Saturday, January 25, 2014

Have you ever been to Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things?

It's all run by Jews you know.
Here's another one I feel slightly ashamed I didn't put into the essay.  Keep it classy Right-wingers.

Hitler: 
-Ended Germany's Super Depression 
-Autobahn 
-Volkswagon 
-Fought against French Opression 
-Won Iron Cross for fighting for his country 
=Insane Dictator 

Obama: 
-Cost the U.S. trillions with all his social welfare and healthcare plans despite current economy 
-No backbone 
-House wants him impeached 
-Lied about backing out of Middle East 
-Won Nobel Peace Prize Despite doign[sic] nothing 
=SAVIOR OF HUMANITY 

Friday, January 24, 2014

The Tea Party is a Fascist Organization and a By-product of Capitalism

The title of this essay is a claim fairly easy to make in my estimation, and I won’t be spending much time trying to prove it.  Doggedly and passionately anti-Socialist, anti-government unless it means locking up faggots, hippies, women who have abortions or any other group that aren’t fanatically Christian enough for these zealots, they are Fascist in every sense of the word, and would be Nazis only they’ve replaced anti-Semitism with a type of Islamophobia viewing Muslims as a collective race of people as the Nazis did the Jews, and viewing them as a impending threat to National sovereignty and the continuation of the Classical Liberal tradition.  Though, of course “Liberal” is one of the foulest words in the English dictionary to them (asides from Atheist, Marxist, or Intellectual, getting me all three times) and as some of the most extreme elements of the Religious Right they’re strongly opposed to secular and Classical Liberal ideals – the ideals this country was founded upon – as well.  Here is link to a short article - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/19/texas-tea-party-leader-promotes-fascist-party-as-pro-constitution-pro-america/ - describing briefly an explicit account of what I’m describing, though frankly I wouldn’t need this evidence to state with confidence and conviction that the Tea Party is Fascism with a patriotic head as Nazism was totalitarianism and anti-intellectualism with a German head; Germany beforehand being the most cultured and intellectual place in Europe, seen in their long last of intellectuals both accepted in the University’s and social recluses, and by the work of one of those recluses, namely Marx’s The German Ideology, where he describes German’s fascination with Hegel.
Mussolini described Fascism as where the corporations become the Government, or at the very least where State and Corporate interests merge, and of course since the era of Reagan and to a smaller extent across American history we do see this on-large.  Beginning in large with HW Bush and Reagan due-to their pushing of anti-democratic laws that with the financing of parties by corporations made the quasi-dictatorial or authoritarian two-party state we now reside in; and at times I’m tempted to take away the “quasi” qualifier based on what I read or hear about everyday that is usually swept under the rug by the establishment corporate news sources that I’m glad to see is losing its power more so every year.  To illustrate the ignorance of the average American, different important questions are asked, but one of which that I’m glad to hear the answer of is that many Americans can no longer identify large news anchors on corporate-run television stations.  I realize that this means that the average American at-least in some ways is becoming more apathetic of current events and affairs, but I also consider this to be an improvement to being earnestly concerned about every-little-tragedy that occurs in America and either never wanting any solution or buying into a horrible solution like more police in schools than the actual problem which is cultural and a severe lack of gun regulation.  One thing you can say about a Nihilist whether he or she is so explicitly or subconsciously is they’ll never buy into the propaganda of those pumping it into the Stratosphere.  For those unaware of the “There’s Always Room For Jello” Campaign and how Jello Biafra in the seventies was allowed federally mandated equal time with those with corporate backings, it’s something to investigate on to see how far this country has gone from being a true Democracy even in the guise of Representative Democracy.
Of course the Tea Party is Fascist, as is the Republican Party, to a lesser extent Democratic Party and the overall movement in America of supporting corporations over human rights and needs and supporting police brutality and bigoted religious prejudice over secular rights for all.  The anti-intellectualism and sheer stupidity of these goons (all parties mentioned asides from the victims) is self-evident to anyone with two neurons to spare him of being a complete an utter moron.  Because I feel that we Leftists should never forget the type of dupes and rubes we’re dealing with, and one of the reasons why we must always take the materialist route of educating and increasing the quality of life of the average person before swaying them, here are three responses the question “Is the Tea Party Fascist” from Yahoo Answers, not the most educated or articulate of venues on the internet I confess, but I never made the qualification that it would be nor did I need-to to qualify my statement: 

·         xtreme nationalism? you mean we don't hate ou country like you Marxists do? 

Or you mean we think the Studen loan program and two thirds of the Auto makers whould be owned by the governmetn? 

TEA Party? The TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY party? 

yeah, we want lower taxes and less government. That sounds pretty fascist to me! 

DIPSHIT!

o    So you find a story on a person that says he is in the Tea PArty and condemn the whole movement. 

David Duke was a Democrat. Are all Democrats racist nazis? 
Ted Kennedy was a cheat, drunk and murderer. Are all Democrats a cheat, drunk and murderer.

o    I am PROUD to be a member of the TEA Party. The members in this group represent me, are like me, and it is how I am raising my son. 

My son will not be a hip-hop welfare sucker, a drug user, and a parasite on society like democrats and liberals.

I don’t know why worthless morons have the compulsion of making their stupidity blatant by capitalizing words or having terrible spelling and grammar, but we should be thankful that this is the case.  Also I feel I’m only scooping the curdled material at the top-of-the-barrel, if one would go to Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things, or Fundamentalists Say the Darndest Things – not all Tea Partiers I realize but very similar in mentality – you’ll find content so vapid, so dense and so delusional and unknowledgeable it’ll make this stuff look like an adequate thesis paper addressing American contemporary politics.
Many Liberal commentators are intelligent and adept enough in their own craft and mentality to realize almost all of what I’ve said, however, the major distinction between us Scientific Socialists, Marxists and them, is that they preach a almost wholly and utterly idealistic framework that ignores the effects of poverty and ignorance Capitalism produces that allows Fascism to foster, that we materialists understand intuitively.  Fascism and the fanatically religious cannot exist on-large without institutionalized poverty and ignorance which is what the Capitalist system creates, allowing on quasi-Fascist politicians and church leaders to propagandize, alter history books, and create the ideological and cultural superstructure which allows some form of Capitalism to flourish.  Some Liberals like Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks mentions that they (or “we” if as Progressives Leftists would fall into a larger camp that they’re a subcategory of) can work with Tea Partiers because they both think the Governments far too big and is critical of what they call “Crony Capitalism.”  What they don’t understand is that they have radically different perceptions of the world, logic, morality, cause-and-effect, psychological or subconscious precepts and therefore the two colluding would be as difficult and counterproductive as Fundamentalist Christians and Secularists joining against Pagans, (a word I generally don’t use and don’t like because it essentially means “non-Abrahamic”) especially considering there are more Pagan traditions in Christmas than Christian ones.  The Tea Party’s belief that “the Government is too big” is held in their belief that the average citizen (especially if he is black, a foreigner, or Liberal) is lazy and is essentially a leech, feeding off their well-earned white profits.  If these people are “Libertarian” they are essentially Libertarian the way Hitler was a Socialist.  For those ignorant of such things, Hitler defined Socialism as a “whites-only” creed or ideology, to show how much he knew or understood of a mentality which has the defining characteristic of being post-racial.  If Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Ron Paul or Libertarians, then so is essentially every anti-Secular bigot in the deep-south.  I knew Right-wing Libertarians were growing in number but who knew they were running the country the whole time?
As a closing, I’d like to rephrase that the Republicans themselves have become more fundamentalist as they begin their inevitable decline, much like to my knowledge the largest of dinosaurs existed just at the precipice of the Age of the Reptiles.  We all know of insane far-right politicians who want to make receiving a blowjob (or giving, though something tells me that I don’t need to guess with modern Conservative misogyny – yes real misogyny Feminists, not men who are pigs for looking at porn – which one would be punished more sternly.  Also, there’s a funny Catholic mandate of the Medieval Era, I’m sorry to say I’m ignorant of the exact century, claiming that all women who give blowjobs are committing an act of cannibalism.  If you know where this derives from, I’ll buy you a drink.) or those who believe that evolution and global warming are Atheist “Liberal” lies from Hell, but though even America’s average idiot has grown past this insanity, we must acknowledge the seriousness of what they propose past the insanity of their statements.  Hitler said crazy things about Jews, gays and Communists as-well, but he was and had in his ranks those who were serious enough about their laughable convictions and beliefs to effect change towards their insanity, as we see in the Conservative movement, with the Tea Party being only a Populist faction of.
In-fact the average American is making small-steps towards Atheism, Progressivism and Enlightenment convictions despite their slightly-above marginal intellects and the otherwise completely anti-intellectual atmosphere of the consumeristic and religious establishments.  The baby boomers death is a new life to our Nation, and we Marxists must take a hold of this and not allow sectarianism or idealism to corrupt or neutralize our movement and revolutionary potential.  We must always elucidate our views, but more important than said views is creating the atmosphere where they can be understood and believed in.  We must first strengthen the muscles, brain, and detox the junky and fast food addict (that is he who willingly buys into Right-wing garbage, or he who simply has had it in his presence like unhealthy elements in food his entire life; obviously the latter is who we should focus on for he will not be set against us.  Though there are traits of the drug addict and fast food consumer in most individuals, and I mean this in both the literal sense, and for the purposes of my incredibly well-constructed analogy.) and to temper what will be the new drug, namely Consumeristic Liberalism (or Liberal Consumerism if you like though both seem accurate) which almost inevitably will replace Religious Conservatism. 
Seen in the rise of Fascism in Greece after its unemployment crises, as well-as a slight rise in Fascist sentiment in Europe as a whole almost without exception to the extent the unemployment crises and the Right’s austerity programs harmed the poor and their Social Democracy’s welfare state, Capitalism by its very nature drastically reduces egalitarian, democratic and intellectual potential to the extent that it exists, but as materialists and Marxists we must combat said material ills producing ideological evils such as Fascism with our own unique synthesis of material and ideological tactics which Scientific Socialism and Dialectical Materialism alone can give us.
Well, now that I’ve skipped through all the spelling and grammar errors of the three Yahoo responses I’ve included, I’ve decided to give you my friends a gift of more odd insanity, the first two having to do with what I’ve been discussing, and the last being included just for chuckles.  Enjoy.
--
Statutory rape should be decided on a case-by-case, frankly it's a judgement call. 

