An open letter to Kobe Bryant

You are angry that there are people telling you to shut up and dribble . Fair enough, sounds demeaning. But did you even for a second consider the implications behind this? People like you because you are good with the orange ball. It in no way means you are good with words, knowledgeable in politics or able to come to the right conclusions from such points. You could as well be but your insistence to speak from a position of authority is really not backed up by anything here.

But wait, maybe you are using your platform? Speaking for the folks that can not be heard? Well, how about you bring up those folks and let them speak? Because you do realize how it sounds when a black man worth 350 million talks about racial injustice and inequality to white folks who barely meet ends and still spare $200 to watch the NBA? These are the people that made your 350 million bucks Kobe. And do you know how these money gathered? By digging in mines, cleaning up the city streets, putting their lives at risk so that you can walk around safely, by cultivating the crops we get for almost free. That sounds like a real inequality to me. These guys left their health at the bottom of some hole for a few bucks. And from those few they most likely took away 200/month so that they can watch you. Watch you play ball. Play ball for 350 million.

Inequality has many axes. If you bring up just one and keep linking it to skin colour that's racism-plain and simple. Social Justice circles are coming to terms with that lately and more and more openly admit their "whiteness" talk is racist and they are racist themselves. It's up to you and the rest of us to decide where we stand on the issue.

Quick debunking of the "that wasn't true communism" meme

The neo communists like to repeat the "that wasn't true communism" meme to oblivion. As someone who spent his childhood under one of those not-so-real-communist regimes my childhood I can see what is wrong with this claim with ease. Let me entertain just one argument that does not require deep knowledge of our recent history tho. Approximately half of the world's population lived under communism until the 1990's. As any governmental system the authorities in these countries were recruiting people to do the planning for how and where the state would move. There was more or less a system of meritocracy in choosing the rulers of these countries too(we can all agree that never goes just one way-full nepotism or full meritocracy). Communist countries had intelligentsia that was in no way worse than the one the West had. Given how one of the most prominent American thinkers of the 80's was Camille Paglia with her "deep analysis" of the works of....yes, Madonna, I'd say ideological rigor actually did a huge favour to the East. Now if you think of this-selected from 2 bill + people that's awful lot of smart, little cogs in the wheels of the communist machine. And all these cogs have read and well understood the works of Marx and Engels. Now how did none of these thousands and thousands of really smart people not understand their countries only call themselves communist but are in fact on wrong track? Well, if you read even a tiny bit of history of these countries(and this tells you how "well read" the neo commies are) you would know and understand why that was. But if you are a know-it-all 19 year old you think that you actually vastly exceed all these people and you understand the world better than they did. This is the only logical explanation of the "that wasn't true communism" meme-you know it all and they didn't. The fact that just a tiny drop of self reflection should make you step back and look at your argument from more than one angle but they fail to do it is telling of the integrity and cognitive ability of those throwing it around.

The progressive religion and the sinners who repent

I call it the capo paradox because the first time I noticed it was while reading one of Mario Puzo's books as teenager. There was a glaring error in the story line-the mafia boss was really pious and he was donating to the church and to widows. Didn't he know this is a zero-sum effort? If God exists he'd operate by the rules described in the bible, therefore tossing small percentage of your wealth to those in need would not excuse the horrible deeds a mafia boss does. So why waste time and energy? I took it for bad research or lazy writing and was quite surprised couple of years later when I found that indeed mafia bosses in Italy are exactly like that. I took it as proof that no one thinks of themselves as a bad person-when faced with overwhelming proof the boss "elevated" in his mind some activities making them equal to the sins he commits  but with opposite sign. As I was growing and learning of the world around me this guess of mine seemed weaker and weaker-the chain of conclusions wasn't really solid. But certain practices I learned about seemed to confirm the final result.As I witnessed the turmoil that the transition to democracy in Eastern Europe became I was acquainted to several people managing one or another form of criminal activity and they all suffered from the same syndrome. They'd sell drugs to minors and by the end of the year donate millions to an orphanage or even secure the living of a widow whose husband they "ordered" themselves.

Al Capone was paying for his infamous "soup kitchens" where the poor could get food for free

There are many other facts and stories I could bring that are common knowledge and back my claim.
The pedophiles fate when imprisoned for example-they often suffer from nasty "incidents" organized by their outraged cellmates.The prison authorities often work on segregating them from the "normal" criminals for their own safety which serves as confirmation that the attitude is widespread. So we have a bunch of murderers and rapists jumping on the chance to prove they are not as bad as the world thinks them of. As if I can hear them:
-See, we hate people that hurt children, we're not that bad!

