Some Thoughts on Race


I haven’t done any research about the latest police shootings where two black men were killed by law enforcement. I don’t want to do any research because I doubt I will find very much that isn’t ideologically driven. I only care about the facts. Only through facts can reasonable public policy be made.

Regardless, one thing is clear: Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist organisation. BLM use violence and coercion to get their way. They don’t actually care about black lives or the quality of life for blacks.

They are neo-Marxists and collectivists. They are regressives who want to send our society back by making everything about race, by looking at the world through a neo-Marxist lens. This is not the way forward. BLM-affiliated organisations have supported racial segregation on college campuses with black-only “safe spaces.” If only George Wallace had used the term “safe space,” right?

These are people who erroneously believe that all white people are privileged simply because they are white, while all black people are oppressed because they are black. They believe that white men are part of some nefarious group trying to keep minorities down. This is patently absurd.

This emphasises the collectivist mentality of Black Lives Matter. By viewing people by groups rather than as individuals, they ignore the circumstances surrounding said individuals. They ignore the power and shortcomings of individuals. They view the world only by groups. They expect us to believe that President Obama is oppressed because of his race while a white, homeless wino living under a bridge is privileged just because he’s white. That’s a completely unrealistic and insane way to view the world.

This is why BLM and other like-minded ilk call black right-wingers “Uncle Toms,” a completely condescending and belittling term. Basically, in the mind of BLM, blacks should believe X, and any black who doesn’t is guilty of wrongthink. How dare you have an incorrect opinion?! How dare you not be a neo-Marxist collectivist who ignores the agency of the individual and only views the world through the lens of race or other conditions over which people have no control?

I acknowledge that there are problems in terms of race in this country. I even acknowledge that many whites have a psychologically different view of blacks. I believe this is natural and rooted in biology. It is natural to be afraid of what is different. There is a reason elephants don’t heard with gazelle. They’re a different species. The elephants and the gazelle can tell that they are different from each other. It’s natural to herd in groups that are more similar.

The solution to fixing race relations is not viewing the world through the lens of race or through the lens of neo-Marxist collectivism.

The solution is determining specific problems and fixing them. For example, the drug war. This terrible, idiotic policy has locked millions of people, many of whom were black, behind bars, and billions of tax dollars have been spent making the lives of those involved in the drug trade worse than they already are. It makes no sense.

Police officers should be generally required to wear body cameras. Police officers are there to serve the people. Many of them are good people. I imagine most are. However, there will always be bad apples in any group, especially in a group that attracts people who are drawn to power.

Speaking of power, this reminds me of the quote from Lord Acton: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Putting police officers under an eye would do well in keeping them honest. This goes back to the famous phrase “who watches the watchmen?” This is a problem as old as government itself. With technology, we now have the means to keep an eye on the watchmen who are meant to serve the public.

I’m sure there are more solutions to be discussed, but those solutions should be discussed and debates using evidence, reason, and logic, not ideologically driven drivel.

No, We Shouldn’t Go Metric


Firstly, I have no desire to use what I consider the Roman Catholic form of measurement. I might be an atheist, but I’m an Anglican Atheist (may the non-existent Lord be with you…).

Obviously the metric system is easier to use. That is clearly obvious. It’s based on the number ten. Division is easy and conversion between grams and kilograms is easy. A kilogram is just a thousand grams. Done. Easy.

The problem, however, is that no one (well, almost no one) uses the metric system on a daily basis. We didn’t grow up with it. We don’t want to convert to it. If we had started off with it, the metric system would be fabulous. But we didn’t. We use pounds, gallons, and the like. We like it that way.

Not using the metric system makes us unique. Yes, we are only one of three countries that don’t use the metric system, along with Liberia and Myanmar (Burma). While that isn’t good company to be in. One has terrible flags, and the other just terrible in general.

Regardless, the United States isn’t terrible. It’s fantastic, even if Americans can’t spell things properly. The United States Customary System makes the United States unique. It makes America great in the same way that common law makes the Anglosphere great. Converting to the metric system would be costly and annoying. No one wants it.

Imagine going to the grocery store and suddenly all of the products are measure in grams, kilograms, and the like. That would cost the store money or it would cost the manufacturers money. They would have to reprint labels and boxes and come up with absurd measurements. Something that used to be measured in ounces would now be measured in grams. This would produce an odd, strange-looking number. A 5 oz. can of tuna fish would now be a 141.75 grams. Who wants that? Sure, the manufacturer could make the units in even numbers, like 140 grams of tuna. But that would mean you’d get less tuna in the can, otherwise the manufacturer would have to change the dimensions of its container. And on top of that, the store would have to relabel everything. It would be chaos.

No one wants chaos. Unless it’s the good kind of chaos, which is never really good.

We Need an Anglosphere Trade Bloc


I certainly believe that Brexit was the right decision for Britain. Leaving the anti-democratic and burdensome European Union allows Britain the freedom to negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world, particularly with the Anglosphere, with whom the British share cultural values, language, and common history.