Ex : 14 year old girl, 18 year old boy. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. 

Ex : 14 year old girl, 40 year old man. That's generally wrong BUT sentence should be individual. If he's seducing her, throw the book at him. But if she seems to be the primary actor and "shit happened" I don't necessarily think prison is appropriate or helpful. More likely the girl has psychological problems that she's going out seducing middle-aged men for casual sex. She needs help and counciling, and he needs to keep his dick in his pants, I'd give him a year in prison to help him do that. 

Just like with murder there's different degrees. 

There's a difference between "we were having a fight, he fell, hit his head and died" vs "I snuck into his house while he was sleeping and cut his throat." 

One is "shit happens" and the other is "you're a cold-blooded murderer and a danger to society." 

But there's no degrees in rape. The guy who brutally beats a woman and rapes her in the ass is getting the same sentence as a portly middle-age schoolteacher that couldn't help himself when a lolita offered herself. 

I don't see feminists complaining when a 35 year old female teacher is having sex with 14 year old boys. And frankly the 14 year old boys aren't complaining either. What does she usuallty get? A slap on the wrist? I don't see NOW holding protests over that. They just don't care. 

Child support and alimony should be abolished. 

Your body, your choice, your wallet. 

If he shows up to court and wants to be involved, he should have automatic 50/50 custody. 

If he doesn't show up, doesn't get involved, then raise the child yourself. Whoever actually wants to raise the child should raise the child. 

If she doesn't care, doesn't want to be involved, then HE should take the child and raise it. 

If they both care about the child, then do a 50/50 split parenting. 

As far as forcible rape goes, I know there's a tendency to want harsher and harsher sentences, but honestly I think 18 years 9 months in prison is quite alot by anybody's standards, especially when the other inmates know you're in for rape. It's not gonna be fun and games, trust me, and you're prolly gonna get raped in prison and you prolly deserve it. 

My 2 cents
-
I’m often asked, “Why is the Constitution such a big issue to you?” My initial response is, “Why isn’t it a big issue to you?” Let me provide a short list of reasons why the Constitution and what it represents should be important to all of us: 

1. It defies Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in nearly every article and amendment. 

2. It’s the reason America is teetering on the precipice (or, actually, already falling into the chasm) of moral depravity and national destruction. 

3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?) 

4. Identifying and repenting of the Constitution, as the national idol it represents, holds part of the answer for restoring America to her 17th-century Christian roots. 

5. Any hope of a future generation establishing a government of, by, and for Yahweh depends upon our exposing the Constitution’s heresy and instilling Yahweh’s law in the hearts and minds of our children and grandchildren.

!

Allow me to introduce myself... 

My name is Krista, otherwise known as "The Femitheist". I am a female, a feminist, and someone who believes strongly in True Equality. 

Now, I will begin explaining this entry before I post the actual article... for your discussion, of course. 

Women MUST and WILL have equality, and this is the ONLY way to achieve TRUE equality. The testicles of all males, which produce the majority of their testosterone, are the primary cause of their violent behavior. The testicles also attribute greatly to many of the health problems men experience later in life (such as prostate cancer and, of course, testicular cancer). 

~:The Solution... International Castration Day.:~ 

It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated. Not only for their own safety, but for the safety of all innocent women and children. 

And, to achieve this... 

The entire world should have an international holiday known as: "Castration Day" 

Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror. 

Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society. 

It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony. 

The males will then have one hour to get to know their Castrator. Their female "spouse" will also be able to choose whether or not they would like to milk the male in order to retain a sperm sample. 

If the male is too young for a "spouse", their mother or closest female relative will decide. 

After this, the men will be given anesthetics. They will be placed on a table, where their Castrator will then slice open their ball-sack, remove their testicles, and the excess skin, stitch them up and clean them up. 

They will be given thirty minutes to rest after the procedure. 

Once the males have all been castrated, they will be grouped together again for one last look before walking nude back to their homes. 

The women will then return to their jobs, schools, et cetera, and rejoice in the completion of yet another successful ceremony. 

Any man who tries to evade this holiday, "Castration Day", should be murdered wherever they 
are found (treated as a criminal, as it will be a crime not to attend). Or, forced to attend. 
Regardless of age. 

Any woman who disagrees should be provided therapy in order to free her from misogynistic indoctrination. 

This holiday should replace the day known currently as "Father's Day". 

If this practice were adopted officially all across the world, all war, crime, and violence would end. 

We would have a true Eutopia, where peace reigns, and men do only what they exist for... 

Breed. 

Labor. 

SERVE. 

Die. 

Likewise, the change of their hormones would make them less aggressive, and thus less likely to rape. It would also provide them with better health throughout their life, as the testicles are a major cause of health issues in males as they age. 

All will profit from this... 

And, I believe this will come to be someday soon. 

Thanks for your consideration!

Monday, January 20, 2014

Because I'm so wonderful and beneficent I've decided to give you all a present, namely my presence approx. a day early even though today is my 21st birthday.

You're welcome.

Oh and p.s. I'm too non-conventional to drink tonight; though I did the last few nights I could "legally" drink illegally - because that's just how I roll.
The Ethics and Necessity of Vanguard Intellectualism