The options to extend this list are almost unlimited and I'm sure those reading already thought of examples I didn't figure out. Saddam insisted on gender equality something quite revolutionary for the Middle East, Lenin loved children(not in THAT way you perv) and Nero was making many amends trying to improve the living of the poor

We got the same thing with SJW's, they "elevate" racism, homophobia and all the others, you name them. As long as they condemn all those -isms and -phobias they can't be the bad guys, right?
Having in mind that the darkest secrets in our lives are more likely to remain secrets it is surprising the amount of how many of the actively barking SJW's in the last 2 years have had serious morale flops reported about them. The list here is easy to compile tho will probably never be full:

>Sarah Nyberg-the famous fighter against GamerGate
>Lena Duhham-the famous feminist (if Trump wins one of the reasons will be her promise to move to Canada if this happens)
 >Jian Ghomeshi-supposedly fighting for equality with women, while the rape accusations against him remain questionable there is no argument over the fact that he used the position he obtained through such talk to abuse and degrade women as shown during the trial.
>Hugo Schwyzer who also claimed he puts women on pedestal until exactly the opposite has been proven


Just as I was writing this the last in the chain blew up: Matt Hickey, a progressive dudebro with aspiring career as a journalist has been caught red handed lying to random girls online and soliciting them to have sex with him.  Wait, the same Matt Hickey that the gamer world learned of when he viciously criticized Microsoft for throwing a bunch of half-naked dancers at a party they staged during the Game Developers Congress? As you can see from the following Matt seems to hold women in especially high regard and insist they receive all the respect possible even if women didn't ask for it specifically:

The doublefaced life of Matt is not the topic today tho it is worth noting how his acts are exactly the opposite  of what his ideals he claims are. What I want to underline is how nicely he fits the narrative, he is just another mafia boss that after murdering and destroying lives throws some pennies to the church and believes he's paid his due.

Why there were no revolutions in communist societies

Alright so first off the western idea that left means anti authoritarian is ridiculous. To pursue the idea of communism you need continuity. That by itself excludes the idea of democracy. What if people change their ideas tomorrow and vote someone that drops the course towards communism? From practical point of view you have all that time and working hours invested that will go to a complete waist if you decide to change the political regime. From ideological point democracy sounds even worse-you are going in the only right direction out of many possible, why would you let someone that has the wrong direction in mind to the elections? Therefore a communist regime has to be a dictatorship and other political parties can not be present under such rule.I can not claim it was on purpose nor that it was natural political evolution and instincts that lead to it but here is how that dictatorship was imposed and masked.

So we actually had a concept of authority just like in the writings of Confucius. Parents are superiors of their children and this can not be questioned. Same goes for teacher and his pupils, for the director and his workers, the party leader and well...everybody else. That was something never directly set in stone, but always implied-fear and listen to authority as it is all the same figure, the harsh but fair father that may spank you from time to time but does it only for your own good. And I mention spanking for a reason-it may sound shocking to western liberals, but in communist society it was considered a-ok to hit your child and there could be some questions raised when a teacher does it to a student but it was generally deemed acceptable as well. This authority stemmed from the state which was giving almost unrestricted rights to the superior. Parents and teachers could spank the kids under their supervision, the general could tell a soldier to sacrifice his life the director could tell his workers to do weird, unrelated to the job activities if he deemed such activities ideologically fit. That hierarchical approach was everywhere. Kids were not allowed to talk back to grown ups-it was unthinkable. Workers had utmost respect and feared their directors. And everybody feared and hated the "political representatives"-people whose job was mainly to sniff and snitch any sign of dissent. Yes, every big enterprise-scientifical or economical had one of those.

And then there was the fear. The fear that propaganda was masking as righteousness. It was in part to aimed to create and support authority and in part to suppress those that have dissenting thoughts. Every repression was clearly described instead of being hidden. Instead it was explained, reasoned. Since day one of your life you were told that there is no other course of history, that history is linear and you were lucky to live in the most progressive part of the world. You were reminded of all the blood spilled to get your nation to where it is(the blood of those disagreeing being left out of the story ofc) and of how bad the poor in capitalist countries have it. So isn't it only natural if someone tries to put a stick in the wheels of history that the state punishes him viciously? After all they are robbing the future of the children. In other words-the classical sophistry where a chain of reasonable, undeniable conclusions is based on a falsehood at the very first claim in the chain.

So it was all about fear and respect, you could see them everywhere. The police were allowed to beat suspects-common knowledge even if it has never been put in a law.A schoolmate of mine slapped back his teacher-his life was ruined forever-we were 6th graders and we knew that with our bones, no need for logic to get involved. Now, I m not saying a kid hitting a teacher should be tolerated in any way, but was the punishment equivalent to what he did?The fear had 2 dimensions. One the fear of authority I described + the fear of the "other".

.I remember that fear going to my first day at school. And do notice I was from a privileged family-an ex-partisan granddad and the other being member of the party's nobility, being on top of that in every wonderkid program the country had. The teachers were encouraged to express and assert their authority over the kids however they please. Some were slapping, others were yelling at their students. There were those that chose not to exert their "rights" ofc, no one was telling them they had to act as dictators in the classroom but no one was telling them they shouldn't either. That was the stick. The carrot was endless propaganda against anything that was considered enemy of the state or idea that could swerve the nation from the historical course it has taken. 

