalism (in 1848 and as late as Das Kapital). Then Nazis did something similar between Jews and Communism. Nowadays, it depends on the time of day: sometimes “all Jews are capitalists”; other times “all Jews are communists”. It doesn't matter – whatever works against Jews GOES. I've even heard “auxiliary hypotheses” (Popper) as to why many Jews are centrists or apolitical (to “hoodwink people”, to “play both sides”, etc.).

Sunday, 1 May 2016

Intersectionality: Fuelling the Race, Gender, and Class Wars


We can hold Kimberlé Crenshaw (a “woman of colour”) responsible for the ugly word, 'intersectionality'. (She coined it in 1989.) The incredible thing is that she deemed it to be a "common everyday metaphor".

I'll let Crenshaw herself define the term. Thus:

The view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity. Cultural patterns of oppression are not only interrelated, but are bound together and influenced by the intersectional systems of society. Examples of this include race, gender, class, ability, and ethnicity.”

What we have here, essentially, are various (Leftist/ “progressive”) movements and individuals trying to discover – or invent – yet more minorities to exploit for their own political/social ends.

Thus today we have to take on board the following identities and backgrounds: cisgender (female/male at birth, and still identifying as female/male), national origin, criminal record, race and ethnicity, class/socioeconomic background, ideology, religion, immigrant status, refugee status, body type, educational background, appearance... ad infinitum.

Some sorry souls are the victims of various “axes of oppression”. There are some people, for example, who are transgender, black and poor.

It's not always doom and gloom, however. Certain individuals will suffer both “privileges” and “oppressions” if, say, she/he is both middle class and black. Or, alternatively, if one is a very well-paid academic (say, researching into intersectionality) and also a woman, you'll be oppressed because of the latter category and privileged due to the former one.

Thus it can be the case that one's oppressions cancel out one's privileges. Or, alternatively, one's privileges can cancel out one's oppressions.

Marxism or Post-Marxism?

It's been said (by intersectional theorists and others) that in the old days (Marxist) activists didn't realise, for example, that black women are more oppressed than black men. Now, almost by definition, that's taken to be of prime importance. (See here.)

The Telegraph's (yes, the “Torygraph”!) very own intersectional theorist (an Ava Vidal) offers her own view on, for example, why traditional Marxist feminism wasn't radical enough. She writes:

“The main thing 'intersectionality' is trying to do... is to point out that feminism which is overly white, middle class, cis-gendered and able-bodied represents just one type of view - and doesn't reflect on the experiences of all the multi-layered facets in life that women of all backgrounds face.”

What's more, Ava Vidal quotes someone saying that

white feminists... refuse to acknowledge that they benefit from a white supremacist hetero-normative [sic] patriarchal system”.
Despite all that, Marxists have always been aware of “identities” other than that of class. Indeed Marxists have been theorising about gender and race for decades. However, most Marxists have also stressed the point – which they see as being of vital importance – that it is class, and class alone, which gains a privileged place amongst these hierarchies of identity/oppression.

Thus intersectional theory is certainly “post-Marxist”, if that simply means Marxism + other theories. In other words, Marxist theory hasn't been forgotten. Intersectional theorists, for example, still highlight the fact that we all live within a “capitalist Euro-centred modernity”. Indeed it's capitalism (or capitalist democracy) which accounts for the fact that people are, amongst other things, “raced and gendered”.

To highlight this Marxism/intersectional alliance, take these words from Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century; which is made up of former members and leaders of the British Socialist Workers Party. (See here.)

Firstly we are given reasons as to why intersectionality matters. Thus:

... that one form of oppression can be shaped by and can shape other forms of oppression. Racism, for example, can be sexualised, or women’s oppression can be racialised – and this happens in such a way that it becomes impossible to view different oppressions as separate.”
But now we get to the prime and traditional bête noire of revolutionary socialism (if tinged with intersectional theory): democratic capitalism. Thus:

We already know that all oppressions are connected by having material roots in capitalism. And by claiming that all oppression and exploitation intertwine, there is at least a vague recognition by intersectionality that all oppression is rooted in the same societal structures.”

And later we also have the following:

Marx knew nothing of intersectionality as it exists today, but he speaks in similar terms in his sixth thesis on Feuerbach: 'But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.'...”

Finally, we have the same Marxist actually selling us intersectional theory again. Thus:

... the way intersectionality is used today – for example on campuses... is as a call to unity! The argument is that everyone concerned with oppression should naturally be concerned with the nuances of everyone else’s oppression.”