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, what I will proceed in writing may be the most important concepts for the Left – and philosophers who have a thorough knowledge and understanding of basic intellectual principles – to exercise and one of the most important pieces I could write if they – The Left – began acting with an understanding of the contents of this essay in mind.  When I use the term “Left” or “Leftist” I’m talking about one who properly understands, and holds with legitimacy and consistency the virtues of individual freedom and relative egalitarianism in the confines of a materialist Utilitarian framework – which is to be contrasted to idealistic Utilitarianism which seeks to create a world where everyone magically begins to act as Rational Agents in an irrational society, treating people with respect and dignity when the institutions of their culture promote otherwise implicitly if not at-times blatantly.
Most Leftists, whether politically active or not, fail to retain the proper mentality and understanding of reality essential in increasing the demographic and “democratic power” of the Left; two entirely different things in a society where information and opinion is funded by those consciously unwilling to have anything left of a centrist’s views be disseminated.  Since the inception of the Era of the Bourgeois, Liberals have always – that is in Capitalist Republics, Monarchies which isn’t truly Bourgeois haven’t transformed to the Liberal Democratic model of Capitalist rights and form of Governments necessarily.  The distinction is important if for no other reason that Liberalism was illegal under Monarchism, while in the early twenty-first century being a Socialist was essentially illegal (being a Communist or Anarchist certainly was) due-to those campaigning against the Capitalist first World War were penalized – functioned as the barrier of acceptable opinion in society.  When there is debate what does it consist of?  Idealist Progressives – at best – against Reactionary Christian zealots, Libertarians, or some other strain of the Right-wing.  Conventionally however it is between Democrats and Republicans, which at their most diverse is essentially an engagement ‘tween the Left of the Centre-right and the Right of the Centre-Right.  Perhaps forty years ago the average Democrat was an effective Centrist with some of the ideals of the Centre-left, but this returns to the Idealist Progressivism I mentioned, and typically tainted with the Reactionary medieval psychology of Christianity, making any true and consistent preaching of Progressivism impossible.  The Democratic Party will always be a slightly less reactionary, pro-censorship and anti-intellectual (that is lesser in racism, xenophobia and religiosity; though lesser in anti-intellectualism in its “pure” form as-well) version of the Republican Party, if it cannot cast-off the Shadow of God.  Religion is not a problem amongst Socialists, but idealism in various ways is.
One thing you can never say about the Right is that they are disorganized and irrational in how they affect political change.  The Left lacks political power systemic of strategic and systematic exclusion from the Right, this is clear, but the Left doesn’t do itself any favors.  There seems to be a certain form of flabbiness and lack of intellectual and ideological conviction on the Left.  Being more intelligent and psychologically stable, they are less prone to the zealotry of fundamentalism that persists in worshippers of Jesus and Reagan; a type of delusional obsession that has produced a form of ideological Doublethink where one believes the two are not only congruent but compliment the other while to the objective viewer stark contradictions would immediately come into view.  It’s a very rare thing to see a sane and intelligent zealot, one that pontificates without preaching and who produces propaganda (that is direct political or philosophical material with a conscious evocation both simply and elaborately put – if done well – to sway thought or move common opinion) without seeming propagandistic; that is biased without being deceptive or a petty pamphleteer.  For even a dullard can sense the insincere and saccharine babble our political, business and religious establishments produce.  The TGI Friday’s waitress with the fake smile, the Politician with the “Morning in America” or “Hope and Change” message and focus on superficiality over substance and the Priest telling lies to the simple and desperate.  When I say “insincere” I do not mean that most people who embody – except the TGI Friday’s employee; if she has two neurons to rub together she doesn’t actually concerned if you enjoy your meal, I suppose I should’ve mentioned the bullshit in the Capitalist class of the nice suits and false smiles that they force on their employees in a different form – these appearances do not believe in their “ideological product.”  Quite the contrary, these people are typically devoted followers of their creed, but they have in them a type of forced interest and feigned perpetual passion for their daily propagandizing which must grow dull and repetitive even to the most dull and single-minded.  The priest somehow manages to convince himself that he can with purpose speak about a book that has been around for centuries to an audience who have already by showing up to slaughterhouse of the soul showed their commitment to either the faith, or simply having faith in faith.  That is drinking a certain flavor of rat poison, or believing in drinking the Kool-aid just for the value they derive in drinking it.  Leftists seem to lack this type of commitment due-to intelligence and a psychological dislike of Populism, which is their intellectual and moral triumph but sadly due-to human nature and current conditioning a main source of their societal defeat.
We must not wish to become a different brand of Populism or the essence of the “Church Goer” either in the role of priest or flock.  On the later point, the New Atheists have in-a-sense tried to create a new “Church” or community of ideological idealists who are zealots about something that is supposed to be the antithesis of fanaticism.  They speak about the human need for community camaraderie and closeness – which I disagree about its existence, there are primal human attributes and impulses, and they are molded by society to become various things for various people; and the need to be part of a cult or flock is one reaction in-part to a certain human essence I won’t elaborate on now, and partly due entirely to social pressures and the psychology of suffering or some form of weakness – but this is something I feel is something we should wish to do away with rather than emulate.  Of course there is the need for social interaction, stimulation and the feeling of being needed, wanted, or admired in some capacity, but this is satisfied in a healthy and functional way potentially with among friends and family.  However, the need to be a part of something, what essentially amounts to Existential junk food, the idea that we are given purpose and value through a type of gathering is a type of neurosis that’s dangerous to critical though as well-as to integrity.  A common person’s immediate reaction to Ron Paul Libertarians proves this point immediately.  Humanity grows both materially and intellectually (the second largely being slave to the first tragically) when the need for “community” dwindles.  This need is in-part society-based, and in-part the remainder of petty tribalism and the need for people to have non-economic incentives to cooperate – though of course these motivations were always superficial smoke screens behind material or economic incentives, like the Hebrews and Christians believing it was not only their right, but duty to slaughter other groups of people, steal their land and convert them to the Borg.  Intellectualism is, and if any intellectual movement is valid and sincere must be, the antithesis of a church, not the redesign or alteration of it.  Instead of a hierarchal organization where all must be silent during Mass, we must surpass this stupidity by creating halls of humor and serious discussion, where intellectual, passionate and earnest men and women gather for entertainment, action and growth.  While Church is the greatest time Man has ever yet discovered for himself, for it is both boring and unproductive, our philosophical halls of thought and laughter must above all else aspire to be the antithesis of this.
And on Populism, I dare say it is one of the most dubious and devious of mentalities and approaches to politics as well-as life.  Pandering to the lowest common denominator is of course a common essence in Capitalism, business, and religion alike, and if the Left wishes to maintain its dignity and self-respect, it must not fail into this trap but at-all times purge elements of itself which have said illness.  Populism may seem to be focused on democratic virtue and egalitarianism – but I don’t think that such a misconception of terms could be stated asides from Christianity preaching mainly love or Islam being a religion of peace.  Populism is the spoiling of children, rather than educating them, giving them what they need and telling them, “no Johnny, you can’t have ice cream, you had some last night.”  It is in-part anti-intellectual and is a type of at-best collectivistic wishy-washy mentality of gratifying immediate demands of short-sided and typically uncultured people who don’t have a systematic or comprehensive view on things.  Populism is an anti-thesis – if not the anti-thesis – to egalitarianism because while true egalitarian ideals would have everyone educated and given the resources to have relative equality in a meaningful way, Populism is the demands and management of uneducated people who can’t manage their own lives very-well let alone a political movement.  We mustn’t pertain to the lowest common denominator’s materialistic demands of simply increasing wages, instead, we must be materialists and insist on increasing the education and livelihood – and yes wages is a part of this, but just as importantly as the increase of wages is the expression of why it is just and what is preventing a society where everyone gets their deserved earnings for a livelihood which is a fundamental human right.  A child might want to simply hear “violent video games don’t make you more violent and are therefore ok to play,” but we must express and teach them why and how these conclusions are made so they can make well-made conclusions of their own and work with intelligence towards a world where all violence exists merely in fantasy – of the masses in a meaningful and complex rather than simply the binary of whether or not they have money to waste on toys or booze – though of course that’s not even a problem for some, who can’t even afford bare living expenses, partly because they spend money poorly living in a consumeristic society; though I of course don’t mean to blame the victim for his lot in life.  Overall, we must not simply give people the resources to satisfy their base, counter-productive and often destructive habits but give them the tools and attributes to create cultured beings that crave and strive for higher rather than more pleasures – that is pleasures greater in quality not in quantity.