Teacher explaining in class about religion: It is a silly prejudice like knocking on wood, we don't persecute it since we're civilized society. Example kids would be those crazy 20-30 fanatics that stay up whole night waiting for some miracle to happen in the church on Easter(referring to an Orthodox tradition where you light a candle at midnight on Easter's eve). There are policemen monitoring that fanatic behaviour ofc, since these people are dangerous but they are more crazy than dangerous so we just watch that they don't succumb to foreign propaganda and start acting against the state.

Notice how between the mockery and contempt we got subtle threat here? It was a real thing-the fact you are a kid was of no excuse. Remember/know of this logo? It was edginess in the West but a neighbour got 1 year ban from school

for carving it on his school desk. That technically meant he had no life ahead of him. He just thought rock and roll is cool and his life perspectives were destroyed because of that. In our early program core element was also reading about Pavlik Morozov-a kid who betrayed his father. The father acted against the state. The implication here is quite clear-we get gradation of authority. Your father is important of course, you love for him is important but it is not sacred. One individual can not outweigh the society. Those who chose to immortalize Pavlik's martyrdom(he was killed, presumably by his angry relatives) never questioned if it is smart to put betrayal on a pedestal I guess.

 

The concept of the "other" wouldn't end here. It was almost everywhere from caricatures of fat ass Uncle Sam spilling the blood of innocent kids in Third World countries  to posters warning you to be aware of the intentions of any foreigner that may start a casual talk with you(as if there were any foreigners visiting the country). The west has sold it's soul for few bucks, Mao is corrupt and Israel is literally Satan-there you don't have to read Pravda from it's last 20 years of existence-I summed it up for you. The propaganda machine would go as far as to try to prove that the working class in USSR has it better than it's counterpart in US. They hate you because you are free, because you know truths that are hidden for them was the constant message trying to bring the fear to personal level. Sounds similar to a cult preacher? In fact it is no coincidence that the communist regimes crumbled one after another in the late 80s. It was the time when even the unemployed in western societies undeniably achieved better living standard compared to working class under communist rule. While the poor people from pre-communist times were alive they would back it with their stories(the middle class was purged so there was no one to tell THEIR stories). The propaganda machine was focusing on poverty and criminality in the West-2 things the communist regime successfully purged.  So it is no coincidence either that the regimes crumbled when the last generation to remember that old state of things was dying.

So what we got so far? State=good, acting against it=evil. And here comes the concept of Stasi. Telling on your neighbour, colleague or even your mom can't be wrong under these circumstances-can it? And indeed it was. At the age of 12 I got new history teacher who became obsessed with my ability to analyze.She would push me into getting more involved with her subject, constantly praise me and promote me to lead various youth organizations, which left me flattered ofc. Until 1 day a couple of secret police guys came home to inform me my future is underlined since the country needs kids with amazing ability to extrapolate from real life facts...guess where they learned about it from. I still remember my granddad stepping between us as if he wanted to physically protect me from the "recruiters". Do note he did so not only as the oldest man in the house(highest authority figure) but also as he was the only one in our family with high enough societal status allowing him to talk back to the agents. But even the small pile of medals he had in store was not enough to deter them, they left me "for now" with the promise that when I reach conscription age they'll be back. Thankfully the fall of communist regimes happened before that. Was my teacher trying to harm by doing this report? I'm still convinced she believed she was working for the greater good-mine and of our country. After all I got recruited for one of the few better paying jobs, let alone the authority and power connected to it. The fact that my grandfather who sincerely believed in communism fiercely opposed such recruitment is telling of the level of trust the current regime had with the citizens tho.

That was a core tenet and a core model of controlling the population-the state is the ultimate good and everyone doing something remotely against it therefore is the ultimate evil. Spying on your neighbour was widespread and encouraged. We had a neighbour trying to prove my mother has "antisocial tendencies" for example being motivated by pure greed and not idealism. He has many times expressed his envy caused by the fact he had to share his 2-room flat with his wife, 2 children and mother-in-law while we had same "luxury" just for me and my single mom.  And yes, I am talking of living space of 65 square meters here btw. He believed if he can prove my mother is not aligning with socialist morale it will be enough to get her expelled from the apartment and in turn allow him to obtain it for himself. To achieve that he would write thorough reports of every party she would have and how many times she came home in a taxi. His latest report was after he...searched our garbage to find out she smokes Marlboro. So he would inform the police of each of his suspicions and grievances: music too loud after 10 in the evening not compatible with morale lifestyle, having money to use one too many times a taxi, and the even more susceptible fact of having foreign currency to buy cigarettes with. If you have undeclared foreign money they can only come from suspicious foreign individuals of course. And why would they give you money if not in exchange for secrets of importance to the national security? 