So even though new genres have been introduced, class (though sometimes race) is still often still seen to be of prime importance.

Not that all Marxists are happy with intersectional theory and other “progressive” alternatives to pure Marxism. Take “the most well-known thinker of our time” (according to the Guardian) – Slavoj Žižek. In Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (2000), Žižek writes:

... today's capitalism, rather, provides the very background and terrain for the emergence of shifting-dispersed-contingent-ironic- and so on, political subjectivities.”
Žižek then says that capitalism

“has created the conditions for the demise of 'essentialist' politics and the proliferation of new multiple political subjectivities. So, again, to make myself clear.... [capitalism] creates the very background against which 'generalised hegemony' can thrive.”
Let me put that in plain English.

Multiple political “subjectivities” are a problem for Žižek. He wants the working class as a whole to fight capitalism. Or, at the very least, Žižek wants all the other subjectivities to unite behind the “hegemony” that is the working class (if led by a middle-class university-based vanguard). This multiplicity of subjectivities and “hybrid identities” simply muddies the water that is the ancient (Marxist) class war.

You see, what the intersectional theorists, postmodernists, poststructuralists, etc. don't realise is that all this

“playing with multiple, shifting personas... [simply] tends to obfuscate... the constraints of social space in which our experience is trapped”.
In other words, all this “playing” still occurs within capitalist democracies.


Here are a few more minorities of identities to throw into the radical pot: people born on a Tuesday in June, serial killers, people with long fingernails, white upper-bourgeois academics who specialise in intersectional theory, black/ Muslim Uncle Toms and so on.

Indeed I'll let the reader indulge in the possible juxtapositions or permutations of the following “oppressed groups”: the “transgendered”, black, gay, women, black gay, white working class, black working class, rich and ideologically powerful academics, etc.

It's complicated, isn't it?

Finally, here is some pious and righteous advice (from Geek Feminism Wikipedia) for all you evil white, cisgendered, racist, hetero-normalist, fascist oppressors out there:

If someone suggests that you're doing something racist, ableist, etc., you will tend to react defensively. That's OK and natural! Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard if you need to, think about the perspective of others in that situation , then apologise and figure out how not to do it again.”

And what can you say to all that?

Friday, 29 April 2016

Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and Socialist Jew-Hatred

Hitler might have supported a Zionist state as an alternative to his own Final Solution. Don't forget that the Final Solution was never made public. Thus it's no surprise (if true) that Hitler, at one point, wanted all European Jews to go to the Middle East. However, he probably never really wanted this. Why? Because of his close relationship with many Islamists and Muslims in the Middle East. Primarily with the Mufti of Jerusalem (who was a close friend).

Why did Ken Livingstone feel the need to express this fact? Comparing Israelis with Nazis is, of course, a classic Leftist trope. In this case, a connection was made between Hitler and Zionism.

Yes, it's true, anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred aren't the same thing. However, the utterly mindless obsession with Israel and its actions can't come from anywhere else other than from a prior hatred of Jews.

Another way of putting this is that most “anti-Zionists” began life as Jew-haters. Their anti-Zionism rationalises their prior Jew-hatred. It's really that simple.

The obsession with Israel itself shows a prior hatred of Jews. Many Leftists know nothing of any other foreign issue... What do these protestors know about the violence in the Sudan, the Congo and so on? Why are their eyes always and only pointing at Israel? Why? Because Israel is a democratic and capitalist (with many anti-capitalists) country for Jews. And that's at the heart of “anti-Zionism”. Thus Marxist ideology and socialist racism fuse with Ken Livingstone and the anti-Zionists.

So in one breath, we are told that Hitler propagated the Zionist/Israel solution. In the next breath, Jewish behaviour in the Middle East is portrayed as evil incarnate. What now?

The Rev Left is itself racist in three ways:

       One) It is racist against all non-”progressive” whites... and even racist towards a minority of progressive whites (who must bathe in their "white guilt").

      Two) It is racist because it supports positive discrimination and positive/inverted racism.

    Three) It is against Israel because it thinks there is a fatal link (in that country) between Zionism/Jews, capitalism and imperialism – that explains the obsession with Israel... it's Jewish and democratic/capitalist nature.
On this count, the Labour Party is more racist than the BNP.

Jew-hatred is at the heart of European socialism. Internationalist Socialism took a position against “capitalist Jews” in the 1850s. Nazism partly grew out of this socialist tradition.

