Identity Politics: Pro Social Justice, Anti SJW

My Own Alt Left Manifesto

Alternative left manifestos are springing up left and right these days.  Let's not forget some of the older mainstays, such as Rabbit's Counter Currents article and Bob Lindsay's definition of the alt left, more based on what it isn't than what it is.  Others abound, amidst a growing bevy of media exposure, most of which is getting us entirely and completely wrong.

I've wandered into these waters myself, on occasion.  Sort of.  But only in a somewhat general sense.  So some clarity then.  What follows is an abbreviated outline of what I call "My own Alt-Left Manifesto.  With Blackjack and Hookers." A treatise on Postmodern Political Economy .  

Prelude

• Since the end of WWII, the American left has been primarily concerned with anti-racism, while the American right has been primarily concerned with anti-communism.  While there are other concerns in both cases, those ones dominate.
• Both sides have therefore been successful.  Not totally successful, but more or less so.  The left has seen the passage of civil rights laws, affirmative action, an anti-racist consensus among the general public and even elected a black man for two consecutive terms in the oval office.  The right has seen the dissolution of the USSR, market reforms in China, and a retreat of ideological socialism in most parts of the world.
• Despite, or possibly because of this success, both sides of the US political spectrum have vocal factions that are more rather than less strident and fanatical, such as the paleo-cons and the Tea Party on the right and Black Lives Matter and the social justice warriors on the left.
• What typifies these strident ideologues is epistemic closure - the ideologies are marked by obsessive preoccupation with issues that are of little relevance to others (microaggressions, democrats coming to take everybody's guns away, safe spaces, tax revolt etc) refuse dialogue and negotiation and are impervious to persuasion.  All liberals are America hating cultural Marxists, all white males are racist and sexist, and so on.
• Epistemic closure and overall ideological excess has been enabled by the rise and spread of postmodern philosophy and thought: first in academia and subsequently throughout popular culture.  Postmodernism isn't an easy thing to pin down, but critical to it is a rejection of philosophical objectivism on all levels.  Postmodernists would not only claim that morality is subjective, but also that very axiomatic concepts: the nature of basic perception of reality and the foundations of thought, are socially constructed.  The resulting denial of a common reality and a common set of moral and philosophical principles binding to all has caused increased political and social fragmentation and divisiveness.
• Alternative politics have arisen out of frustration with the above and with how tepid and unresponsive mainstream centrist politics is.  Alternative politics have been further enabled by the enhanced reach and networking capability of social media.
• In response to the race-obsessed left, the Alternative Right is marked by "race realism", white nationalism and a narrative of white victimhood at the hands of a militant left enabled by a weak state, corporate power and obliviousness on part of a mainstream right too preoccupied with wealth accumulation to be at all concerned with preservation of European cultural and racial heritage.

Class Realism

• In keeping with the above, in response to the wealth and property obsessed right, the Alternative Left is marked by "class realism," working and middle class solidarity and a narrative of class war waged by a greedy right enabled by a weak state, corporate power and obliviousness on part of a mainstream left too preoccupied with identity politics to be at all concerned with the welfare of working and middle class people.
• "Class Realism" is defined as acknowledging the reality of class, in the historical materialist sense of the term.  Meaning that class is marked by relations of production - some people make their living entirely off ownership of capital through rent, interest, dividends and so on, while others make their living only by selling their own labor power, while still others are some combination of the two, with wildly varying income levels all around.  Class is best seen then in terms of income, net worth and relations of production.
• Class realism acknowledges that at least since the elections of Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in the UK, western governments have been waging active class war against their own working classes.  This is chiefly marked by the exporting of jobs, importing of mass surplus labor, attacking the unions, deregulation, privatization, and the enabling of large amounts of private and public debt.
• While the right wing has been the main driver in this class warfare, it has been enabled by a regressive left that has displayed neutrality on class and economic issues and defines oppression and marginalization instead in terms of culture and identity, causing socially destructive racial and sexual strife and enabling the right's class warfare.

