Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Homosexuality

White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but  working-class white men. 

 

Originally published at Jack-Donovan.com

Amanda Marcotte recently wrote that “White men, as a group, vote Republican because they vote their resentments.”

The New York Times article she cited didn’t say or even imply anything about resentment. It did say that straight, working-class white men vote Republican because the Democratic Party has devoted the majority of its resources to appealing to women, gays and the various groups of less-white men who are nostalgically referred to as “minorities.” The Democratic Party has been on the opposite side of issues that working-class white men have cared about for decades, and according to the Times piece, many strategists within the party think it’s a waste of time trying to win them over.

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but working-class white men.

These guys vote Republican because Republicans actually make an effort to tell them what they want to hear.

Basically, white men vote Republican because they’re suckers.

The likes of Marcotte say that working-class white men are motivated by fear and resentment, but the majority of people who vote Democrat are doing it for nobler reasons.

They’re not. Most of them are voting for their own short-term self-interest.
Sure, there is a small class of progressive white men who make a big show of putting everyone else’s interests first. They demonstrate their moral superiority by standing up — mostly online — for whatever “rights” they believe that women or blacks or illegal immigrants or transsexuals or chickens are somehow entitled to.

Everyone else is just voting for stuff they want.

Women vote Democrat because they understandably want the convenience of being able to kill their unwanted children. They vote Democrat because they want free birth control and they want free healthcare for the kids they decide to keep. Women also vote for Democrats because Democrats offer special programs to help women get education and jobs.

Women have always depended on men for protection, but they’d rather depend on many men than just one or a few, so they are happy to vote for measures to increase “security.” As a group, women don’t like or understand guns, so they vote Democrat because Democrats promise to take guns away from men — usually those working-class white men — and give them to the big group of men in the government.

Men have historically been suspicious of what big groups of men will do when they have all of the weapons.

Blacks vote Democrat because they are smart and racist. They were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did because he was black, and like sensible people they figure it is better to have one of your own in power. Democrats, as a group, are known for caring more about giving free stuff to black people. Blacks are smart, because they know that it is always better to get something for free than to pay for it.

Blacks also know that you don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You just go buy one from that guy down the street and, you know, take care of business. White men are afraid to buy guns without following the rules, so more rules means less white men with guns. This is good for black men, because they like the convenience of being able to wear a hoodie in the rain without getting shot by nervous white men with guns.

Latinos vote Democrat because their families came to America to take advantage of employment opportunities and all of the benefits and protections that America offers to its citizens. They figure more benefits and protections are better than less, and Democrats always offer more benefits and protections.

In places with a lot of Latinos, Democrats say that you shouldn’t have to go through the trouble of becoming a citizen to get those benefits and protections. This is convenient for Latinos who are not citizens, because using a dead person’s social security number can sometimes be inconvenient.

Gay people vote Democrat because Democrats offer gay people stuff they think they want. Aside from marriage and the sadistic thrill of being able to force Christians to make wedding cakes, this includes free healthcare. Free healthcare comes in handy when you’re a man who occasionally has sex with guys he met 30 minutes ago on Grindr, or a lesbian who occasionally gets drunk and has sex with men. (See the first point about women above.)

Transsexuals vote Democrat because they want the government to pay for the very expensive cosmetic surgeries and hormones that are necessary for them to become who they really are. Also, they are confused about which bathroom to use, so they want more special bathrooms for confused people.

(Chickens are not technically allowed to vote yet, but we hear they want to be free range, which sounds libertarian.)

As Gari Day, the white male bus driver featured in the Times article said, “Republicans make you work for your money, and try to let you keep it.”

He probably doesn’t understand how the government can afford to keep giving everyone free stuff forever. He probably does figure that some of that money for the stuff other people want is coming out of his earnings. But he’s not alone in that — I’ve yet to see a successful Democrat turn down a tax break. No one actually wants to pay more taxes.

Aside from voting to keep more of their own money and to keep the guns they bought, a lot of these straight, white, working-class men are not asking for anything. They’re too proud for that.

As old-fashioned voters, they see themselves as part of the government. They’re not just trying to get more stuff from the government and come up with reasons why they deserve it. They’re voting for a society that works the way they think things should work.

And that’s why they’re suckers.

Democratic and Republican politicians, like everyone else, see the government as a way to get what they want. Politicians want power and status. To get elected, they accept money from regular people, from rich men, from businesses, and probably from foreign countries. In return, they promise favors. That’s how the system works.

People who don’t want anything from the government are useless to politicians, because they are difficult to manipulate and impossible to please. The government, like every big bureaucracy, is in the growth business. Making the government smaller isn’t in the short-term interest of any ambitious bureaucrat. Contraction only makes political sense when you’re trying to reduce an opponent’s sphere of influence.