And here we land to the question of treason and how seriously it was taken. From what I already wrote you get the idea how and why it was deemed so crucial-acting against the state is pure evil as we already established. This is why the secret services had such an important role and also why they were the most feared institution . They could widen the definition of treason and fit you in, fabricate evidence or read the evidence the way that fits them best. Prime example would be the director of a large commercial enterprise executed for "appropriating national resources". In other words "He stole too much money from the state"-claim his daughter objects to this day btw. Either way the punishment went bit behind the lines of what anyone even with slight liberal leaning would consider reasonable. In the eyes of the true believer it was the only logical course of action tho-stealing from the hard earned money of the working class is a direct hit on the bright future everybody worked for.

The last thing preventing people from revolting was bit more subtle. It was a sense of timelessness, of everything being static. And of the state as a giant, untouchable machine driving the people towards the bright future of communism. Nothing changes and nothing can be changed, we were on a ship following the right course and there was no climbing down, no way to make the ship go in a different direction. That was the communist state. The state that was on the top of the giant pyramid of authority. Of course people will think it is untouchable. It was not just that the state had guns, nor that it knew whom you go to bed with and if you fart while taking a poop. It was built in our brains since very young age.

 

 

 

 

Our kid belongs to me!

So yesterday I witnessed a conversation between a friend of mine and his girlfriend-a couple since 5 months.He made a remark about his female colleagues spending the whole break in the toilets(the context was he couldn't pass a gift to one of them ). Somehow his girlfriend saw a generalized statement in that(implication that women spend too much time for banter) and went on a weird tirade.Although she is one of the few Bulgarian girls that I know interested in the rise of 3th wave feminism she didn't adopt the rhetoric we all too well know already, but instead started recounting the pros and cons of both sexes acting as if she was a fan at a football game.She made a list of things men do only because the Patriarchy gives them advantages and another of the sufferings of women under said Patriarchy, but most importantly she went on and on how there are obvious, scientifically proven facts of female superiority. Women are smarter, they are prettier(no one argues this one actually) and they are overall better workers due to being able to concentrate properly unlike men.If those are her beliefs they are bit contradictory but fine by me. What shocked me was when she touched on reproduction rights.If I were trying to defend the cause of feminism I would stay away from that topic or skip it with the usual excuses-"Yeah, sucks for fathers, but feminism is against those laws, they're obviously part of Patriarchy but so hard to fight such laws". To my remark that if people love and trust each other they don't need social sciences to teach them what's good for them and what not(how did THAT manage to trigger her?) she reacted with anger and disbelief.
-There is one thing that makes you dirty swines even-she almost screamed(we were waiting in a cue in McDonald's)-You make us girls cry but when we have babies from you it's time for you to cry. Because I can take my baby away any moment I want and you'll even pay me to raise it away from you.
To add context here she often calls men pigs or swines adding a sarcastic smile implying it's all in good humour-something the people around us couldn't know tho.
Did she realize she went bit too far at that moment? It seemed she didn't, she went on to rant about something else flawlessly.Was that a wake up call for my friend? I' m afraid not.

When Laurie met Milo

So the radical left blogger of some notoriety and huge self-importance Laura Barnett(pen name Laurie Penny) wrote a touching and horrifying report on her night out with Milo Yiannopoulos, the dangerously funny colleague of her from the other side of the political spectrum. Among cheap jabs at his identity as conservative which the latte-ridden, Oxford University educated communist Laurie took you could notice a line threading through the whole article-her hate and contempt of everything that does not fall in line with what she believes is true. I'm willing to skip the fact that she took Milo's desire to troll her for genuine interest(anyone aware of the internet culture in the last 10 years would understand that, even some of my barely literate fellow mmo-gamers), after all self-importance is a viable foundation around which the personality of each rabid feminist's ego is built.

But I'm not willing to write about Laurie and her God-Laurie herself, what I'm interested in is the trends she represents.

It's been the mantra of left-wingers from Shanghai to New York for years that their opponents are the ones willing to misrepresent the truth to get the desired results. Was it true or not is hard for me to judge-I was vested political junky back then, but being a kid and living in a communist country behind the Iron Curtain definitely skewed my perspective. The recent status quo is lot easier to determine, the above quote from Ms Penny is a good example of where journalism is going. The questions that bothers many of us is why are they doing it and I think a closer look at this medium article may provide one of the answers. As usual it skips the part with the facts and presses hard on the emotional side of the story presenting us with a dark, foggy atmosphere where insane villains laugh hysterically while plotting to overtake the world.