Jew-hatred was prevalent in the Soviet Union and all socialist sates. This fusion of racism and anti-capitalism has been part of socialism since the second half of the 19th century. Sure, I'm prepared to accept that Jew-hatred and anti-capitalism aren't necessarily linked. However, anti-Zionists almost uniformly start off as Nazis or as (International) Socialist Jew-haters.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Microaggressions: All Racism. All the Time

Have you ever said something to someone of another culture or ethnicity and later wondered if it was patronising or slightly racist?” - the BBC (8.1.2016)

What doesn't seem like racism, is racism. Our problem is that we don't know the truth about racism. Well-paid academics, however, do. They pierce through the veil of perception to find the truth (e.g., “racism is systemic and everywhere”) behind it.

Thus the whole anti-racist thing has taken on new Orwellian forms. Those who don't see themselves as racist are suffering from what the economist Mary Rowe called “innocent ignorance”, which is itself a result of “unconscious bias”. In other words, not seeing oneself as a racist doesn't mean that you aren't racist. Instead, let some Ivy League academic clarify your position for you. You may not like what he/she says.

The term “microaggresion” was coined by a psychiatrist named Chester M. Pierce. That was in 1970, so clearly it took quite some time to catch on; or, at the least, to become the fashionable meme that it is today.

Microaggressions have been called “the new face of racism”. The bag is that good-old-fashioned racism has been supplanted by racisms which are more “subtle, ambiguous and often unintentional”. Yes, racism is still seen as being a big problem. The thing is that most racisms nowadays are actually microaggressions.

Now let's get down to some hardcore anti-racist theology (or theory). Derald Wing Sue, for example, believes that there are three kinds of microaggresion. None of the three kinds refers to direct physical violence. Instead what we have is “microassault”, microinsult” and “microinvalidation”. The term “microassault” includes “discriminatory action, avoidant behaviour and name-calling”. “Microinsult” includes “hidden insulting messages”, insensitivity and rudeness. Finally, “microinvalidation” is a case of the roundabout negation of “ethnic identity” and “pride”.

What a puritanical world these progressive theorists (or theologians) belong to. It all boils down to the belief that there is racism everywhere and at all times. Or as Anita Saarkesian put it:

"… everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time...”

(This has been classed as a “cherry-picked quote”. However, the full quote simply adds detail and context. Saarkesian still believes that everything is racist, etc. (See

The incredible thing is that ethnic minority groups who don't accept that they've been the victims of racism, have been the victims of racism. Or, I should say, the victims of microaggression.

You see, the real motivation behind microaggressions theory (as with much anti-racism) is the political desire for complete radical political/social change.

According to one study, for example, it's the case that black Americans are expected to “represent” other black Americans. That is, they're expected to be “proud of their identity” and thus to also propagate it. The researchers, of course, see this as a bad thing. Now this very same study also came to the exact opposite conclusion. In this case it was claimed that black Americans are put under pressure (by evil white people) to “act white”. This is also seen as a bad thing by the said researchers.

So, to reiterate, the study (although I use that term loosely) came to two diametrically opposed findings when it came to black Americans. One, that blacks are expected to represent all black people. Two, that blacks are also put under pressure to “act white”.

The same thing has occurred with another study of “African Americans”. On the one hand this study concluded that microaggressions are worse (in the long run) than explicit acts of physical and verbal racism. Such “tacit racism” causes “isolation” and “self-doubt”. On the other hand, microaggresive racism (in the long run) also tends to make black Americans “more resilient”.

Finally, positive comments towards black Americans are often actually... yes, negative comments... in disguise.

But none of this really matters. What does matter is chipping away at “white capitalist society” by “any means necessary”. What matters is “radical change” - endless and unceasing radical change. Revolution.

As I said earlier, microaggressions theory has it that much racism isn't seen as racism. It's also the case that many racists don't see themselves as being racist. Basically, every white person who doesn't endorse these recondite theories simply must be a racist. Indeed, in ultra-extreme anti-racism, even a white middle-class defender of “intersectionality” could be deemed to be (closet) racist.

The thing about microaggressions theory is that real racism may (or is) ignored under the wait of silly artifactual microaggressions. After all, if you cry wolf enough times you'll eventually be ignored. Amitai Etzioni, for example, has claimed that the fixation on microaggressions means that real racism (not theoretical racism!) is often ignored under the weight of pretend microaggressions (see here).

An article in The Atlantic also expressed concern that the obsession with microaggressions can actually cause more emotional trauma than the microaggressions themselves (see here).