Democrats promise more government, and more free stuff. Republicans promise less free stuff for poor people, and promise to lower taxes in return, but they rarely manage to lower taxes for anyone but rich guys who — let’s be real — were usually born into money and didn’t work any harder than the guys driving buses. Many of the wealthy elite are white guys, true, but they care about as much about the working-class white guys as the Democratic Party leadership.

White men are suckers because they haven’t figured out that the America they believe in is already gone, and that they are the only ones who aren’t asking for whatever they can get while the gettin’s still good. They’ll vote reliably Republican as long as the Republicans keep talking about self-reliance and how things should work, and that will free up Republican politicians to do favors for people who actually want stuff.

No Comments on White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

The Ideology Of Totalitarian Humanism

Yet it would seem to me that such metaphors as “cultural Marxism” or “liberal Nazism” are not really the best characterizations of PC. The best label for PC I ever encountered was “totalitarian humanism.”

In light of Mozilla’s CEO having to step down for his opposition to same-sex marriage, here’s Keith Preston’s take on the ideology that dominates the West today

Many on the alternative Right are inclined to refer to PC as “cultural Marxism.” In some ways, this is an apt metaphor, as the PC ideology bears a resemblance to the reductionist concept of class antagonism that orthodox Marxism advances. If the dualistic class dichotomy of “proletarians and bourgeoisie” is replaced with a newer dichotomy pitting feminist women, minorities, gays, immigrants, the transgendered and others having been or believed to be oppressed against the “hegemony” of “straight, white, Christian, males,” then similarities between PC and Marxism do indeed emerge. However, PC could in some ways be compared with totalitarianism from the other end of the political spectrum. If the duality of “Aryans” believed to be oppressed by and in mortal struggle with “the Jews” is replaced with the aforementioned dichotomy advanced by PC, a reductionism of comparable crudity likewise becomes apparent. Yet it would seem to me that such metaphors as “cultural Marxism” or “liberal Nazism” are not really the best characterizations of PC.

The best label for PC I ever encountered was “totalitarian humanism.” I can’t take credit for this term. I lifted it from an anonymous underground writer some years ago. Read the original essay here. Here’s a particularly enlightened part:

When one looks up the word ‘Humanism’ in an encyclopedia it states that Humanism is an ideology which focuses on the importance of every single human being. That it is an “ideology which emphasizes the value of the individual human being and its ability to develop into a harmonic and culturally aware personality”. This sounds fair enough, right? Indeed it does, but it is my firm belief that the explanation here does not match the humanism of our time.

The so-called Humanists I have met have been putting a strong emphasis on humanity as a gigantic community rather than on the individual. Often one will even find alleged humanists who insist that the views, aspirations and basic happiness of indigenous Europeans is of no importance. Instead, these Humanists say, indigenous Europeans should bow down and forget about their own wants and desires for the greater good of humanity. The greater good of Humanity usually seems to be to take no interest in Europe’s cultural heritage and integrate into a grey, world-wide, uniform “globalization” with the Coca-Cola-culture as loadstar.

Totalitarian humanism is a derivative of the classical Jacobin ideology that loves an abstract and universal “humanity” so much that its proponents don’t care what has to be done to individual human beings or particular human cultures in order to advance their ideals. Perhaps the best summary of the political outlook of totalitarian humanism was provided by the maverick psychiatrist and critic of the “therapeutic state,” Thomas Szasz:

In the nineteenth century, a liberal was a person who championed individual liberty in a context of laissez-faire economics, who defined liberty as the absence of coercion, and who regarded the state as an ever-present threat to personal freedom and responsibility. Today, a liberal is a person who champions social justice in a context of socialist economics, who defines liberty as access to the means for a good life, and who regards the state as a benevolent provider whose duty is to protect people from poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs.

Dr. Szasz wrote this passage nearly twenty years ago. Nowadays, the laundry list of “poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs” might be lengthened to include classism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia, ableism, looksism, fatphobia, thinism, beautyism, transphobia, producerism, “appearance discrimination,” speciesism, adultcentrism, pedophobia, chronocentrism, and other creative efforts at dictionary expansion. Likewise, the therapeutic component of totalitarian humanism has expanded so as to include the supposed necessity of state action to save us all from fatty foods, salt, smoking, and soda vending machines in public schools. Like all totalitarian ideologies, totalitarian humanism has its contradictions, hypocrisies, and absurdities. For instance, public acts of anal intercourse are regarded as virtuous and courageous manifestations of human liberation and personal fulfillment, while smoking in bars or even in strip clubs is a grave menace to public health. Suggestive music videos and violent video games are symptomatic of an oppressively patriarchal and testosterone-fueled society, while surgically altering one’s “gender identity” is just routine day-to-day business, like getting a tattoo.