An Anglosphere trade bloc should be established between the major players of the Anglosphere—the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This trade bloc would not only remove tariffs and barriers from trade, but should generally allow citizens of these countries to live in and work in the other countries of the trade bloc without the need to acquire visas.

The removal of these immigration barriers would lessen the cost of a Brit, New Zealander, or whatever from moving to the United States or any other partner within the trade bloc. This allows people to move from where they are less productive to where they are more productive.

The traditional, non-legal barriers to immigration—namely language and cultural differences—are minimal or non-existent between the Anglosphere. Why not remove the legal barriers to immigration, too? There’s little reason not to.

Certainly people moving between these countries would have restrictions or requirements. They would need to pass a criminal background check and might have to purchase health insurance or pay into the public health insurance system, but if they can afford to do so, why shouldn’t an American be allowed to live and work in Britain? There’s no reason why such a person shouldn’t be able to do so.

It must be stated, however, that the last thing I want is some kind of EU-style system or some Anglo-American super-state, the idea of which sounds like a total nightmare.

Failing to create such a trade bloc would only serve to hurt the Anglosphere. These countries share language, history, common law, and values. The trade bloc would increase friendship and strengthen all countries involved.

The Left is Not Your Friend


Only a small part of me understands the desire to be left-winged within the gay community. I suppose it has to do with the internal, mad desire of people to have a simplistic, dualistic view of the world. Gays see the errors of the right in terms of social conservatism and their desire to return the world to the 1950s. This, with a simplistic view of the world, causes gays to move to the left.

Certainly gay people should have no need to love social conservatives, but the good news is they’ve lost. The social conservatives who beat off to the idealised world of Leave it to Beaver have been soundly defeated.

There is no need to be on the left. They are not your friend. In fact, I consider gays to be natural libertarians, or so I think they should be. Gays tend to be wealthier than their straight friends, so it would seem in their best interest to encourage lower taxes and freer markets where they have the entrepreneurial freedom to improve their lives. This, combined with gays’ natural social liberality, should lead to more being libertarians, not “progressives” or regressives as they should be called.

The left has largely been taken over by the regressives and the third-wave feminists. They are no friends to gays, especially not gay men. In fact, feminists don’t care at all about gay men simply because they are men. Feminist sexism should make gay men and feminists natural enemies, not allies.

Further, there is the infantilisation of gay people by regressives, people who think we need protection from bad words or dangerous ideas. Prior to very recently, it was said by the regressive left that gays were oppressed by the evil cisgender white heteronormative capitalist patriarchy, the main conspiracy theory of the regressive left. Now that gays have the right to marry (at least in some Western countries), many feminists now say that gays are not oppressed, and they now claim that gay men are, like their straight male counterparts, the oppressors of women.

The infantilisation and coddling of young people on college campuses has produced a generation of pussies who are afraid of their own shadows. Culture is on the decline because of this. Gays and straights alike are being brainwashed by the regressive insanity to hate the same Western values that give them the freedom to be gay in the first place. In most other places, gays are arrested, executed, or murdered with impunity. Only in Western countries are gays free to be gay. Only in Western countries, at least some of them, are they granted the right to marry where two people who love each other can legally dedicate their lives to each other.

This is combined with the cultural relativism of the regressive left. They erroneously believe that all cultures are equal, an idea that might as well have originated with the Mad Hatter. Are we really supposed to believe that an Islamic culture that treats women as chattel and criminalises (and sometimes executes) gay people is equal to the liberal values of the West? The claim is absurd on its face and patently insulting.

This cultural relativism likewise prohibits even the debate of restricting Muslim immigration into the West, even from Salafi countries. It doesn’t matter to these people that Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas, with Salafi Islam being the cream of the crop of crazy. These are the people who formed Al-Qaeda and ISIS. These are people who commit murder and believe that homosexuality should be a crime. This is not a minority of Muslims. More than half of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

In addition, even after the Orlando shooting, the left prefer to blame guns and gun owners rather that Islam. Even Obama refused, as he always has, to even say the words “radical Islam.” He would rather cower to the ideology of a mass murderer than speak the truth.

They would rather disarm people and erroneously strip people of their Fifth Amendment right to due process by preventing people on the no-fly list from buying guns, a policy opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and rightly so. They would rather enact gun control legislation and make it harder for gay people to defend themselves. If they had their way, European-style gun control would be the national model, disarming straights and gays alike. Let me make this clear: armed gays don’t get bashed. Destroying the Second Amendment is a direct assault on the ability of gay people to defend themselves from bigots who mean to do them harm. If anyone should support the Second Amendment, it should be gay people.

The era of social conservatism is over. They lost, and the gays won. There is no need to remain on the left when the left has been taken over by lunatics who wish to disarm you, who would rather coddle and insult you, who would rather spread the myth that all cultures are equal, and who refuse to enact policies that actually help gays.