So while Socialist movements should not relinquish grass-root tactics from their repertoire, I do think that there is a dangerous type of either naivety or anti-intellectualism in having hostility towards the word or sentiment of “Elite.”  Now if by “elite” you refer to the simple hierarchy of political leaders, businessmen and priests, then of course it’s not only healthy but a requirement for a completely healthy psychological and existential make-up to distrust and dislike the sort.  What I refer to is a dislike of the skilled, knowledgeable, intelligent leader personality, who is bold and capable and who is not only willing in esteem but capable of moving a movement at-all.  These issues are things we should all be able to agree on, but more-than this there are aspects and necessary traits of an effective worker’s movement we must be willing to collude on as-well.  For there is a knife edge between these virtues in a unvirtuous world, ones that I feel none other than George Orwell (in what Winston is willing to do to the Inner Party and even to random bystanders if it meant defeating and destroying this ultimate evil) and Machiavelli describe perfectly, at-least to my limited knowledge.  The former being firmly against these moral regressions, and the other encouraging them as necessary if not believing they possessed a type of moral strength, dexterity, and fortitude that have value in-themselves.  You see this in-part with the Christian Right talking about homosexuality and demonizing young people even though it’s a turn-off to everyone whose age isn’t above sixty or there IQ below it; and in the Business-orientated Right in them being the manipulative populists I talked about earlier.
Though we must at-all-costs be wary of the type of leader worship of Machiavelli, it is also essential to remember his genius in remembering the reality of human beings needing a central figure both paradoxically characterizing and defining the ethos of the time who can guide them both in motivation, zeal and in appropriate and rational action – if reasoned action is what they desire which is seldom the case.  Essentially a motivator as well as a teacher.  Machiavelli knew too well the human need for role models and exemplary figures, and understood the baseness of human motivation and their supposedly grand incentives as-well; though far too many films, particularly Disney films, are based off his thought.  There is a certain genius in being different things to different people – Dexter in his show and Walter in Braking Bad are fine representations of this genius; I would mention House, (or rather mention him as an example rather than why he isn’t one) but he’s more the character who somehow manages to manipulate everyone while them having a basic knowledge though perhaps poor understanding of who he is, which is quite different than what the other characters succeed in – that which those who pander to the ignorant and anti-intellectuals have achieved while Intellectuals in their intellectual honesty have not.  Something which the Republicans have become as skilled-at as almost any Political Party can, what with the synthesis of Capitalism and Comrade Jesus of Nazareth as I’ve mentioned earlier; the only other group in history I can recall that have done this better is the National Socialists, formerly known as the German Workers’ Party.  Who made far-leftists believe they were a secular group of anti-Capitalists; and Conservatives and Business men believe they were a group of deeply devout Catholics who would Christianize the country and defend the property rights of rich people against Communists – unfortunately I have no need to inform of which narrative is more accurate.  We mustn’t be schizophrenic or deceitful, but we must know what different demographics of the populous want, and attempt to demonstrate without denigrating or betraying our values that we are this, while telling them they should always be critical and striving for more.  Much of the population will have a part of themselves, a defeatist, apathetic and worse Nihilist part of their psychology that will not wish to believe in virtuous qualities and noble characteristics they have been trained to not believe in wholeheartedly, either because they have given up or given in, but there is still a remnant of ethical purity and a yearning to believe in absolute justice and righteousness, in something grander and greater than crass and base hedonistic desires, though its either left to lethargy or given to religions, cult figures and political parties for their own further misappropriations.
We must not pander to the masses, and pretend that all potential elements are equal in a struggle.  Just as there are different rankings in the military, hopefully based upon performance, ability, and character, while all those who struggle in the common effort receive some level of appreciation for their sacrifices (though in a military the lowest ranks of soldier are usually expected to make the largest sacrifices, in political organizations it is somewhat the opposite, especially when one considers the sacrifices that men like MLK Jr. and Lenin made in their respective struggles) we must acknowledge rankings based on commitment, basic and specific fields of knowledge, character, and political effectiveness either in persuading demographics or showing effectiveness in some other outlet or capacity.  The Slovenian Philosopher Zizek tells a story of a Marxist going to a factory and telling the workers there that “Just because I’ve been to college and am well-educated and intellectual I’m not going to do what most do and talk down to you.  I’m sure there is something we can all learn from one-another.”  I’m paraphrasing but that roughly was his attempt at sounding “egalitarian.”  A worker retorts by standing up and in a tone signifying his irritation and saying:  “Don’t give us that ‘we’re all equal, and we all can grow from one another bullshit’.  You know things that we do not and have a number of opportunities and advantages that we never had.  It is your responsibility to help us teach us so we can be to your level of abilities and intelligence.  Not to say, ‘oh we are all equal la dee dah’ when we clearly are not.”  This perfectly reflects the essence between phony hippy-dippy egalitarianism which can be associated to a type of Liberal or Right-wing egalitarianism of all endeavors being equal in a “free society” as-long as one person doesn’t harm the other person, who is to say that a delivery man’s life is less than a surgeon’s or writer’s life?  And this form of egalitarianism could be easily asserted into Communist psychology if the moneyless element of said system is taken to mean ethical equality.  Just because a janitor is necessary, as are bacteria, does not mean that a germ or street sweeper is morally equivalent in both regards to a man of intellect ability and character.  We should always be wary of anyone using the term ‘egalitarian’ in such a foolish way, or use a different term to describe what we mean by “equality” if the term is unsalvageable which I do not think is the case since so few people know what egalitarian means while the term “cynical” or “Cynicism” on the other hand has been bastardized almost beyond redemption.
We of course can speak of equality in a political sense between those of different attributes and abilities, but in the sense of virtual equality, there will never be complete equality in objects or beings who are not the same in identity.  If two things are different than logic and definition necessitates that there are traits that keep the two apart.  One possesses one thing that the other does not and very-likely vice-versa.  Just as men and women should of course be political equals, though studies have shown that the male and female brain are wired quite differently, and therefore statistically one gender is more-likely to gravitate towards and be skilled towards fields the other will or is not. 
We must remember the moral obligation of intellectuals whenever possible, and to make Socialist or Progressive Egalitarianism a reality, rather than “moral”, Liberal and Libertarian egalitarianism of negative liberty whose reasoning has overstepped its bound into characteristics of being it is not fit to address or benefit.  The moral obligation of intellectuals today is to, without being dull or propagandistic, educate, enlighten, and aid whenever possible those who have been not-only made ignorant but forced a certain frame-of-view or narrative into their mind.  The Bolsheviks who would replace one pair of glasses for another are not our friends but other closed-minded fools to be against.  If humanity is to grow and virtue and dignity flourish, the first thing we must be against above all else is small and closed mindedness; the second being a subcategory of the first.
Another thing that the Left is inept in is having knowledge of or utilizing knowledge of psychology effectively.  This has to do with a lack of understanding of the subconscious mind and that a cultural zeitgeist towards ethics and culture must change before the ideological definition of a generation changes which isn’t a necessary outcome in-the-slightest.  America in many ways is a “Liberal” country, and yet the majority of Americans psychologically refer to Liberalism in a derogatory manner.  The cultural atmosphere towards a number of topics as-well as overall political, ideological and existential atmosphere have changed but political terminology remains almost stagnant due-to the influence of the corporate elite and the Right consciously controlling the atmosphere to the extent that it can.  By Right, I mean of course the Republicans and Democrats who play a game of cat and mouse or Good Cop/Bad Cop back-and-forth where The Republicans give one narrative, and the Democrats give a slightly less ignorant sounding and right-wing version of said mentality and political action.  For all those who aren’t staunch Conservatives, the Democrats are the Good Cop that will still send you to jail for five years to smoking pot, but will be kind and say “it’s okay, it’s okay” as he does so.  He is the innocent frail mouse being battered around by the mean-old cat, when in actuality Democrats are rodents who at-times enjoy being gnawed on and swallowed into the Conservative make-up which they’ve always identified as home; perpetuating the mentality of legitimate Leftism being dead-and-buried – or overall invalid through being utterly ignored – and to be cleaned up and vomited on (or is it the other way around?) by the Republican Vulture.
To defeat Conservatives politically, we must beat them existentially (or psychologically) as well as in ways of basic societal standards which are political, but not necessarily in an explicitly ideological sense.  Both are a form of Utilitarianism utilizing the mentality of Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism that must be implemented before we can move towards something ever resembling a Socialist State – unless violent revolution is to be performed, but even then there must be a change in the material and intellectual factors of society before a ideological reformation and revolt is to occur.  We must play the role of New Atheists at-times, and as Progressives at others, but never limiting ourselves to these political movements and somewhat narrow ways of thinking; always keeping Marxism and Scientific Socialism in mind while playing the role of someone who is correct yet small in mind, like a child who needs to change his understanding of basic grammar, ceasing to call wolves “wolfs” before he can move onto a larger and complete understanding and utilization of grammar.  Society is still using the word “wolfs” and we must tell them why this is wrong (though it does seem completely arbitrary in the English language, so perhaps this isn’t the best example) and although this is a essential step to make, never telling them this is the entire Universe of thought that is before them.  We must always promote Secularism, Empiricism and Progressivism, but never stop at a basic or passive understanding of their meanings.  Also in regards to Utilitarianism, we must focus far-more on Existential, philosophical and literary essences to Man, and instilling a sense of ethic and value that the Right whether with its Religion or Market and consumption based elements have thoroughly campaigned against by ignoring, speaking out against, subtly removing from society through encouraging their own ideals through various methods as well as tacitly discouraging Existentialism and Virtue Ethics and of course there are examples of flat-out blatant punishment of those expressing and exemplifying the ideals and virtues we as Humanists and Leftists strive to further and embody.