Does she really see the world this way? Republicans-bad, Us-good? Sounds bit shallow, isn't it? Especially for someone credited as one of the " most influential figures on the left", which is an accomplishment similar to winning the special Olympics, I know but still...It's interesting how feminism-inspired pundits invented and circulated a new word covering a concept they made up-"othering". Interestingly this is exactly what we see in this article written by someone supposed to be a pen warrior against it. The little, fragile girl in the Wonderland of Evil shrinking between her own shoulders, but brave enough to enter the lair of the beast. And all the big, evil republicans, right wingers and other scum surround her trying to intimidate her. Because we all know they hate women, right? Right?Wrong. The only one othering humans in order to turn them into objects that night was Laurie. And for the very reasons she projects on her opponents-it's easier to hate them that way, after you took the human face off them.

Islamophobia is a meme for low IQ virtue-signalers

Let me tell you about islamophobia. If you throw this term around you are the epitome of everything that went wrong with western educational system in the last decades. The typical know-nothing-but-got-my-diploma cliche. Not sure how it is for you, but for most people religion, political beliefs or musical preferences are not who we are. They might shape us in important ways and be deeply ingrained in us, but they are not static. You learn about religion, politics and music, those are preferences that can be changed.  Are charities fighting cancer bigoted?lLet me remind you we don't still fully understand how cancer works, but from all we know it's probably part of anyone suffering from it more than their political or religious beliefs are. If I believe someone is ill and his disease is contagious does worrying about him make me a bigot? Does being afraid of getting contaminated make me one?

Last thing you should remember: islamophobia has been coined as a term by the Muslim Brotherhood, organisation recognized as terrorist throughout middle east  and parts of Europe and surviving such label in the US due to political games and the money backing them from radical Islamic governments. Same organisation whose manifesto has been intercepted in the 90s and which openly states their plans to lead jihad against the west through deception, destabilizing governments and order we have here. If you spam this meme like a brainwashed parrot you are playing right into the hands of these people.

 Now go fuck off #prayingforNice it will really changed the world.

The new bimbo

The era of sexual freedom arrived in the sixties and it changed humanity in many different and unexpected ways. Young people of every new generation get the ability to more and more freely hit on each other and  evaluate each others attractiveness. Thus since then we're getting into the unknown waters where almost every part of our potential partner is exposed before we even decide if we should attempt to date them. It also added to the sexualization of men as objects. Fit male bums were a thing since I was a kid(heck, that was back in the 80s) and cashing in on your pretty face disregarding your origins or intellect is no longer a female privilege. Male model is a thing and it's a profession bringing in good money(not as much as female but still) and actors that are nothing special but a pretty face every housewife would love to cuddle have been part of our lives for couple of generations. So a little bit under the radar it seems a new phenomenon emerged. We all know what the derogatory term bimbo means-an empty headed doll, presumably female. The implication that pretty people have it easier to a point where they often don't have to work hard for anything and fail to develop their natural abilities is not deep beneath the surface. It could be read in other, more sexist line of thought but that is not our goal here. Instead let's think rationally-what saves modern men from becoming bimbos? As a matter of fact-nothing. Societal norms are preventing us from seeing such process unfold as when a blonde girl becomes famous partially because of her looks the media wants to hear her opinions of the world no matter how stupid they are. They will twist and fit until they find the appropriate questions to be asked-like what is her favourite colour or what ice cream she likes the most, but they'll  bring their audience what's needed. For men however stereotypes make us hold them to a higher standard-we would always expect them to speak on politics or philosophy where applying the logic with female pretties media should only discuss sports with such individuals.And here is when the plot thickens and we come to the very reason, I m wasting some of my free time writing this:

So here's the guy who sold his looks and made buck of that checking in every mark in the stereotypes of a bimbo box. It is not uncommon for someone that became rich and famous due to one specific quality to start believing he is above those grey nominal people surrounding him in every other aspect that we can compare humans too. And Ben Afleck here proves to be the ultimate bimbo, jumping to idiotic conclusions because religion and politics-it can't be that hard, right? Everybody knows everything needed to be known about these 2 popular topics. In his simplistic, atavistic views Islam means brown people-automatically good and whoever opposes that is a racist. If you haven't watched the video and are unaware of the utter idiocy of contemporary "progressives" you'll find it hard to believe someone can hold and express such confused and simplified ideas so if that applies to you I encourage you to watch Ben confirm my story in his own words.

And to get on to the topic, here is the latest example

Pretty incoherent, isn't it? Really hard to analyze and criticize a statement when the speaker is not sure what he wants to say, except that he wants to shine as someone that is modern and not backwards. Just like a seal would join it's herd when it hears them barking George felt the need to add something to the dialogue and predictably ended up hardly putting two sentences together.Now, I m not saying Trump didn't stretch his populism game bit too far, while I still think he is the much needed for the world change he would've been better off cutting his comments to the point of "build the wall" whereas "they send their rapists here was controversial to say the least. But the generic arguments that Clooney was trying to shove down the throats of the audience were a serious insult to the average IQ of everyone present. We are not afraid of women? Given Trump's history how is he supposed to be afraid of women or mistreating them? But regressive masses are simple as I already pointed-they have one course of action, one set of words and oddly enough don't ever consider how that discredits their beliefs-if not for them at least they should think how would it sound to a rational, neutral listener. As of now they are like the snake who only has one course of action to any encounter that involves something bigger than her-bite and run. Racist, homophobe, islamophobe they shout.