Old Poem: Dust & Lust


This was a poem I published in the old days when I was at college. I was a young, stupid thing back then. I reminisce too often.

With my lips I kiss thine hips—
And caress thy back with my fingertips.
Thine hair—dark brown like toasted wheat.
Oh my, how soft and sweet!
Thine eyes glow glossy green.
Then I rub thy body: long and lean.
I place thine wand in my hand—
And stroke it gently—unlike sand.
I massage thee with every thrust—
While you moan with heart-felt lust.
I ravage thee for good measure.
All of this in the name of pleasure.
For us, making love is a must.
Yet, all of this comes from dust!

Put Rocks Back on the Playground


I remember the good ole days when I was a fat little faggot. I really have no reason to call them the good ole days. Like most children, I was a clueless moron who had no idea how the world worked. I was made fun of for being an odd, fat little faggot. But there was an important lesson learned on the playground when it came to some form of manliness that even a fat little faggot could discover within fat little faggy body.

I learned the value of toughness, how to not be a whiny little pussy. In my day we had rocks on the playground. Gravel, one might call it. Not the sharp kind, of course, but the round pebble-esque rocks that lined the playground under the equipment. Like every child, I would fall on occasion. In the early days I would cry, and be made fun of for crying. I didn’t like being made fun of, so the next time I fell I did my best not to cry until I mastered the art of not crying like a little bitch every time I got a little boo-boo.

When that moment happened, there was a moment of pride. It’s good to feel pride in such things. It’s good to be tough and to not be a total pussy. But then I came to school one day and discovered that the rocks had been replaced with mulch. The reason, of course, was simple: it was safer. And, logically, that makes sense. Rock are hard. If you hit your head on them, you could suffer a serious injury or even die.

The older kids, myself included at this point, didn’t like the mulch. We took pride that we could fall on a hard surface and not cry like pussies. Naturally, we tended the make fun of little kids who cried when they fell on the mulch. But we made a point to always say that there used to be rocks there. Those younger kid were denied the joy and the pride of falling on rocks and congratulating themselves for not crying like pussies.

Eventually those of us who remembered the rocks left for the greener pastures of middle school. The kids who replaced us never knew of those sacred little pebbles that introduced us the earliest feelings of childish manhood. I’m sure those kids felt pride when they fell on the mulch and didn’t cry, but it isn’t the same. Mulch is soft and rock are hard. The result is softer children.

I’m not saying that this is the reason why the youth of today are pussies who demand safe spaces and trigger warnings or who try to silence opinions they don’t like, but there is something wrong. It’s probably a mixture of things, and probably has little to do with those little rocks on the playground. And I suspect that indoctrination has a lot to do with this, but little things matter too.

I feel sad for all the fat little faggots out there. They won’t get the chance to experience the joy of falling on rocks and learning about manliness, even if it’s faggy manliness.

Put the Science Back in Social Science


Youtuber Sargon of Akkad (AKA Carl Benjamin) has a petition to temporarily suspend social justice courses:

Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist. Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.

Social justice has become a victim of its own good intentions and in the desperate attempt to make the world better for some it is creating a world better for none. It has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.

To clarify, we are calling for the teaching of social justice courses in universities to be temporarily suspended. What follows is up for debate, but as it stands now, social justice is causing far more harm than good and it must be halted and reassessed.

I support Sargon’s petition. These courses do not teach about social justice, but rather teach (indoctrinate with) social justice. These professors teach from an anti-positivist viewpoint, which generally disregards empiricism and the scientific method.

These professors also preach from a social constructionist standpoint that teaches that many things are social constructs. This is why so many intersectional/third-wave feminists and so-called social justice warriors erroneously believe that gender and even biological sex are social constructs.

These people prefer to tell students, who are often under the delusion they are being taught facts, that women, Blacks, and others are oppressed by a conspiracy theory called the Patriarchy. As such, these professors demonise white heterosexual men. They practise and preach identity politics. They are racist, insulting, and they infantilise women, homosexuals, and Blacks.

These professors, of course, claim they cannot be racist against Whites because they have redefined the definition of racism as prejudice plus power plus privilege, a definition inconsistent with the dictionary and common sense.

These professors preach for a culture of trigger warnings and safe spaces, teaching their students to think in collectivist mindsets. They encourage students to rail against Western culture, to oppose free speech, and to oppose the marketplace of ideas. What these professors preach is completely antithesis to what a university is supposed to be—a place of actual higher learning. No university can truly be a place of higher learning in such a toxic, derisive atmosphere. Freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas is essential to have a learning environment.

These courses need to be re-evaluated. The indoctrination needs to stop. Such courses need to be taught from a neutral point of view, and, if they are to be called part of the social sciences, from a scientific viewpoint.

I encourage everyone who values the scientific method, sanity, and education to sign the aforementioned petition.