A thorough and drastic change of societies ethical and other existential perceptions is necessary for what I mentioned earlier, but also because it is perhaps the only thing asides from education and basic material conditions that penetrates the core of who a person is and how they’ll live their daily lives and make crucial decisions making the people they are and will be.  Firstly we must reject the Christian premise that either obedience to God or love is the essential essence of ethics.  The concept of “sin” having nothing to do with ethics and virtue I find fairly self-evident so will not flesh-out, but the notion that love has almost nothing to do with morality is something I feel should be explained.  Though the ethical compulsions of compassion, sympathy and empathy are a major and primal source for moral action or the prevention of selfish and morally nihilistic deeds, love itself is not the major fulcrum of the moral universe.  It is rather reason, seeing what is right and having the courage and conviction to see justice, freedom and opportunity extended to all citizens of all nations – the universalization of what we want for ourselves to the extent that we are the same as others.  Many a parent has beaten their child or in-general treated them very badly either in the sense of harming them physically or psychologically or in-terms of depriving them of an essential variable in healthy human development, and yet most of these parents would claim to love their children, and I don’t think that the majority of them would be lying.  The Golden Rule is a fairly great moral principle (so much so that Epicurus and Confucius have mentioned it before Jesus supposedly did) though not a complete or all-encompassing one in-regards to ethics and virtue.  It does not for example encompass the essence of neither Aristotle nor Nietzsche in giving either a general or particular account of biological or existential Virtue Ethics.  It doesn’t describe what is superior or inferior, what is great or noble, only what we want to have or receive and understanding that we aren’t exceptions to moral rules or standards however strong the Narcissistic and Solipsistic compulsion to feel so is at-some-times in many if not almost every human on the planet. 
Another reason why love can never be the ultimate source or code on ethics is that it prevents violence against the unjust and corrupt.  One could argue that one could murder someone about to beat his wife out of love of the wife, but such feelings aren’t typically felt during the entry of a knife in the batterer’s neck, nor is it something that should be on the surface of one’s mind while planning the tactics of short and long-term strategy whether it be regarding Revolutionary or Reformist Socialism.  Love slows and weakens the mind, and like happiness is an overrated emotion, an obsession of the desperate and psychologically frail who do deserve our sympathy, but not by this trait alone respect.  If you doubt my proposition of love being a main form of surrender and happiness a concern for the infantile of mind and juvenile of spirit, consider the highest moment of your life in-regards to functionality, when you were capable of doing and being more than you ever were before or even descriptively imagining yourself.  Is this synonymous with the happiest moment of your life?  I’m thoroughly convinced that most people will say “no” the question and consequently say “yes” to the notion that prefaced the question, that is if prowess and strength are things they value over pure happiness or contentment; if not then frankly I have nothing more to add for nothing more is necessary to discredit those who are the most lowly and petty of life forms which is the average Hedonist.
But also we must not focus on force for force sake.  Or allow ourselves to focus on violence when a nonviolent solution is possible or preparation is necessary.  Essentially force is – at-least to some extent especially in the broad sense of the word – necessary but never enough.  This should be a major tenant and interpretation of Dialectical Materialism if a proper understanding of it is to be attained.  One should always keep in mind the essence of the Intellectual Delinquent, the young person and revolutionary of spirit who commits crimes against the State or common order and standards of things, not for small-minded self-interest such as drinking or drug use, but acts based on a existential dissatisfaction with the world around them that so many young people feel to varying extents without the intellect or knowledge to interpret these feelings which are seldom given opportunity to transmogrify into convictions that will consequentially grant one the opportunity to increase the amount and form of opportunities that society as a whole will be privileged in sharing.
This Philosophy, which I have described as “Vanguard Intellectualism” but is also a more-than superficial understanding of materialism is one that truly understands what it means to be an “Intellectual” the moral responsibility of doing so, and how a intellectual truly needs to act to increase the material and intellectual floor of society which is said moral responsibility.  Therefore, I suggest we steal the word “Brights” from Dan Dennett and the rest of the New Atheists who have tried to brand their movement with the word, though many of them to my recollection – Christopher Hitchens in-particular – have either rejected the term or simply ignored it as something not particularly useful or interesting, instead accepting and utilizing the term New Atheist – though I also agree with Professor Dawkins overall when he said that there really wasn’t anything new about it besides from the fact of Atheists culminating and organizing for secular and anti-theistic interests and approaches to life as well-as a type of Idealism that I address in another essay.
And our first pronunciation as “Brights” should be the immediate unification of all effectively Leftist Parties into an organized Socialist Party that stands for the ideals of the Left and wishes to implement them via Dialectical Materialism and Scientific rather than Utopian or Idealistic Socialism.  Marxists should accept all Democratic Socialists and Anarchists, as well-as some Social Democrats into this realization of common struggle as long as they on-the-whole wholly reject Capitalist Economics which fewer and fewer Social Democrats do it seems.  We should make allies with the Green Party and even the Libertarians on issues where they conjoin us on fighting for individual liberty both legally and culturally – economically and in some ways existentially (especially if they are Objectivists) they still of course have miles to traverse and therefore should still be considered on-the-whole ideological enemies who we work with temporarily in a effective and friendly manner for the common good of furthering our goals and mentality.  We must always keep in mind the backward, counter-productive, innately idealistic, and narcissistically naïve essence of sectarianism, this and this alone is the most obvious trait of someone who fails to understand what I’m speaking of, and is the embodiment of the worst thing the Left can do to itself while still being somewhat legitimate to itself and ethics.  Sectarians aren’t immoral; they’re simply incredibly simple-minded and useless as Leftists.
Knowledge is power – which is why the powerful (but usually educated only in academic terms if that) wish to keep the world ignorant.  We must first encourage to educate the world not only factually but in the most drastic, or rather ultimate sense of education in its largest and truest essence, namely in fundamental perspective.  This is impossible in many, at-least in large degrees, but this only shows the need for improvement.  A mentally challenged child is not tossed into the gutter due-to his handicap, he is given additional attention and resources which is what we must do for the most backward sections of the country and globe.  In-fact the most backward parts of the globe show revolutionary potential which most of the West does not.  Why do Leftists only in word squander this!
And above all-else comrades, we must always never fall into the Religious and Liberal forms of stupidity and ultimate ineffectualness – though I don’t think the former will be a problem – which are respectively praying and crying.  There is neither greater waste of time nor any more activity more stupid and dulling than praying to a God for change in the world, or bitching or otherwise bemoaning the fate of the world rather than at-the-very-least discussing ways of changing.  “Oh the gays on Modern Family can’t kiss because of Christian bigotry – though this clearly isn’t the only reason – I’m going to sign a petition and lie in saying I wouldn’t feel slightly put-off by gay men kissing as much as men and women do.  Because petitions and mildly irritating an entire demographic of people will do so much!”  God, how pathetically ineffectual and idealistic can you get?  I know it’s a different kind of thing at-least in-part, but do you think minorities struggled for racial equality by insisting black people get their own TV shows or kiss each other?  Actually, mixed-race couples are still deemed “outside the norm” and that should be culturally altered through media in-part; but more importantly by on-the-whole breaking the divide of races both socially and economically which is the main reason why the problem persists!  Having an episode of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where Will’s mom dates a white man (gasp!) isn’t going to do much if anything.
However, Liberals, particularly Liberals who are so weak and stupid they still vote for what they routinely refer to as “the lesser of two evils” are enemies that can very rarely be counted on for cooperation of common political and intellectual goals, because of how often they white wash our Socialist heroes and give-in to Conservatives and other vermin.  The perfect example being the supposedly “Liberal” Al Gore saying we should teach the debate of evolution and creationism in science classrooms, or the conservative nature of his snake of a wife Tipper, who any true fan of the Dead Kennedys does not need a description of and anyone else can blow their heads off but before doing so listen to some DK because you’re missing out on something worth living before you die.  The whitewashing of MLK Jr. is the most obvious example, and considering it is the celebration of his birthday (which isn’t always celebrated on his actual day-of-birth for some idiotic reason) one that was intending on doing an in-depth description of.  However, almost everything I had to say is put quite-well by The Young Turks in the following clip.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Cfi1DfZqI  I was expecting Cenk to make the caveat of being Anti-Marxist or a defender of Capitalism which he does almost every time he’s critical of the system in a fundamental or meaningful way (that is not just criticizing a random rich banker, businessman, or politician who is typically only a minor representation of the overall problem which in-part he does understand) but this time he refrained from doing so perhaps to respect MLK’s Socialist essence and not only its historical legitimacy but ethical and intellectual validity.  The only real error in the video is its title “What Conservatives Hate this Fact about MLK” when in-fact many if not most Conservatives still refer to him as “Martin Luther Coon” or “The Nigger Liberator.”  It’s Liberals who will hate this fact about MLK because it shows that on-large he didn’t buy into the Liberal mindset of simply making everyone equal in a Classical Liberal way that was revolutionary and innovative in the seventeenth century when preached by John Locke – who overall was a pro-establishment figure – but is now the preaching of the institutions except in third-world countries and some churches.