As one with something of a taste for the bizarre and eccentric, I might find the PC circus to be little more than a philistine but amusing bit of outrageous entertainment, akin to professional wrestling or the old freak shows of carnivals past, if it weren’t for the fact that these folks are hell-bent on imposing their “ideals” on the rest of us by force of the state. Totalitarian humanism is a war on sovereignty. It is a war on the sovereignty of individuals against arbitrary and coercive authority, the sovereignty of non-state institutions against political authority, the sovereignty of organic communities against a centralized leviathan, the sovereignty of nations against global entities, the sovereignty of history, tradition, and culture against prescriptive and prohibitive ideology. Totalitarian humanism is an effort to reduce all of us to the level of dependent serfs on a plantation ruled by an army of overly zealous concerned mommies and busy-body social workers backed up by the S.W.A.T. team and paramilitary police. Give me beautyism or give me death.

No Comments on The Ideology Of Totalitarian Humanism

Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

What marriage used to be was a community celebration, a way for families to ensure common bonds within a shared religious tradition and ensure the transfer of property, the security of women, and a healthy environment for children.  This is why marriage ceremonies still contain practices that infuriate feminists like the father “giving away” his daughter to her new husband.

“Spouses in happy marriages have affairs,” is the headline for Hanna Rosin’s newest masterpiece on Slate. In the midst of an adoring interview with one Esther Perel, we are assured that now that we all agree on the need to celebrate premarital sex, we also have to “reexamine monogamy,” as serious moral scholars like gay activist Dan Savage have urged.

Rosin is right, though not in the way she thinks. Marriage is already destroyed – and was destroyed long before “gay marriage.” A real marriage is a communal, tribal, and public commitment that joins two families and in essence, creates a new people that will form part of the larger folk community. Today, it’s just another greeting card word designed for individual self-gratification, as trivial as a fat celebrity’s drug overdose. Why pretend otherwise?

Born in Israel, Rosin made her reputation writing on “religious issues,” i.e. bashing white Christians.

One of her books is God’s Harvard, a predictable hit piece on Patrick Henry College. After sneering at how the goyim practically worshipped her because, in their words, she had the “blood of our Savior coursing through your veins,” she spends most of the book obsessing about the blond hair and blue eyes of the fearsome Christian stormtroopers campaigning for the GOP and fighting to save the country she unfortunately left as a child. Like most of these “conservatives in the mist” type stories, it tells us more about the paranoia and loathing the author feels for Americans than it does about the ostensible subject matter.

After the long, national nightmare of George W. Bush ended, Rosin skillfully moved on to the next social causes du jour, feminism, homosexuality and the ever multiplying varieties of sexual mental disorders, er, displays of individual courage and bravery against oppression. Part of her crusade was against the Bernstein Bears, recounting how the children’s book about talking bears caused her to “[throw] the book away in a fury” and how she reacted to the author’s death with “Good riddance.” This unstable woman achieved her magnum opus with the celebratory The End of Men, which noted that women were triumphing in the new economy, while men were simply being left behind.

What kind of man could be married to Rosin (who does not have her husband’s last name?) Well, this guy.

David Plotz

The beautiful irony here is that Rosin has ensured her job security at Slate by being married to this magnificent specimen of manhood, Slate editor David Plotz.

Thus ensconced in a high position as part of the Chattering Class, Rosin can inflict feminist talking points on Americans, all the while decrying oppression and honoring her own bravery. Of course, as someone married with children, she might not actually mean it – like racial diversity, this could be yet another example of something that the masses are supposed to endure, but not the SWPL elites. This week, she checked off the latest box on the feminist platform, encouraging infidelity.

Along with Perel (who has an accent that is a “combination of French and Israeli”), Rosin leads the reader on what the old Communist functionaries would call a “guided discussion” on marital fidelity. While not necessarily recommending an affair, Perel heaps scorn on the “imperfect arrangement” of marriage. She uses that wonderful culture of critique phrase “we have this idea that” in order to criticize marital spouses who think “our partner is our best friend, that there is one person who will fulfill all our needs!”

But of course, the reason we think that is because perfect emotional fulfillment and the dream of “love” is all that’s left. What marriage used to be was a community celebration, a way for families to ensure common bonds within a shared religious tradition and ensure the transfer of property, the security of women, and a healthy environment for children. This is why marriage ceremonies still contain practices that infuriate feminists like the father “giving away” his daughter to her new husband.