Manifesto of the Alt Left

• The alt left shall strive to be principled but not dogmatic.  Its primary purpose should be able to passionately and philosophically advocate on behalf of the material needs and interests of the working and middle classes, in favor of policies that materially benefit the broader portion of the population and defend them against rentier policies and economics that would only benefit the few.
• The alt left shall remain committed to full employment and worker's rights at all times.
• The alt left recognizes and opposes all forms bigotry as being socially divisive and undermining working class consciousness and solidarity.  But the alt-left does not recognize any form of systemic racial or sexual oppression as taking place in the western world, and rejects the self serving regressive left dogmas of privilege theory and "power plus prejudice."  
• The alt left recognizes no preferred racial, sexual, gender, ethnic or religious categories, and shall not hinder or oppose free expression thereof or free identification with any of them, subject of course to the laws that govern us all.
• The alt left shall value rationality, reason, free thought and other enlightenment humanist values.  The alt left should eschew dogmatism, fanaticism and be no place for the "true believer."  Conversely, the alt-left should be skeptical of postmodernism and its doctrines of extreme cultural relativism and social constructionism.  Romanticism and religion are important aspects of human nature whose free expression in the private realm should be protected, but are poor guides to governance and public policy.
• The alt left is therefore civilly and culturally libertarian.  The alt left fights for rights, not feelings.  Censorship and penalizing of "offensive" speech is dangerous in light of the fact that what is deemed offensive is subjective.  The alt-left recognizes no special prerogatives (such as past or present marginalized status) on part of any segment of society to censor or penalize expression it deems offensive.
• The Alt Left is gravely concerned about ideological capture of higher education, social media and mass media, and the abuse of organizational structures of these institutions by managerial personnel acting as ideological gatekeepers.  This should be a matter of public concern and corrective measures sought out and taken.
• The alt left believes that questions of human biodiversity across racial and gender lines is a matter best left to scientists rather than politicians, and should no way alter our commitment to the above listed principles.
• The alt left believes that intervention in the affairs of other nations does much more harm than good the vast majority of the time.
• The alt left recognizes that fossil fuels will not last forever and that their ongoing use contributes to climate change, pollution and habitat degradation.  It would well behoove us to research and convert to renewable and clean sources of energy sooner rather than later.

Progressive Reformation: Theses 21 to 40

In a previous blog entry, I had discussed the need for a progressive reformation, and listed 20 proposed theses.  The response was quite positive - the most viewed post on this blog so far, so I'll take that as a good sign and carry on, then.  Another twenty theses it is!

21.  The left has an academia problem.  There's nothing wrong with being a leftist academic. But too much time in Ivory Tower echo chambers creates distance from the realities of common people, and over reliance on self-referencing theory that seems to have to take precedence over reality whenever the two conflict.  Academic disdain for the plebs, when it happens, does not belong on the left.

22.  Academia has a left problem.  It is no secret now that political correctness and an ideological chill effect prevails on many campuses.  Censorship and no-platforming of right leaning speakers is merely the tip of the iceberg.  Leftist ideologues act as gate keepers, barring career progress for academics who don't tow the correct line.  This is not a healthy thing for a democratic polity.

23.  Let's be honest here: Do any of you really believe this postmodernism crap?  If morality and even man's basic means of acquiring moral knowledge are really socially constructed and merely reflections of existing prejudices, than how can you be so sure that feminism and multiculturalism are truly preferable to patriarchy and racism?  Because you sure act as if they are.

24.  The black studies and women's studies departments do not speak for all people of color and women.  Stop acting as if they do.  They speak for a cult of ideologues and the closed body of self referencing work it produces.  Where external (or even internal) criticisms of cherished doctrines are frowned upon as being 'oppressive', you've created a credentialized ideological echo chamber.  

25.  There is a crucial difference between advocating for equal rights for a discriminated against group, and simply being partisans in favor of that group.  Progressives have lost sight of the difference long ago.  This was supposed to be about bring women and minorities to parity with white males, not simply being pro-woman, pro minority, right or wrong.  See theses 1 and 2.

26.  There is a crucial difference between "harassment" and "hate speech,"on the one hand, and disagreement in good faith with the tenets of social justice academia, on the other.  Learn what that difference is and see to it that it is respected in legislation, in academia, in the workplace, online and in all of your personal relationships.  

27.  For God's sake (no pun intended), learn the difference between a race and a religion.  Stop treating religion as a proxy for race, and stop assuming that despite for religions coded white (Christianity) is fair game while despite for religions coded brown/black (Islam) somehow equates to racism or colonialism.  See theses 1 and 5 in the previous entry.

28.  Pursuant to 21 above, stop with the Islamic exceptionalism already.  Please.  Just stop.  You'd be the first to object to dominionist theologians who want biblical law for western nations, so stop pandering and kowtowing to Islamist migrants who want Shari'a law.  Sharia' law does not belong in the west.  Period.

29.  There's a difference between an honest and critical analysis of Islamic theology on the one hand, and hatred for Muslim people and advocacy of abuse against them on the other.  Please display knowledge of this difference during discourse on the subject.  See theses 7, 8, 15-18 in the previous entry.