In conclusion, Bolshevism is the natural application of materialism in the world we encounter.  Egalitarianism is crucial, and we mustn’t repeat the mistakes of the USSR, but that does not change the fact that the masses will never organize or educate themselves, they require intellectual and ethical camaraderie of a sort that will not only aid them financially but at the fiber of their being.  We mustn’t be “Christian Crusaders” for Marxism or Bolshevism, but instead be dignified prophets who instruct through organization, not fanatic zealots who wish to recruit through proselytizing.  We of course need to express our ideals, but we need to do so in a political outlet where we can effect change.  We must be a party not a church.  A philosophy not a religion; a school not a cult or military academy.  A source of liberation from idealistic propaganda and branding rather than just another brand with its own idioms spouted by useless – or even worse dangerous – idiots.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Well, I'm so far satisfying my goal of finishing an essay each week.  This one I think for the most part is stating the obvious, but it's one that I've wanted to write for some time, and have only recently discovered a small reservoir of material on, many of which I excluded because it was superfluous and redundant - and unnecessary.

I do plan on reading JS Mill's On the Subjugation of Women and Engels' On the Family, but honestly I also wish to move on to other subjects, and though these men I'm sure had overall pungent and persuasive arguments both relevant and intelligently argued, they overall have lost their significance in Western Culture.  My next work will be in the need for an Intellectual Vanguard especially in consumeristic cultures full of apathy and proletarian fatalism or even worse anti-intellectualism.  Hmm, I wonder where such attitudes persist?
On Tumblr Leftism
If there was ever something so juvenile and insipid that required a philosophical and intellectual analysis (besides consumerism, viral narcissism and arguably religion) it would be that which I describe as Tumblr Leftism.  Perhaps a clarification of this term is required.  There are three main varieties of the drug – Veganism, Racialism and Feminism – but it overall can be defined as something which on the surface to the politically ignorant and unintelligent seems to be a left-wing creed or mentality, but on further analysis – for those who require it, frankly, and I say this with no pride because I don’t deem it much of an accomplishment – it’s a piece of propaganda for the uncritical, psychologically troubled (who typically share more with the Right than the Left) and those who wish to rage against either real grievances and supply ridiculous or nonexistent solutions, or “tabloid grievances” that’s essentially also “Liberal Problems” such as scantily clad women in magazines and the two homosexual characters in Modern Family not kissing – the horror.
I use the term Liberal Problems as a satire of the easily recognizable meme “First World Problems” because it’s very much the same animal, merely a politicized and typically outraged and indignant version of such.  People who I want to categorize as Hipsters, but I’ll instead refer to those who suffer from “Tumblred Perception” are those who at-best have a correct mentality of ethics (in-that they are against homophobia, racism and even occasionally racialism, sexism and cruelty to animals; at their worst however they are anti-straight, or CIS, anti-white, anti-male and calls anyone who would have a cheeseburger either unethical or a murderer – no I’m not joking) but have absolutely no understanding of the most basic laws of cause-and-effect and certainly don’t possess a materialistic or class-based frame work to work off of.  Like the New Atheists – though they are typically far more rational and intelligent than Tumblr Leftists – they are idealists and ideologues for particular causes, rather than those who wish to increase the basic standard of living, intelligence, opportunities and freedoms of every person and animals where applicable and to the extent that is allowed of lower animals.
Incompetence and ignorance is TLs at their finest.  At their worst they are just as moralistic as the Religious Right, without an understanding of ethics, deontological and fundamentalist giving edicts rather than promoting critical thinking and humanism, and instead instilling rationalizations, justifications for prejudice and ideological constructions of their own warped realities.  Tumblr Leftism uses the cheap armor of “social justice” while ignoring almost every principle of individual rights and ethics pertaining to the conduct of individuals.  Racist, sexist, superficial, TLs quickly blame the average individual (as long as he’s a white male) for society’s problems rather than taking a thorough analytic approach to society and its ills. 
If philosophy is not viewing the world as it immediately appears, and learning not to think and approach things as one would instinctively, Tumblr Leftism is the furthest thing from philosophy.  At-the-very-least religion has some transcendental qualities and accepts that human beings surpass animals, (though they claim this in some ways that are incorrect) having a unique and invaluable essence of sentience and being that they wrongly view as mystical and the presence of an immaterial soul.  TLs however embrace the worst of Schopenhauer and accept the “animal rights” of moralistic swine rather than the well-reasoned Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill for example, or Socialists who fight for animal rights in the sense of them being treated ethically – for both their benefit and our own – before the slaughter.  Or rather it’s not people eating meat that’ the problem but for-profit industries and industrialized farming that’s the source of many ills throughout the Animal Kingdom sentient or not.  Ironically they also possess a form of sexist attitudes that surpass even Schopenhauer’s, and prefer the feminism of the psychotics who worship the protagonist in “I Shot Andy Warhol” rather than John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx or his associate Friedrich Engels.
Now is where it seems proper to go through the three individual strands and find the faults and failings of their arguments, ideals and given solutions.  I’ll start with Racialism, considering it’s the most obvious I suppose, and if I start with any of the other two I’ll have little if anything unique to say about this topic, for the three share in a particular failing of logic and understanding.
Blaming people for their ancestor’s mistakes and trying to create a systematic ideology and mentality out of them, is just as if not more absurd than the Bible claiming the sins of the father shall be passed down to his descendants multiple times over.  If the Bible was arguing that propensity towards quick temper, poor reasoning and other psychological traits that leads to poor ethical conduct and living standards can be inherited genetically then it would have a rare success in being both realistic, poignant and pointful in attachment to Jesus’ preaching of being compassionate, forgiving and realizing that people are irreparably flawed and we all have our crosses to bear – however this is not the case and instead is an example where the Bible degenerates (though perhaps that’s not the correct term because it rarely if ever leaves it) to tribalism and collectivism.  In-a-sense it’s even worse than the pseudo-science of genetic-based racial superiority or claiming distinctive differences in personality and character, (i.e. racial stereotypes being derived from, “that’s just how they are” rather than various social forces making them so if the stereotype possesses any validity) because at-least the junk scientists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – who would be carried into the twentieth century by the Nazis and other small groups that would eventually be relegated to conspiracy theory chatrooms on the internet, at-least in the industrialized world – tried to explain their theories and racial prejudices scientifically, the racialist argument of a section of Tumblr consists of:  White people have done a lot of bad things; therefore white people are bad and all non-whites are either ethically superior or in a place of perpetual pity and compassion.  Now I of course recognize that racism and to a larger degree racialism is a large problem persisting in the world, I use the word “persisting” because it’s caused by forces conscious of propagating these views, largely derivative of living in a class-based society, where you can blame society’s ills on anything essentially asides from the Capitalists.  It is still taboo to criticize or even scrutinize religion, but the trend of New Atheists being listened to – though mocked on Conservative shows like Bill O’Reilly’s Propaganda Hour which recently argued against marijuana legalization by arguing, “would you want your baby to do it?” – and accepted for their credentials while Socialists, in-fact not even merely Socialists but anyone who speaks outside the Republican-Democrat, i.e. Repugnocrat to steal a phrase from Jello (which isn't spelled the way the name brand is I'm happy to report.  Though it would be a moderately funny piece of irony if it were.) Biafra, paradigm are largely ignored and consciously censored through relegation.
It’s not only possessing a poor understanding of ethics, cause-and-effect and human nature, but also of history in the most plain and factual of terms.  You don’t need to understand Marxism or Historical Materialism to know that throughout history there have been many bad people and many bad groups of people that systematically and routinely did abhorrent things – and based on this conclude (Though the people rational enough to use useful deductive logic would be unlikely to start with a racial frame to begin with, though many brilliant men like Thomas Jefferson had the misfortune of doing so.  And to clarify Jefferson conceded to a type of racialism but wasn’t racist; that is, thought that Africans were “naturally” or intrinsically more submissive than whites but regretted that it was so.) that human evil very-likely has a naturalistic source, whether it’s derivative of his overall nature, economic and social circumstance, upbringing, lack of education, some unique medical or psychological malady or some combination of all of them.  I could give you a list full of Genghis Khans and Pol Pots but frankly I think this is a claim that needs to be stated rather than provided evidence for.  Evidence in any claim is essential of course, but those who would dispute this type of simple statement will rationalize away the evidence by claiming its either inaccurate or construct a narrative where non-whites do bad things not based on their ethnicity, while whites, blacks, Hispanics, or any other group they dislike, do bad things based on their ethnicity as a fundamental building block of their person.  This is the type of doublethink you find in Tumblr Leftism as a whole particularly in its Racialism and brand of Feminism. 
Vegans possess a type of double think in believing eating meat is a crime, is tantamount to murder some of them will even claim – and although the preposterousness of the claim is obvious, at-least these “Ideological Vegans” have the courage or the depth of insanity to go to the logical conclusion of their convictions and state it – and shouldn’t be deemed as a non-moral (that is divorced from the realm of ethical dealings) just because human beings are part of the Animal Kingdom.  But if this is the case shouldn’t every omnivore and carnivore be put to death?  Or perhaps, if like myself they oppose the death penalty unless they are dealing with a murderer who had a large source of Government or economic power, (a stance I highly doubt they have the cognitive faculties to have considering the nuanced and contextual nature of ethics is lost on these people, who – TLs, not IVs in particular – make the largest generalizations surpassing at-times even Religious Conservatives.) simply put all animals in cages (which they are also against, something which holds some sway to me, at-least if they didn’t go to the absurd degrees that they do) and force feed them plant matter regardless of their dietary requirements.  If human beings being animals and naturally eat meat is not an excuse for what they deem inexcusable behavior, why is this rationale not placed on all other creatures who roam the Earth?  it’s not a position founded on reason – clearly – but one founded on emotions and psychological illness.  Now if they weren’t so self-righteous and vehement (which as I believe I’ve already said is a common trait of the TLs) and they didn’t promote the end of individual rights or logic in ethics – or logic in general – I would support their aspirations to increase the standard of living of animals for it’s a just cause of which I agree with. 
I hold that human beings should be our first priority, but the industrialization and incredibly unethical treatment of farm animals for profits is something that affects human beings as-well.  Like all other issues, because they lack a Materialistic or class-based understanding of human nature, these people jump to insane conclusions that white people do bad things because they’re white, or male, or human, ignoring that most of the unethical practices against animals – though they consider the simple act of domestication immoral, though it increases the animals population and living standards – are very recent and a result of market forces and the profit motive.  But to focus slightly longer on the uniquely misanthropic and not only nonmaterial but “anti-nature” element of Tumblr, (whether it’s reflected in their shoddy prose or not.  Snap.) I should allow them what would most-likely be their rebuttal (if they knew what arguments kept them looking half-sane) that human beings have a wider range and fundamental aspect of choice that other animals lack, and in a sense they would be correct, but this does not reflect human beings dietary nature or even choices which in the past was confined to the region the primate was resigned to, but now we humans have a expansive plethora of choices limited only to the food available, the sciences involved in transportation, economic affairs and our own culinary genius – yet human beings fundamentally lack “choice” in the sense that their diet is restricted partially by the things I mentioned and partially by psychological factors, taste buds, the food that one ate as a child among numerous other factors.  We human beings have an illusion of choice and we do have an understanding and form(s) of ethics that all other known creatures lack (most other creatures would never for a moment consider the well-being of his fellow kin on other branches of the foodchain for example) but this does not free us from the laws of existence or our own particular existences whether referring to the species or individual.  This is something that Tumblr Feminists in particular fail to comprehend.  The following will be by far the lengthiest section of things I’m tackling, because Tumblr Feminism is a variety or sect of a larger movement given the most credence in contemporary culture, and because I’ll be examining human sexuality as well-as the nature of gender differences and identity in a comprehensive fashion.
--