Someone criticizing Islam can do it for bigoted reasons, but those reasons can not include racism Ben, you idiot.  And dear Trigglypuff as Milo politely explained to you it is weird to call a racist homophobe a gay dude with preference of dating blacks(btw my spellchecker claims there are no such words as homo and islamophobe-how racist!).

And with mr Clooney here we saw that whole process summed up-he dumped all the right buzzwords(even implied instead of straight up using them to sound smarter) while nodding his head under the perfect angle so we could all enjoy the perfectness of his profile. Yup George, we can all see it now-you are just another stupid, male bimbo.

Liberals vs Faggots-latest cultural war

Many have probably noticed that something weird has been going on in the Progressivo-sphere. Once deemed valuable allies gay men are being attacked from lefties on all fronts. In UK the students union was discussing dropping them from the LGBT movement as they "do not face oppression" and are "promoting misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia”. The twitter feminist mob sprang as if it has been waiting in hide for this moment for ages(as they always do). Here are results for "cis gay men" no cherry-picking, no cheating, only the top results:

So what does this vitriol come to show you may ask. It is pretty simple actually. The flagship of "progressive"(I can't put this enough in parentheses) movement manifesting itself mostly online and on campus in the English-speaking countries is feminism and feminist ideologues. And feminism has counted gay people as their most reliable ally, they took gay men for granted as part of the movement. The logic behind that was pretty simple but lying on a false premise. As we all know the revival of feminism came as angry and bitter lesbians stated all the success of the 60s liberation movement were merely the beginning and much more work lied ahead. And some work they did indeed-creating a weird mixture of equality issues with the teachings of few philosophers flexing and distorting Marxist theory to a point where the leadership of the Soviet bloc dubbed them radicals. If you don't trust my modest opinion on what started the second feminism wave I'll let it's leaders tell you themselves:

So here's how leftism(I repeat-please do not perplex with Marxism as communist were never as mean and vicious as the new progressives are) mixed with feminism and men hating to form modern progressivism. And as gay men are you know-gay and queer they were expected to seek full equality for themselves under the banner of feminism and later the wider "progressive" movement. After all, gay women started all the fuzz, right? Right? Wrong. The same anti-equality logic that formed modern feminist agenda can be applied the other way around. As much as gay women don't need men and profess disgust for masculinity and male genitals(not sure why so obsessed with them) we can say the same about gay men. In fact they are the only male demographic over which women don't have easy to access control.Furthermore just like gay women are women and tried to create a movement unifying on gender basis,gay men obviously would have more empathy and bias towards men.And this is exactly what we are witnessing-big part of gay community left feminism and not only that but stood under the loose flag of MRA. If that wasn't enough the amazing Milo Yanopoulos is the drop that spills the cup.Witty, charming and fiercely anti-PC he enjoyed amazing increase in popularity alternating between ruthless, well-grounded critique of feminist narratives with outrageous and triggering provocations. Feminists and other progressives simply have no idea how to react to him as their usual shtick of calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist homophobe doesn't fly well when we're talking about a gay dude who loves as he says black cock.

Jonathan and the superiority complex

Remember Jonathan Butler? The guy that leftist media(I m absolutely unironically including CNN among those) left speak in his own words so the only way the public heard about the incidents in which Butler was key figure was through his own descriptions . That kinda put bit of a dent on his claim that the USA is a country with deeply ingrained white racism that hurts him as a black dude. You'd expect bias against the black dude from racist media, not undisguised support.

Yea bro, you look just like Ghandi, now if you could ACT like him that would be nice

Jonathan is now back  telling everyone who disagrees with him that they are part of the problem.
Dear Jonathan, do you know who else but you is famed for using the phrase "if you are not with us you are against us"? I'll help you since I suspect you took too much "progressive" studies to have any actual knowledge of history and I'm afraid as true American you already exclaimed "Jesus!". The correct answer however is comrade Lenin for he made a state-wide policy based on this way of thinking. Another notorious example of someone who did not respect the right of others to be neutral would be Genghis Khan attributed with saying "I will consider a declaration of neutrality to be a declaration of war against me." 

Here is someone with real problems Jonathan and I hate to say it but yours are not.You started a hunger strike over a poop swastika(another reason to question what you learned in Uni-there were no black people in the death camps you idiot) and someone calling the N word a friend of yours. Wait, this friend of yours? The one that admitted of creating hate crime hoax? Yes, this was the "credible" source that sparked your outrage.So what did wake your anger and resentment, what started the revolutionary fire or "concerned students"? An edgy troll attempt (anonymous, just saying) and an alleged racial slur from a guy who outed himself as a race-baiter.You said you just wanted freedom and justice, but you were pleased with getting served the head of the uni president on a platter. That guy was feeding a family , but with the arrogance so typical for rich kids you never cared about that, did you?The moral position you're coming from seems backed by your hunger strike and nothing else. And as the whole world saw how you threat unbiased journalists trying to cover your protest I'm sitting on the fence how real said hunger strike was.