30.  Much of the concern that westerners have with Islamism lies with just how illiberal it is.  They have no concept of separation of church and state.  They have blasphemy laws.  They execute people who renounce the faith.  They call for the infiltration of and, if possible, the conquest of non Islamic societies.  What business do progressive leftists have with any of this?  Why do we want it in our countries?

31.  The treatment of women, LGBT people, non Muslims, the wrong kinds of Muslims and so on in places like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State and Taliban controlled Afghanistan should especially concern progressive people.  Or is their plight not important because their oppressors aren't white, Christian or European?  Think long on the racism implicit in this line of reasoning.  See thesis 1 in the previous entry. 

32.  Mass immigration.  Just mass immigration.  Stop and think.  By flooding a polity in unskilled laborers, you drive wages down and prices up, and strain existing infrastructure, compromising the government's ability to provide essential services to its population.  The poor and lower rungs of the working classes pay the price for this.  If support for mass immigration is therefore progressive, who needs conservatives?  See theses 7 and 8 in the previous entry.

33.  Reconciling support for mass immigration, especially from Islamic societies with support for radical feminism, queer politics, trans-rights and so on makes squaring the circle look easy, logical and obvious.  Unless the name of the game is "destroy western civilization by whatever means are necessary," which progressives insist it isn't whenever the far right suggests this, pause and reflect on this.  See theses 1, 7 and 8 in the previous entry.

34.  Being offended isn't an argument.  Stop acting like it is.  Hurt feelings do not absolve you of the requirement that you prove your point.  See theses 15, 18 and 20.

35.  Stop denying or handwaving events that are harmful to your narrative.  Do not say that there are no false claims of campus date rape or that there are no substantiated claims of migrant rape, especially in Europe.  It's hard to keep information away from people in the social media age.  Even if most moderators on social media pages are progressives who work hard to suppress such news.  The news will get out, and it will damage your credibility if you've previously tried to suppress it.

36.  Most mainstream media and especially most social media platforms have a strongly progressive/liberal bias.  Just admit it.  They do.  Consider how this might invalidate your claims that your charmed circle of preferred identities are marginalized.  See thesis 19.  And claiming corporate concentration of media ownership does not get you out of this.  Rather, ponder instead the relationship between rapacious capitalism and social liberalism.

37.  Laws and corporate policies that limit or suppress free speech almost always work to the ultimate benefit of the powerful.  Censorship has very rarely, if ever, really benefited marginalized people.  Using hate speech and harassment laws and allegations of bigotry to smear or silence people empowers state and corporate power much more than it empowers marginalized minorities.  It is a strategy the left needs to reconsider.

38.  Left of center activists have no business trying to get people fired from their jobs due to their political beliefs.  For how long did leftists object, and rightly so, when this was done to them?  Have we forgotten the red scare and McCarthyism?  Supporting the sacking of white nationalists and Christian fundamentalists sets a dangerous precedent that progressives will be reminded of when this is, once again, done to them and they object to it.

39.  Any kind of "leftism" that measures progress by how many women and people of color are CEOs  of or sit on the boards of directors of fortune 500 corporations is hardly a leftism worth having.  The problem here is not equal opportunity to serve in senior management if qualified, but of ignoring the huge concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of so few senior personnel.

40.  An off color joke or remark that offends a minority, or a male complementing a female coworker can result in legal settlements worth millions of dollars and destroy multiple careers while abuse of the rights of the workers, union busting, outsourcing, predatory marketing practices, accountancy scandals, environmental degradation and corruption of public officials - among other abuses - barely warrant legislative and quite often media attention.  I shouldn't have to say this is a problem, but I do have to.  Frequently. 

Ideas for a thesis?  Share in the comments!

Identity Politics: Pro Social Justice, Anti SJW

Identity politics is all over the media these days.  Did it contribute to Donald Trump's electoral victory or not?  Were white voters put off of the excessive feminist and POC (people of color) identity politics of the democratic party?  Were white male voters engaging in a reactionary identity politics of their own in their support for Trump?  These allegations abound.

I am not a fan of identity politics, by and large.  But I think it's important to clear up exactly what I think identity politics are and my opinion of the role I think identity politics should play in a reformed progressive left.