Firstly I suppose I should examine Tumblr Feminism and point out its patent absurdity.  Overall synonymous with Radical Feminism, TF seeks to disparage men as a whole for the actions for a few, claim societies either in the first or third world need Feminism for irrational reasons for they do not provide the solution let-alone give an accurate or thorough description of the problem and blame “the Patriarchy”, “CIS” individuals, or TWME (The White Male Establishment) for problems that have either an economic or religious cause, isn’t a problem to begin with, or is an unfortunate reality of biology.  Hating men for the awful things some men do is exactly equivocal to hating all minorities because a black person stole your car radio – do people still do this by the way?  Not only are both an irrational simplification and overgeneralization, but is forgetting the root cause of crime being primarily economic and psychological.  If you want to see an embarrassingly obvious portrayal of this, simply look up the episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, where Michael More makes his callow misandry (if men can be misandrists which although it defies the specifics of the definition as it exists I would contend just as women can retain and purport misogynistic attitudes.) clear when he says not only that essentially all problems are caused by men, (and even goes as far as blaming men for being fishermen and causing overfishing, when of course overpopulation, the terrible maintaining of resources of Capitalists as well as them destroying resources with various forms of pollution among other factors are the fault, not fisherman.  Blaming a fisherman for overfishing is akin to blaming a Chinese sweatshop laborer putting together TVs and laptops twelve hours a day for consumerism and vapidity in America caused in part by electronic devices or more particularly how they’re used in Capitalist society – though human nature and the anti-Intellectualism of America are to be blamed as well.) but nature (as if it was a conscious force which shows how intelligent he is, the comprehension he has of evolution or even basic biology and that psychologically he is very much a religious person) is essentially trying to collectively extinguish us because we lose our hair and don’t live quite as long.
On my second point, on various cultures needing Feminism, here is a scroll of hilarity that I think debunks this quite well – if you can tell which ones are serious and which ones are satire please let me know because I can seldom tell anymore.   Imgur.com/a/RrNmV the claim we need Feminism to right some supposed wrongs – let’s use rape as one of their few examples in the modern world that is actually a problem – is simply ludicrous.  If someone is going to rape someone, I don’t think a course in ethics or gender studies is going to help.  He probably already missed the economic, psychological, dietary and educational variables he needed to be an individual of stable mind who had a basic level of empathy to not violate them; but Feminists, being another variation of Idealist, fail to see this. 
Not only does Feminism fail to give a comprehensive and analytic diagnosis and rational treatment plan for society’s ills, but ignores the real reasons why these problems exist.  They also tend to focus on that which isn’t an issue except to the hyper-sensitive and those who apparently don’t exist on the planet Earth either physically in its amount of suffering or mentally in well, I think you can figure out that one.  Feminists calling pornography and voluntary prostitution a form of exploitation is essentially the equivalent of calling people who watch reality TV shows moral monsters and calling the idiots on those shows a suppressed demographic of downtrodden crushed souls.  People who watch Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars are stupid, but not immoral (at-least not for watching drizzle, statistically stupid people are more immoral, so I suppose these type of things shows that Virtue Ethics expresses the ethics in what would naturally consider in the non-moral magisteria); just as people jacking off to pornography usually aren’t the most intelligent, but one’s sex drive does not diminish with increasing IQ, so actually those who act on their sex drives aren’t doing anything either wrong or symptomatic of a “wrong” or lowly existence, like Americans wasting away watching pop-culture garbage or sports.  One thing that needs to be mentioned about Feminists is that they claim to have a “radical” and “revolutionary” creed and way of looking at the world, when effectively they share just as much of their stances and perhaps even more importantly their psychology with the Catholic Church than with Progressive Atheists and Materialists.  But this ludicrousness should be self-evident and I frankly want to pass ragging on intellectual infants as quickly as I can and move on to issues of human nature and essence that I find far more stimulating – that’s an attempt to be clever by the way.  You should be impressed.
Gender roles and human sexuality are things that I find very engrossing and have recently token up quite a bit of my reserves of libido – that’s psychic energy – on.  One of the things that’s become quite clear to me as I’ve developed is the perpetuation of gender roles that shares the place of monogamy in-that many people would be far happier following their natural inclinations and acting as they would genuinely, or rather “be their genuine selves” or better yet focus on bettering themselves rather than conforming to the assignments of characteristics on both genders.  This is an issue that Feminism talks about, but they both almost always assign the wrong cause – blaming “Patriarchal forces” rather than religion, human nature and lack of intelligence and reflection which allows people to see past surface level cultural manifestations and see a multitude of various potential outcomes, rather than how things are done by tradition, immediate impulse or otherwise – and often ignore the male side of gender expectations.
That is not to say that the nature of gender identity is entirely or even mostly derived from our environment, it very-likely is something that is derived from the respective make-ups of the male and female brain.  If you think that the majority of mathematicians, philosophers, inventers and psychologists being mostly male are simply due-to the subjugation of women, then I’m sorry but you’re not someone to be taken seriously.  Now in JS Mill’s On the Subjugation on Women – which I have not read in full and will likely have further comment on when finished – he rightly says that we are not sure to what extent gender roles are derived from genetics and brain development and that which is culturally derived.  This is something that needs far more research on though I admit that I am ignorant of essentially all studies that have come out on the subject.  However here is one short article I’ve found that in finding found rather thought-provoking:  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently.  But I feel regardless of my empirical ignorance on the matter the distinction must be made between those who subconsciously or explicitly through peer pressure enforce gender roles from those – who is essentially all of us to minor degrees – who deviate from it in one fashion or another, and the mere presence of gender roles which has its evolutionary basis.
Schopenhauer would be one who through a combination of misogyny and intelligence would see this distinction quite well.  For in his Essay On Women, he points out that the European “Lady” as he repeatedly mockingly refers to the rich bourgeoisie of fairer characteristics (which is actually one of the more laughable parts of the essay, that is, criticizing the term “fair sex” and saying that this could never be the case if men weren’t so horny.  I have aesthetically appreciated the male form, the herculean embodiment of strength, flexibility and agility; however, if you think that it compares with the grace, beauty, style and attributes that one would assign to an Amanda Seyfried for example, who isn’t simply sexy but the archetype representation of human physical beauty – something tells me this is something I needn’t explain further – then we simply have a difference of the aesthetic, but I feel there is more to be enjoyed in what I prefer over your preference.) is one who has social characteristics “unnatural” or at the very least not occurring naturally and overall unbecoming of women.  He claims that women are rather unhappy in this place of cultured freedom and would prefer essentially being a housewife having no great labor “of the mind or body.”  He shares a common confusion and a hard problem that Hume mentions as an impossibility to discover (that is the distinction between causation and correlation) that is the possible confliction ‘tween women as he views them in his society as women “as they are” and there true nature to whatever extent the thing actually exists.  He seems to be making a mistake of making a posteriori statements and them rationalizing them as something that is verging upon an a priori remark, that is, something that posits an eternal condition or nature of a thing based on limited experience and data of it.  This would be like to have a society where all dogs are tamed and domesticated, and say that it is impossible for a dog to ever bite, snarl, or otherwise be unruly.  And yes, I’ve just realized that perhaps I shouldn’t have compared women to well-trained animals of domestication, and you’re free to insert your own “bitch” pun here.
However, I must confess that though he is rather - as I’ve said – misogynistic, he seems to at-times accurately describe what seems to be feminine nature.  Women do seem to be duller and easily entertained than men, more anti-intellectual, religious, and care about things of style rather than things of substance. It’s relatively clear that he is right in the claim that they are not designed for physically laborious tasks (unless one considers child birth and carrying the weight of two for several months) but whether the same is true mentally I’m not sure we’re in the position to say.  There are of course many intelligent women who have performed great and noble feats of the intellect, but to reference an earlier point, that in no way is an argument against the most brilliant thinkers of human history being mostly men.  I personally feel that there isn’t a wide gulf of intellect between the sexes, but of ego and ambition.  That is, it’s clear that men seem to be more likely to be commandeering and crave some form of achievement whether artistic, intellectual, commercial, or physical, while women seem to be more content enjoying superficial and trivial things.  That is not to say that most men carry this Nietzschean spark, let’s call it, to do great things and in doing so become great, but there do seem to be many more men who carry this rare flare of bold grandeur than the fairer sex I regret to say.  I’m sure part of this is cultural, but as I’ve said earlier, it seems ridiculously foolish and naïve to say it is entirely so. 
Of course when Schopenhauer says that women should essentially have no rights and be wards of a male family member or husband he shows his archaic Conservative side and his lack of empathy, while in his first essay of the collection he considers the increase of which – empathy not the lack-of – to be essentially the most primal thing to decreasing the amount of suffering in the world which I think it would be safe to argue he considers the most important issue there is.  In many ways Schopenhauer is a genius ahead of his time, though in others he is the embodiment of his time as a bourgeoisie who is indignant about suffering yet was pro-Monarchy and was against revolutionary activity especially when it potentially threatened his own financial status of leisure.  I would continue on his essay, but I feel I’ve commented on all its main points, and wish to leave the minor ones as encouragement for you to read for yourselves.  Schopenhauer is one of the few philosophers I’ve read in-length, and I can say without hesitation or reconsideration that he is the finest writer of philosophy there is, right in-front of Plato, Nietzsche, and at his greater moments stylistically, Marx.
It’s clear however that this is an issue that is keenly psychological and not intellectual, that is, those who purport a type of feminism, like all forms of Tumblr Leftism and essentially all ideologies actually, suffer from a lack of perspective and objectivity, rather than a lack of intellect which is typically present as well.  One of the greatest victories Freudians have in my estimation, is that they’ve managed to have the moderately religious to essentially argue on their behalf.  Saying things such-as, “of course we don’t actually believe the story of Noah’s Ark literally, or Adam and Eve, we aren’t morons, but if you try to dissuade those who do believe in these stories, you’re taking away from them a great source of comfort.”  Not exactly Freudian in the strictest sense, but complicit in the mentality that believing in falsehoods isn’t necessarily a detrimental thing and in some a necessary thing for their psychological survival and comfort.  It’s true that this sickly and irrational form of comfort is something we shouldn’t strive to dissolve in existing men and women of considerable age, but only because it would be a waste of time attempting to do so.  What we need to do is change the material and political nature of things – as has happened slowly over the decades which shows the rise of Atheism – that increases the standard of living and a decrease in religious belief or a need to believe in religious bullshit.  A source of comfort Nietzsche correctly compared to alcohol in ignoring one’s problems rather than confronting them, and actually adding many problems to the original both physically and psychologically.  And the same is to be said of all ideologies to the extent that they don’t wish to create legitimate discussion or viewpoints to be taken seriously but fanatically purport their own viewpoint.  Debate is important, but not against those who have already been thoroughly discredited and show no signs of being intellectually honest and working with us on whatever it is we wish to do either politically or intellectually.  An obvious example is the type of feminists who claim that there is no such thing as “feminine nature” yet blame masculine nature for female suffering.
One of the most blatant signs that Tumblr Leftists really share in the views and psychological traits of the Right is in their Anti-intellectualism, anti-scientific attitudes and their form of argument being essentially derived from emotions, and rather petty and erratic emotions at-that, rather than reason or intellect.  We’ve all joked about people who take “trigger warnings” seriously and those who believe science is invalid because its “run by” white men who perpetuate something laughably called “thin privilege” by saying being a fat piece of lard is unhealthy, but it is something that we should make sure is never given credence or respectability outside of internet pages and small gatherings.  If these Hipsters and “Level Five Vegans” (to cite the comedy genius of The Simpsons) want to titter away about culturally propagated sexual oppression in magazines and “make the personal political” which is one of the most stupid phrases I’ve ever heard, in-part because of what they mean by it, and also in-part if you read it by words and not intent alone you would believe that they view modern politics to be something too intellectual or academic where people essentially never discuss matters that effect them personally in political ways.  In-regards to class issues it’s clear as transparent water that meaningful and accurate discussion on political discussion must be made so the average American or citizen of their respective land might hear it, but this is a problem with Governments and Corporations that the “philosophies” of Tumblr are as ill-equipped to tackle both intellectually and socially as a dying child is ill-equipped to understand or combat against polio without the proper tools – and blaming white people for disease, which I’m guessing many TLs do in the case of the deaths of Native Americans.  Though it should be obvious and unnecessary to comment on, (but feminists and other TLs automatically at-times attack you for being racist, for example, when you criticize their idiocy and not add, “I don’t think black people’s head should be shoved through pikes) many Indians did die shamefully in feuds with racist Christian fundamentalist settlers in either wars, transportation or outright extermination, but to blame Europeans for spreading to Native Americans bacteria they didn’t even know existed is equivocal to blaming a peanut salesman for the death of someone with a peanut allergy before knowledge of such a thing even was discovered let-alone common knowledge.