I just want to ask you one thing dear Jonathan. Would you stop by a random homeless white man on the street, look him in the eyes and tell him how low you think of him because he has all this white privilege and yet he's there on the street while your oppressed father is worth 20 million? Does that mean the homeless man is a totally worthless piece of shit? Because it sounds like this is exactly what you think.Middle class white citizen that has achieved what Jonathan's dad did has merely cashed in on his white privilege. The real achievement is when you are handicapped. Starting from scratch and getting somewhere means nothing if you are white. Can you sense how that gives our SJW hero a sense of superiority? It is undeniable. So we get back to why did he feel the need to show up and tell everyone that disagrees with him that they are part of the problem. To put it simple-they are putting under question his superiority complex.

Why Sargon is right

So recently popular Youtuber Sargon of Akkad unleashed a furious rant on something that worries many of us-the indoctrination of young people in Western Universities. The examples he provides in the clip speak for themselves, the results that said indoctrination brings to our society are also there for all to see.  The results of that indoctrination have cumulative effect that we are only starting to see. So there were really a lot of critics from the Youtubers and there were some tweets as well.

The examples I point are from people that theoretically should be on the same front with Sargon-an outspoken critic of the rising tide of intersectional feminism mixed with new trend in left political thinking-one that Majid Nawaz quite creatively coined as the regressive left. Those critics to me seem too knee-jerk. They all seem to omit the fact that a petition at Change.org doesn't hold any official value and it is in no way a document that could bring change by itself. Now if we write off the option that Sargon is an idiot who doesn't understand that, which I think anyone that has watched his videos will agree is not the case, the only possible explanation of him starting the petition is that he wants to start a conversation with raised bets, to push the whole argument on a higher level. I don't know if I m alone in this(now I know it's at least me and Sargon) , but with every new idiocy of social justice-programmed zombies I felt there is a need for this problem to be scrutinized by the whole society and by governmental institutions.

There has been "straight-out-of-Tumbler" quotes sneaking in the speeches of both democratic candidates for the US presidential elections. Doesn't necessary mean they believe in the regressive left values, it means they noted the change of the young, voting demographic opinions and tried to adjust accordingly. We see similar trends on lower political level in the UK and Sweden and Canada have been the flagships of course. And yes-this is exactly how politicians act, they don't care which is wrong and which is right, they only want to say and enact whatever will bring them to power. So it is weird for me that so many people that agree that the new "progressive" left is cancer don't see how by remaining silent or bashing it in their echo-chamber on Twitter or Youtube they are enabling it.

In the tweeter examples I bring everyone can see what we are talking about: racial hatred, unrestricted bigotry and I mean...come on SOFT segregation? As a father from Eastern Europe(i.e. since I can afford there hasn't be doubt till now in my mind I'll send my daughter to a good Western uni) I definitely am concerned. I don't want some loon to attack my daughter just because she is white and I can see development that can lead to such grim future. I don't want her to become self-hating, blue-haired retard spouting nonsense in scientifically covered feminism-speak. She may do mistakes, but those must be the mistakes of her own.

So yeah, I signed the petition and I've been thinking of more initiatives this time on behalf of concerned parents like myself-after all if nothing else unis might listen to us as potential customers they are about to lose.

The absurd controversy that islamic patriarchy sparks in "progressive" minds

When confronted with the fact that the muslim community in the West which they tend to patronize is the one with most sins against the empowerment of women "progressives" react differently. The outright denial of plainly laid in front of them facts speaks volumes how deep their wicked belief that Islam and liberal movement have a common fight has been planted.Such form of arguing can be won as yet another case unfolds and gets mainstream media attention depending how thick the "progressives" skull is.What is even more shocking is how modern day crusaders for social justice read the facts when they admit it.

Let's compare the situation replacing muslim kids with ANY other 2 boys refusing to shake their female teacher's hand. You shrugged imagining the twitter shitstorm didn't you?In the last 2 years we have seen careers  destroyed over statements that could obviously be read both ways-as sexist and as innocent.But when an obviously backwards believe leads to an obviously sexist act the same hate mob tends to excuse it with-"But those are these boy's traditions, this is their culture". Tradition and culture that tell men women are lesser than them? Hello guys, let me connect the blue dots for you-this is the mythical patriarchy you've been looking for!