To be a progressive leftist is to be concerned first and foremost with social justice.  Now this is a loaded term these days.  I do not refer to the monstrously bastardized form of "social justice" that we've all come to know and ridicule on the internet over the last ten years or so.  This isn't about some blue haired lolcow on tumblr with her own pronouns and made up sexual orientation posting about how all cishet white males need to go die.  I'm referring to what the term has actually meant throughout the millennia over which the concept has existed and the century and a half that the phrase itself has been in use: a belief in the essential worth and dignity of all people and that the social order should reflect this.  In light of this, the recent mutations of identity politics exemplified by what's happened on tumblr has, in fact, been a glaring blow the concept of social justice has taken in living memory.

So, identity politics (IdPol) then.  To be an honest and meaningful concept, social justice cannot blind itself to those instances where there is unfair treatment of people based on some arbitrary characteristic like race, gender and so on.  The defenders of IdPol would object that history is replete with such instances and that their effects continue to be felt in unequal opportunities suffered by members of the victim-groups to this day.  To say nothing of the fact that racism, misogyny, homophobia and so forth are by no means confined to the ash heap of history.  And that there is nothing wrong with pointing any or all of this out.  This is true.  To redress the grievances of people who have been discriminated against due to some aspect or another of their identity requires a political activism that can, with but little exaggeration, be described as identity politics, and that it would be morally and intellectually disingenuous of any self described leftist people or groups to disregard these politics merely for their identitarian character.

None of the above is what most critics of identity politics object to.  Only the far right fringe would object to Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that we be judged by the content of our character rather than by the color of our skin.  What the critics of IdPol object to is the deterministic and Manichean character that such politics can, at times, take on.  In these instances, logic becomes distorted and what began as a push for social justice can become its polar opposite.

What seems to drive this is the IdPol activist seeing not instances of discrimination and oppression of her group here and there throughout history, but rather seeing discrimination and oppression of her group as being the motive force in history.  The totality of all history, at least of a certain culture or definable era, is the oppression of her people at the hands of a broader society characterized by no other quality than hatred for the oppressed group.  What is therefore felt needed to liberate her people and secure justice for them is therefore not equal status within the society, but the root and branch destruction, or at least radical transformation, of that society.  From there, much discourse involves the ongoing process of shoehorning events and issues into that narrative.

Once accepted, if not consciously and intellectually at least subconsciously and instinctively, the IdPol activist has opened the door to the acceptance of all the most detestable features of regressive leftism or right wing extremism, as the case may be.

When one is locked in a winner take all death-grapple against the ultimate evil oppressor, one cannot afford to be bothered with the niceties of civil discourse or even political give and take.  When the stakes are nothing less than the freedom or even the very survival of your people, one does not negotiate with evil without compromising one's own goodness.  To even consider the possibility that the "dark side" might actually make some good points or have some legitimacy of any kind is to open the door to temptation and eventual heresy and treachery.  Such misgivings cannot be entertained, even a bit!  Only complete victory will suffice.  And it must be achieved by whatever means are necessary.

In such a struggle, the ends justify all means.  Double standards when they serve the ends of the "good" side are not merely acceptable, but necessary.  So too is censorship and repression of members of the "bad" side, even if they're not acting bad in that particular instance.  In fact, the good side cannot afford to be lulled into believing that the bad side, both individually and collectively, can do anything that isn't bad, at least in the long run.  Any act of good faith or charity done by any member of the oppressor group or class is done only to lull the marginalized side into false complacency.  All arguments made by the oppressor groups are done with nothing other than the sole intention of betrussing their privilege and reinforcing the marginalized status of oppressed groups.  Pointing out that one belongs to the oppressor class is therefore more than sufficient to shut down any argument they make.  Only the utmost of unwavering vigilance at all times is a fair and acceptable means of dealing with any member of the oppressor group.

The dangers of this kind of thinking should be obvious.  It lends itself to precisely the kind of self righteousness that ends up enabling the very kinds of oppressive and attrocious actions that give rise to later variations of IdPol.  Ironically, it tends to devolve into the IdPol movements coming to resemble their opponents at their very worst.  When we identify ourselves by who we oppose, we have a funny way of coming to imitate them.  So we end up with feminists who police even non-coercive sexual expression and mandate gender roles, men's groups that advocate the wholesale sexual and romantic rejection of women, POC groups that insist upon "safe spaces" that amount to de-facto racial segregation, and white nationalist advocates appealing to multi-culturalist sentiment.

Bear in mind that the attrocities that most incense western progressives these days were motivated, at least in part, by similar kinds of dualistic, Manichean thinking.  Adolf Hitler believed the Jews to be so malignant that to even share the same world with them was a risk not worth taking.  The European Christian powers colonized other parts of the world in part due to a desire to save the indiginous peoples of the colonized regions from the damnation they'd suffer as a result of not being Christianized, and to bring the light of European rationalism to the uncivilized savages.  The very definition of the White Man's burden.  Of course, they made a tidy profit while doing so, but one is entitled to material comfort for doing God's work, is he not?