Marriage wasn’t a “choice” in the contemporary sense, like deciding what garbage food to have for lunch, what corporate brand to patronize, or what variation of egalitarian clichés you are going to embrace as your “spiritual life.” It was a serious lifetime commitment before God (or gods) who were worth worshipping and an entire community that you were a part of. Financial practices such as the dowry and the bride price were a part of this institution, with serious monetary consequences in the case of divorce. Violating that commitment through adultery was punished by community scorn as well as legal consequences. Now real consequences for adultery only live on under the Universal Code of Military Justice, which needless to say, leftists and feminists are also trying to abolish.

What really killed marriage was its transformation into a celebration of individual love and personal choice. Once it’s conceded that love is simply a question of opinion for the two people involved, how can one oppose liberalizing divorce laws? Love fades. Why not legalize interracial marriage? After all, the heart wants what it wants. And once, racial considerations are dismissed as irrelevant, as Slate reasonably asks, why not polygamy? In fact, why “privilege” this social construct known as the family at all? And of course, smoothly pivoting from arguments about why gay marriage is about “love,” the homosexual movement is now admitting that is their real position, logically enough. Get ready for a tenured parasite to lecture you about your “family privilege,” cisgender scum.

If everything is just a matter of choice, marriage becomes purely a contract (as Perel says). And since what a person “wants” can change so often, why tie yourself down at all?

Perel asks, “Why did infidelity continue to rise even when divorce became available and accepted and nonstigmatized? You would think an unhappy person would leave. So by definition they must not be that unhappy.” Well, no. Infidelity continued to rise because once marriage transitioned entirely to a lifestyle choice with the normalization of divorce, marriage became about satisfying feelings instead of building a family and contributing to the larger community. If divorce had consequences, both social and legal, infidelity would decline. Instead, people are allowed to have it both ways, provided they have a partner who is sufficiently beaten down that he or she can’t leave – or is afraid of losing all their possessions in a divorce settlement.

Perel herself, let it be said, practices what she preaches. She is a “couples therapy expert” who has a nominal husband and children in the midst of her speaking to TED seminars and the like. She crows, “For me, this is my fourth marriage with my husband and we have completely reorganized the structure of the relationship, the flavor, the complementarity.” What makes the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th contract renegotiation, er, “marriage,” so different from the one prior is left unsaid. And how any self-respecting man can continue with this farce is best left unexamined.

So why have an affair? Perel emphasizes this from a female perspective, even a political perspective. “Today, female infidelity is the biggest challenge to the male-dominated status quo.” Edgy, man. Affairs make people feel more “alive” and let women get away from having to take care of the kids and other non-sexy things. “This is the one thing I know I am not doing for anyone else. I am not taking care of anyone, this is for me.”

Or, as she puts it, “And all that is part of the feminist deliberation. I deserve this, I am entitled to this, I can have this! It allows people to finally pursue a desire to feel alive.” Keep in mind, this is not a parody by Roosh – this is in her own words.

Of course, none of this is actually new. All the pretentious rhetoric about the “next frontier” of egalitarian is actually the same old hypergamous evolutionary programming in action. In short, alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Every word of psychobabble, every feminist treatise, and the rant of every shrieking harpy on a college campus can be quickly summarized as, “As a woman, I should not suffer consequences for my sexual choices, nor be held accountable for any commitments I make. My feelings at the time are the most important consideration.” The end result of feminism is denying that woman are moral agents even capable of choice – like blacks, homosexuals, and illegal immigrants – they exist only as victims, moral mascots to be subsidized by kulak white males.

Not surprisingly, what can broadly be called the Red Pill subculture is reacting with scorn to the idea of marriage. Who can imagine dedicating his life to the likes of Perel, or even making the slightest commitment? Indeed, why would he even buy her a drink when all he needs to do is a recite a script and act dangerous enough such that she feels alive, and then ignore her texts? Most women may or may not deserve a good man – but certainly no feminist does.

The end result is that Perel is beating a dead horse. We are already living in her world, and unfortunately, there are still enough useful idiot beta males who are going along with it and subsidizing it. The smarter (or more cynical) males are dropping out entirely. But this is a retreat, rather than a solution.

What is needed is a new tribalism at every level. The current sexual climate has to be attacked at its core, not just with out of context Bible waving or moral stuffiness. Marriage should return as a tribal institution, something negotiated between families and communities. If marriage is to be reduced to a “contract,” let it be a contract of a more ancient form, complete with the return of dowries, bride prices, and prenuptial agreements negotiated by the patriarchs of the families. Such an arrangement is the only thing worthy of the word marriage, rather than the individualist farce which is taken less seriously than membership in a sorority.