To conclude I’d simply like to say that I suggest you see the debate of Christopher Hitchens and two others (whose names I regret to be ignorant of) arguing over the right to Freedom of Speech.  Those on the right of the house, those who say that offensive speech against Muslims, Catholics, women, or any other group of people should be censored embody a large element of the “Social Justice Warrior” mentality.  Let’s censor everyone to make the world a better place.  I was going to comment more on Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, for it’s the given source of what’s called “Proletariat Feminism.”  I have yet to read it in-length, so I don’t feel prepared to give anything resembling a thorough analysis on it; however, I have read an synopsis of it, and even without doing so could guess that he speaks of marriage and relations between men and women in his time period, much of which is now only relevant in historical reflections and the malleability of society, human relations and human nature as a whole.  Overall, as I’ve already stated, Tumblr Leftists and SJWs fail to comprehend the most simple points and reject the mentality of what it means to be truly left-wing: meaning to support freedom and equality in the Positive and Negative Liberty sense of the word, with a comprehensive intellectual and materialist explanation of human problems at-times including human psychology as-well.  Confusing cause-and-effect, sources of immorality and what is ethical at-all Tumblr Leftists are those who want to wish and censor away human problems and nature, because there entire sickly desire to be  perceived as suppressed and downtrodden outcasts is entirely based on wishful thinking, just as the Slave Morality as Nietzsche illustrates is the sickly desire to capitulate oneself upon God and force others to submit as well so the “Oppressors” will be destroyed and we’ll all be freed in the shackles of eternal ownership.  Nietzsche talks about how Christian attitudes and mores have perpetuated society even in its supposed secular ethicists (which I agree in only in-part, particularly in Kant, though it’s obvious he wishes to save Christianity from scientific and secular encroachment) and have dominated Western Civilization.  Thankfully we’ll very-likely never have to worry about a society where the words “Patriarchy” and “Rape Culture” have become commonly accepted terms of discussion and supposed non-Social Justice Warriors are actually arguing the views of Valerie Solanas.