Once the attrocity has been commited, after that, it is too late.  Restitution is slow and costly.  The ends only rarely justify the means.  This kind of Manichean self righteousness has a powerful way of blinding people to their own potential moral failings.  Those who see the world entirely in pure good vs. ultimate evil terms put themselves at great risk of ending up in the latter rather than the former category.

What I've described here is the most extreme and quintessential form of IdPol.  Most feminists, MRAs, Black Lives Matter supporters or white nationalists would not go this far.  But some do.  Think of IdPol as a continuum.  To be totally anti IdPol is reductionist, and usually done for self serving reasons.  Reasonable concerns with IdPol should not serve as a shield against all allegations of racism, sexism or the like.  Such allegations should be looked at objectively and accepted - or not based on their merits.

But the tendency to take such an assertion as itself an act of racism or sexism - common in today's hypersensitive social justice spaces, is an equally dangerous extreme, and usually done with equally self serving intent.  It is tempting and flattering to view oneself and one's identity as being a stalwart force for good against an onslaught of pure evil.  Not to mention that it gives our humdrum everyday lives a sense of meaning and purpose.  It taps into what I believe is an instinctual desire to be heroic.  We are drawn to heroic mythology, be it the quest of the Argonauts to claim the golden fleece or the Fellowship of the Ring's mission to destroy the one ring, and quite often we are drawn to the politics we embrace for similar underlying reasons.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.  But it must always be tempered by self reflection.  Such thinking can be quite ego stroking and therefore addictive.  Thus, support or opposition to IdPol must be tempered by self reflection and a capacity to see ourselves as being a potential force for the very kinds of evils we set out to conquer.

Progressive Reformation

It becomes increasingly clear as time goes on that we need a progressive reformation.

Wait a minute.  Why just the progressives?  Why not the conservatives?  Anyone wanting a conservative reformation certainly has my blessing and best wishes.  Really.  Good luck with that.  But that's not my thing.  I'll stick to the lefties for now, because that's my world.  That's what I'm familiar with.  Plus, I think the left really should strive for a higher standard of intellectual and moral honesty.  To be honest, I expect dishonesty and opportunism from the right.  Rationalizing abuses of power and obscene concentrations of wealth and denying the harmful effects of these is a major aspect of what right wing politics has been demonstrably about for as long as I can remember.  Witnessing the waxing of dishonesty and opportunism of liberal activism over the last several years has been especially unnerving.

So without further ado then, here are my theses:

1. Exceptionalism based on white male guilt has been a profoundly negative influence on the 1st world political left.  It minimizes the flaws of foreign peoples and governments, and minimizes the strengths of western peoples and governments, and drives the profound distortions that plague the progressive world view.  Recognizing this does not preclude an honest and critical assessment of of western civilization past and present.
2. Karl Marx was a brilliant man with many useful insights.  But the historical dialectic, this determinist, bipolar division of society into oppressive Empire and marginalized and oppressed Rebels needs to die.  This is not a call for a blind moral relativism and especially not a call to exempt rich and powerful elites from scrutiny, but rather a call for a more nuanced view of history and social conflict.  That said, the idea that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" belongs at the center of any sane view of society.
3. It is flattering to believe oneself a part of a larger than life, heroic struggle against some kind of oppression or another.  A world view like this adds excitement and meaning to any otherwise drab or spoilt life.  It also enables self righteousness in favor of self reflection, and a tendency to demonize others.  This does not mean that opposition corruption and abuse of power should not be undertaken, but rather that it be done in a spirit of sobriety and self awareness rather than a spirit of zealotry and crusade.
4. Privilege theory has done vastly more harm than good.  This is not to say that discrimination cannot be identified and combated.  But privilege theory is not about this.  Privilege theory is all about ego.  It is all about holding all white men collectively accountable for the worst actions of specific individuals, and for circumstances that are not in their power to change.  Were feminist and critical race theorists to be honest, they would admit that this is all about implying collective moral superiority.
5. "Power plus prejudice" - this self serving rationalization that claims that women and minorities cannot be sexist or racist because those things require power, which their self referencing dogmas claim they don't have - needs to die.  Again, were honesty to prevail, this post modern antenomianism (an old religious heresy that claimed that moral law did not apply to the "elect")  is all about smugness and licensing the shitty behavior of those fortunate enough to fall within the charmed circle of preferred identities privileged enough not to be "privileged."  
6. Privilege and inequality, where they still exist and are pressing in their nature, are now primarily economic in nature.  Income inequality and the undue influence of money in politics is addressed by center-left parties only at election time.  That these parties are often in the back pockets of moneyed interests perhaps explains why identity instead of economics have become such central issues on the left in the last few decades. The need for this to change is urgent.
7. Willful misuse of terms like "racist", "misogynist", "homophobe", "Islamophobe" and so on was not a wise idea.  People are becoming increasingly less easily emotionally blackmailed or kafkatrapped into accepting liberal positions on issues by intentionally falsified accusations of bigotry.  Doing this also trivializes these terms and erodes their seriousness in the public eye.  Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
8. Particularly galling is the exploitative misuse of bigotry smears to shield people, ideas or policies from otherwise legitimate criticism and scrutiny.  Branding all opposition to mass immigration as "racist" or refusal to support Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as "misogyny" would be cases in point.
9. It is incumbent upon progressive people to convince others of the merits of their world view.  It is not, under any circumstances, an entitlement of progressive people to be agreed with on anything.  Progressives must act accordingly at all times.
10. Thesis 9 holds true even if you have a vagina.  Or black skin.  Or any other marginalized identity.  Identity does not determine truth (see theses 4 and 5).  Progressives must stop resorting to identity to smear opponents or sidestep arguments made against their positions.
11. Your political views, voting patterns, stances on social issues, marginalized identities or any combination thereof does not make you either morally or intellectually superior to others.  Stop acting as though they do.
12. People of color can be racist, even against whites.  Women can be sexist, even against men.  LGBT people can be cis/heterophobic.  Denying this undermines the entire purpose of being against racism, sexism or homophobia.  Stop falling back on the worn self serving rationalizations of privilege and power plus prejudice - see theses 4 and 5 above.  Progressives will be taken more seriously when they hold themselves to their own moral codes.
13. Expressing disdain for working class and poor white men in liberal terms - implying that they're stupid, inbred, inherently racist and bigoted is the utmost height of arrogance and hypocrisy.  Doubly so if this is done from the privileged upper middle class bully pulpits of academia or mainstream media. That the left has no business stigmatizing poverty for anyone, but especially on the basis of race, should require no elaboration.
14. Stop lying.  Really.  Just stop.  Stop denying that any progressive pundit or academic holds unpopular or controversial views when it is demonstrably the case that at least some of them do. Don't claim that there are no feminists who hate all men or equate heterosex with rape (as two examples of many) when this is demonstrably and provably the case.  Once the lie is exposed, do not minimize or rationalize it, or play semantic games to avoid dealing with the implications.  Admit, and distance yourselves from stupid or mean spirited views on the left. 
15. Deal with dissent and counter arguments in an open and honest manner.  Stop with such passive-aggressive behaviors such as playing stupid and willfully misinterpreting or misunderstanding arguments that challenge your world views.  Correctly understand opposed arguments before responding to them - even if they trigger you in some way, and address their central thesis and main supporting points when in contention with them.
16. Do not cherry pick opponent's arguments and present them out of context in order to make them say something they're not.
17. Do not derail conversations by making issues out of minor details in opponent's arguments that are not essential to their main point or thesis.
18. Do not exploit faux outrage - of the "I just can't even" variety - or treat opponent's arguments as morally abhorrent or intentionally provocative or insulting without clear evidence to support your outrage.  Remember that emotional states do not constitute arguments.  See theses 9 and 10.
19. When your views are protected in academic safe spaces, are funded by big business and the state, are protected from criticism and scrutiny by "harassment" or "hate speech" laws, and enjoy unchallenged favorable bias in mainstream media outlets, the group that you belong to can no longer call itself or the people it claims to represent "marginalized."  The status enjoyed by feminism and anti-racism in western societies are the very textbook definitions of privilege.
20. Your emotional states are not claims on other people's behaviors.  It is not incumbent on males to cross the street or vote for Hillary Clinton because you're a woman (see thesis 5) and are afraid of the consequences of males not complying with what would, if honestly assessed, be prejudiced and ideological assumptions underlying those fears. 

The Leftist's Guide to Winning Elections

Can't it be 2008 again?  Or at least some time like that.  That is the question leftists all over the western world today must ask themselves.  Barack Obama was poised to become America's first black president in a landslide victory over John McCain.  And even where nominally conservative parties held office, such as in Canada and the UK, the overall mood was still quite progressive.  The Lehman Bro's meltdown had tanked the credibility of trickle down economics.  Stimulus was the word of the day.