Of course people will still cheat – both men and women. We might even be willing to accommodate this in some way with brothels or tolerated prostitution. But such practices should be seen as unrespectable and shameful. Degenerates who meet the market in human depravity are an unfortunate necessity. More importantly, to publicly disgrace a spouse or bring it into the family home should be regarded as a horrific act. Rather than the reforms favored by a Dan Savage, we should look at the marital reforms implemented by Caesar Augustus.

The alternative is to simply embrace the decadence, but feel free to give the likes of Perel what they really want. Men who want to take their chances in the modern climate are free to do so, but they should read the interview with Perel and gaze into the abyss.

As for the women who don’t want to return to a more honorable practice, they should be treated accordingly. They want temporary emotional satisfaction, momentary excitement, and no commitment. If they want to embrace sexual anarchy and simply burn it all down, better for men to oblige them than to try to save them from themselves. After all, it’s called Tinder for a reason.

No Comments on Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

The Westboro Baptist Church is a Liberal Wet Dream

What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there

 

Originally published at Right Stuff and posted on Alt-Right; reposted in the wake of the death of WBC’s leader Fred Phelps.

When I first saw media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a few years ago my first reaction was “LOLWUT”. My next reaction was that it had to be a troll. I found it so hard to take seriously because the WBC represents in pure concentrated form every leftist conceit about the nature of their non-opposition. They are white, rural, religious and openly bigoted against the most celebrated victim group of the moment.

I am not going to condemn or defend the WBC. I find them mildly amusing, but beyond that I am indifferent. What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there.

Liberals would so dearly love for the WBC to be representative of their opposition that they hem and haw over their “free speech rights” to create disturbances at military funerals and trespass on private property. In a sane society people engaging in such activities would simply be removed with force, not pandered to and granted the “right” to engage in such behavior. Ironically, it is precisely such behavior that cultural leftists used to come to power in the first place. Whether intentionally or not, the WBC is aping the gay rights movement in tactics. At one point I thought perhaps the WBC was an elaborate ruse to wake leftists up to the social value of violently excluding undesirables. If so, this would at least be an admirable if ultimately futile goal.

In reality liberalism faces no enemies, so it must create them. What passes for conservatism in this country is basically warmed over liberalism combined with occasional unintentional self-parody. Yet liberals will pretend that they are a mighty force to contend with. As I have discussed elsewhere this is ridiculous. Whatever power non-liberal groups have in this country is ceded to them by the left in a desperate effort to create the pretense of conflict and opposition.

The human soul needs conflict and struggle to give meaning to existence, yet liberal ideology is entirely built around eliminating conflict from society. They have been so successful at this that the main issue of the day is whether or not men can “marry” men and the main argument in favor of the practice is that feelings will be hurt if society reserves the title of marriage for male/female relationships only. This is why the left keeps the WBC around. It gives them the pretense of struggle, the facade of conflict and thus temporarily fills the gaping void they feel in the souls that they deny they possess.

To give an example of this a friend (who shall remain nameless) that is a student at Vassar College, the WBC’s next target, shared this note he received in his inbox:

Vassar students, employees, and friends,

Many of you know of the statement yesterday by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas that they will picket Vassar College on February 28 in protest of our open support of LGBTQ students, employees, and alums. Should the Westboro Baptist Church choose to come to Poughkeepsie, they will not be allowed to gather on campus. As a College, we look forward to any opportunity to counter messages of hatred and bigotry and to underscore Vassar’s values.

Vigorous conversations are underway online, on campus, and among all parts of our community on how best to express and reaffirm our values in relation to this picketing. All are invited to participate in these conversations, including one taking place tonight, Monday, at 10 p.m. in UpC, facilitated by students.

Jon Chenette
Acting President

Vigorous conversations? Why even bother? Look forward to it? Of course they do. What else have they got to look forward to other than dildos and interracial porn? One of the ideas that came up as a way to respond to the grave threat of the WBC is this proposal to “crowd fund” a gay teen suicide prevention hotline.

The Westboro Baptist Church has announced that they will picket Vassar College on Feb 28th.

In response, we are raising money for the Trevor Project, ”the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth.” Our goal is to raise $4,500, or $100 per minute that the WBC is planning to protest for.

How utterly facile. Of course this non-effort has been wildly successful precisely because it is so facile. The WBC represents everything postmodern liberalism could ever ask for. The caricature of an enemy, the pretense of conflict and risk free ways of “fighting back” and affirming the values of anti-values. What a joke.

No Comments on The Westboro Baptist Church is a Liberal Wet Dream

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search