In addition, most of these microaggressions are so minor that even those who champion the fight against them admit that they “occur at the unconscious level”. In other words, both the instigators and the victims simply don't know that they're taking part in in a tête-à-tête of microaggresion. Still, what does occur remains “denigration”.

It almost sounds like a statement of the obvious to say that an obsession with racism – or with microaggressions – feeds paranoia and thus in the process creates the sickness of over-sensitivity. Thus it's no surprise that City Journal (amongst others) has called the whole show a “farce, and a fad” .

It's crystal clear that microaggression theory feeds off an already infantile sense of victimhood. Moreover, our society – with the help of mollycoddled academics – has become ill with victimhood. So much so that the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said that to be a fully-fledged victim is to reach the “height of this culture”.

So no wonder there's so much noise coming from the propagators and the supposed victims of microaggression.

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Hungary Speaks Out Against Islamic Immigrants


What we have here is a politician that's telling the truth about the Islamic Demographic Jihad in Europe. And like Geert Wilders, he has faced the attacks of the social engineers in Europe. He also states that international socialism, care-of mass immigration, will be fought against.

When will the UK have someone who dare to say these things? Not in the near future – a near future in which civil war beckons.I would prefer to fight a civil war today and win, than wait 10 to 30... years and loose.

Bravo Hungary!

Islamic Lies: the Lies of the British Media

“I have been made victorious through terror.” - the Prophet Muhammed

“The faithful will fight for the cause of Allah, slay and be slain.” - Koran, 9:111

Have you ever seen such a pure and transparent lie as that printed by The New Day (see above)? This is taqiyya made flesh. When the imam told this lie, he would have felt zero guilt. This lie, just like the bombings in Brussels, is endorsed by both the Koran and the life of Muhammed.

How much longer will our newspapers and politicians feed us with these lies about Islam? Will they only stop when there are bombs going off every other week?

The fightback has to begin today – in ten years' time it will be too late. Indeed, in certain respects, it's already too late.

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Anders Breivik & Timothy McVeigh: “Christian terrorists”?

Reza Aslan (the TV personality and academic) simply can't resist mentioning the Huffington Post and Guardian's saviour of 2011: Anders Behring Breivik.

So how many acts of Islamic terrorism has there been since Breivik's own act of terrorism in 2011? In 2011, the year of Breivik's attack,there were seven Islamic terrorist attacks which claimed more lives than those claimed in Norway (i.e., 77 lives). There were literally hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks that year which claimed, all in all, well over1,000 lives. (All this will have quickly faded from The Guardian’s memory.)

In any case, Reza Aslan says:

"Breivik explicitly defined himself as a Christian warrior fighting what he called an 'existential conflict' with Islam. Nevertheless, a great deal of the media coverage surrounding his actions seemed to take for granted that his crime had nothing to do with his Christian identity-- that it was based instead on his right-wing ideology, or his anti-immigrant views, or his neglectful upbringing...”

Only a few minutes of Google-time would have shown Reza Aslan that Anders Breivik was not really a Christian at all – let alone a Christian terrorist. How do I know that? Because Breivik himself said so. He variously described himself as an “agnostic” and went on to say that he's only a “cultural Christian”. (He was, according to himself, a member of the Knights Templar).

Even though there are references to Breivik being a “Christian warrior” in various articles, none I have seen provides the source of that self-description. However, Breivik might well have used that description. Though even if he did, then, clearly, he was very inconsistent on this matter as he also believed in abortion, prostitution and vampires
Timothy McVeigh

The same kind of thing that has been said about Breivik was also said - by Muslims, Leftists and the Southern Poverty Law Center - about Timothy McVeigh: that he was a“Christian terrorist”. However, they too left out the ever-so-minor fact that he was a self-described “agnostic”. Not only that: he didn't believe in Hell and said that science was his religion.

Even Andrew Brown - in his 'Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam' - denied that Breivik was a Christian terrorist. Indeed in Reza Aslan's own Huffington Post (in its 'Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?') there's a quote from Breivik himself which goes:

"....I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”
Now would any Muslim killer of a Western soldier or civilian ever come even close to saying that he's “not an excessively religious man“; that he's “foremost a man of logic”; and that he's an “agnostic” who doesn't believe in Hell?

And when Breivik said that he's “a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe”, all he essentially meant is that he Western society is largely based on Christian traditions and values. But that's not a surprise because none other than Richard Dawkins – an agnostic! - has said more or less the same thing. Indeed I know of many atheists who accept this sociological and historical fact. Are they all “Christian warriors” too?