For the social conservatives, things were worse.  Demolishing evangelical Christian dogmas was the favorite sport of the internet, as the works of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins had recently been international bestsellers.  Wall Street was soon to be occupied, and gay marriage destined for legalization.  Of course, there were successes on the right, such as the 2010 emergence of the Tea Party in red state America, David Cameron in the UK or Stephen Harper's conservative majority in Canada, but these just seemed more like a foil for the increasingly progressive and secular status quo.  Remember the debt ceiling fiasco?

Feminism, secularism and LGBT pride ruled the internet, and the old angry white males and the evangelicals were, it was agreed, a diminishing demographic eventually destined for the ash heap of history.  The mere suggestion of racism, misogyny or homophobia was more than sufficient to silence any message board, office or lecture hall into swift submission.  No crystal ball or deck of tarot cards in the halcyon early days of social media could have foreseen Brexit, meme magic, GamerGate or Donald Trump.

As I write this, Trump is poised to take the office of POTUS with a red house and senate.  Right wing, in some cases far right parties surge in the European polls.  Pepe the frog pops up all over social media, and tumblr SJWs with their trigger warnings and safe spaces are now the favorite punching bags of the very kinds of bloggers and YouTubers that not so long ago, it seemed, were trouncing evangelicals.  Even the last great standard bearer of 1st world progressivism, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, has come in for ridicule and criticism for his poetic praise of the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

It didn't have to come to this.  And it doesn't have to stay this way.  It would be quite easy, in fact, for the progressive left to regain the high ground and get the wind back in its sails.  The easiest way to do this might be just to do nothing.  The instant, and I mean the very nanosecond they're sworn in, it will most likely be back to pet issues and fetish causes for the GOP.  Namely, corporate tax cuts, middle east power projection and regional hegemony, and efforts to curb abortion rights.  Not quite what the Cult of Kek had in mind, I'm sure, but did they really think they could challenge the ossified neo-cons of the US deep state that are, for all intents and purposes, there enthroned?  They wouldn't be the first to falter on that assumption.  Hope and change, anyone?

If the progressives want to hasten the process of returning to the White House, and maybe taking back a senate seat or two and a few state governorships, however, here are a few suggestions I have for them:

• There are two kinds of people whom you call racist: real racists, who don't care all that much because you're just a worthless pinko commie to them, and people who aren't racist.  People who aren't racist will get tired of you calling them one sooner or later, so don't.
• The above is also true of people whom you call misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or any other kind of phobic your lexicon might contain.
• This is especially true of you use any of the above to emotionally blackmail or kafkatrap people into accepting your views on broader political issues.  Or to demonstrate a presumed moral, cultural or intellectual superiority on your part.  Or use them to dodge or sidestep lines of argument that challenge your world view.  Try to refrain from doing these things.  If it would help, consider avoiding news sites and blogs that encourage this kind of behavior, such as Everyday Feminism, Jezebel or HuffPost Women (these being the worst offenders, but by no means the only ones).
• It is incumbent upon you to convince others of the merits of your political philosophy.  It is not incumbent upon others to accept your political philosophy or vote in a manner of your preference simply because you want or feel entitled to it.  This is true even if you have a college diploma, a vagina or dark skin.  There is nothing wrong with having any of those things, but they don't entitle you to other people's allegiance.  Even if those factors make you "marginalized" or you fear the results of an election not going your way. 
• Your political views, stances on social issues, education, marginalized identities or any combination thereof do not make you morally or intellectually superior to others.  I'd recommend you not act as though they do.
• Those same factors do not absolve you of the responsibility to prove as factual any claims you make if you wish to have your claims regarded as fact.  
• Those same factors do not entitle you to obstruct traffic, disrupt classroom, workplace or governmental activities, shut down meetings and speakers you disagree with and act like an asshole towards other people.  
• You'd be surprised at how many people privilege theory and "power plus prejudice" don't wash with.  A considerable number of people quite rightly view such sophistry as self serving rationalizations that smug douchebags use to license their own shitty behavior.  Your marginalized identities do not exempt you from being an asshole when that is, in fact, what you are being.
• People don't really care how many college professors or textbooks told you that any of the above is okay.  Credentializing an ideology and institutionalizing it in academia doesn't make said ideology infallible.  If it did, scientific racism would be true because the university of Berlin taught it as gospel circa 1935 or so.  Your own postmodern philosophies are, perhaps, truer than you'd like them to be in this regard.  In this case, your "knowledge" really is just self serving bias.

I could say more, and maybe even go into ideological and policy matters.  But I really don't think it's necessary.  It really comes down to not being an asshole.  Quite frequently, the advice you'd have been quick to give others regarding any kind of PC related issue, except applied to yourself.  That is the hard part, I realize.  But there's a reason the religious leaders of world history so stressed ideas like "doing unto others as you'd have others do unto you," and "removing first the log from thine own eye ..."  It's not because they believed in some fairy tale sky daddy, as I'm sure you've told yourself when you want to feel superior to churchgoing folks - you know, the ones you so smugly derided because they never practiced what they preached?  Yes, those ones.  It's because it really works.  It shows integrity and demonstrable commitment to your values.  People are drawn to that.  People respect that.  Try it.  I think you'd be glad of the results.

The Alt-Left in the Media

It's been a busy week since Trump toot the election, and there's been a raft of articles and videos about why the democrats lost.  A lot of it has to do with weak and corrupt liberal and social democratic politicians, masking their sell out to neo-liberal corporatism behind a mask of snobbish cultural liberalism, have sold out the working class.  This must be the alt-left's primary narrative right now.  And it hasn't just been me who's noticed it.  The excesses of cultural "leftism", regressive leftism and the SJWs along with the shutting out of economic leftism in the Democratic Party and other center-left parties world wide has led first to Brexit, then to this.  By the looks of things, France is next.  Maybe it's not such a bad thing.  Neoliberalism and cultural leftism needs to die.

So here's a run down of many of the headlines I've been seeing that all point to the need for a serious rethink on the center left of the direction it's been headed, from all across the political spectrum.

In Politico, Brent Griffiths notes that "Bernie Sanders Slams Identity Politics as Democrats Figure out Their Future."

George will, writing in the Washington Post, observes that Higher Education is Awash in Hysteria that Might have Helped Elect Trump.

David Marcus, writing in the Federalist, warns that This Election Marks the End of America's Racial Detente.  With Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon heading for Trump's cabinet, that would appear to be so.

Author Sam Harris with a nuanced take on "America's Most Powerful Clown."

Ryan Copper, writing in The Week, laments the Year 2009: The Year the Democratic Party Died, due to mishandling an economic crisis.

Mark Lilla, writing in the New York Times, declares the End of Identity Liberalism.

The Amazing Atheist on YouTube explains how to "Make Liberalism Great Again."

Eli Zaretsky, writing in VersoBooks, describes Trump and the Decline of American Liberalism.

Johnathin Pie rants about Why Trump Won.

Sargon of Akkad on YouTube on "The State of the Media After Trump."

Eddie Slovak: "Sorry liberals, but I'm Leaving you on the Left: An Acknowledgement of Vacuousness."

Sean Trende, writing in Real Clear Politics, describes the socially moderate, fiscally cautious and culturally cosmopolitan "New Democrats" as the God that Failed.

The Jimmy Dore Show on "Donald Trump Defeats Hillary Clinton."

In the New York Times, Johnathan Martin writes about Pulling Democrats Back to 'It's the Economy, Stupid!"

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk on "The Issue that Won Trump the Election."

Writing in the Washington Monthly, David Atkins implores the Democratic Establishment to "Stop Blaming the Voters."

In the Washington Post, John B. Judis opines on Why Identity Politics Couldn't Clinch a Clinton Win.

Steve Keen, writing in Forbes, points out Trump's Truthful Heresy on Globalization and Free Trade.

In the New Republic, Sarah Jones writes that Hillary Clinton's Celebrity Feminism was a Failure.

Frank Bruni, opining in the New York Times, states quite bluntly, "The Democrats Screwed Up."

In the Boston Globe, John Mcwhorter writes that "The idea that America Doesn't Talk About Racism is Absurd."

Brendan O'Neil, editor at Spiked, warns: "Everyone Needs to Stop Talking About 'White People,"

In The Guardian, George Monbiot writes, "Neoliberalism: the Deep Story that lies Beneath Donald Trump's Triumph."

In the World Socialist Website, Eric London debunks "The Myth of the Reactionary White Working Class."

Jedidiah Purdy, writing in the Jacobin, describes "How Trump Won."

In the Guardian, Thomas Frank tells us that "Donald Trump is Moving into the White House, and Liberals put him There."

Robert Reich, once Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, writes in Alernet, "Why the White Working Class Abandoned the Democratic Party."

Freddie DeBoer tells us "Why They're Going to Keep Losing."

In the Guardian, Naomi Klein tells us that "It was the Democrat's Embrace of Neo Liberalism that Won it for Trump."

This list is by no means conclusive.  Any other articles and videos I've missed?  Let me know in the comments.