Have you ever considered how ironically easy it is to contradict yourself while fanboying around an important issue? The fighters against islamophobia are often prime examples. Let's examine the following exchange:

Anne Marie Waters is a leader in the much hated by leftists and big media PegidaUK.Now I get it, this is an organization that steps into muddy waters-anti immigration politics has always been the backbone of the white supremacy movements. The thing is their stated goals do not contain anything resembling "kill all blacks" or "Europe for white people". They say they oppose Islam and mass immigration for fear of losing local national identity and due to Islam's notorious hostility towards people that refuse to convert to it.That can't be racist UNTIL AND IF those goals get tied to a racial or gender identity.You can't just imply you read the mind of someone and accuse him of nasty things. You can't also tie certain ideas to one another because they were tied in previously in some ideologies.You can have your suspicions, but saying "I know that you are a racist" is bigoted and self-contradiction. Since any statement can pursue political agenda you may have also be blamed that very accusation is biased and manipulative and since this has happened before such claim would be as true/untrue as yours.

My girlfriend often cites something of a credo she developed in her teenage "I never trust people that wrongly think bad of myself-people always think of the others as similar to them.And really good people trust others have good intentions too and only those that done or thought bad always suspect the others into being in the wrong". So can we give each other the benefit of the doubt, always start with the assumption that what was said was coming from a good place? I believe this will make us better people.

Let's not fool ourselves-SJW's indeed always lie

As the increasingly popular title by Vox Dei states SJW's always lie. If you didn't know by now raise a hand. Good, now use it to slap yourself-it is by default and you should of figured by now based just on common sense. Someone that unironically calls himself Social Justice Warrior should first have his personality and ego checked before checking other people's privilege. Even if we chose to ignore the fact that such can usually be found hashtagging or blogging on Tumbler instead of doing anything that would promote real change the buffoonery and lack of diligence when you label yourself in such way are there for all to see.So when we get to their widely discussed controversial tactics you should've already known-there is something rotten in this apple.

The question that has been bothering me is: how did we end up here? The fact that it is a scary place and the sight that lies ahead is the worst part has already been established.Demographics will take it's toll and there will be a day when roving tumblerites will be the voting majority.The explanation is often that "progressive" professors in universities across US and Europe poison the minds of the youth and quite obviously it holds some truth.While I agree I personally believe there is more to that.As I several times pointed the Tumbler-sphere is an unique World of it's own where being SJW somehow equals being edgy and counter-culture. As one of the early Tumbler-celebrities puts it: "If you are rich or hot you have instagram, if you are cool, with many friends you go to Facebook and if you have many followers you go to Twitter. And if you have none of that you make a Tumbler":In essence-social media for outcasts or the Facebook alternative of 4chan.

Another venue that the "progressive" thought flows freely into the public's minds through is the desire of every simpleton to look and sound smarter. That can be noticed on both sides of the fence whenever there is any big, public debate and SJW vs everybody else makes no exception. It could be seen well exemplified on Reddit  after latest incident involving Lauren Southern where her statement that "there are only 2 genders" was deemed so outrageous by one of the people arguing with her that she poured a bottle of urine on Southern's head.The vicious entitlement in the discussion could fuel with electricity a small town.Apparently Southern was stupid for stating there are only 2 genders-that was the only logical argument against what she said.Every other comment of like 20 was "she was meme-ing IRL she is so damn stupid". Smart people actually know what they find stupid and enjoy debunking it, if you call other people stupid without even the slightest attempt to argue their opinions you just made a fool of yourself.

Last but not in importance and connected to the Tumbler-sphere is the sense of unity.We are tribal beings, being part of the pack is something every human longs for. I have experienced it myself being a smart and shy nerd from a good family who at the age of 16 got hooked with the punks in my city and I can testify this longing for being a part of something is stronger than those who never gave to it can suppose.Being part of the SJW crowd doesn't take much effort and pays off in feeding many of our little desires. As I pointed above it can help the dumb feel smarter, the bigot a saint and the lonely a part of something.

How I travelled through time

Today I realized I am a traveler through time. Wasn't as easy to figure it but it suddenly hit me as I was browsing twitter and stumbled upon this:

https://twitter.com/eksymons/status/716810933595713536

So I come from the distant past 20 years ago when I started pursuing an early retirement plan. To achieve that in a destroyed Eastern European country while not being a genius and still preserving some morals I had to give on many things. Gaming and night life are the 2 I always knew of in particular. Now I came to understand news is something I gave up on too. For last I remember when I took on my travel through time from communist Bulgaria Independent was the enemy. Guardian too, even Morning Star was not in favour of the workers around the world enough to be ally of the communists.

 

 

You may point these views are quite far from what Marx has ever taught as the progressive way of thinking on display is shaped by few fringe 20 th century philosophers and rightly so. "Progressives" and Tumbler communists are as far from the original ideology as Mao was from Ayn Rand. The thing is before my younger self departed on his travel he used to read a lot including ever foreign newspaper I could lay my hands on and the sentiment in such media was that communism is wrong, equality of outcome too.Even Morning Star was all about equality inside the current economical and political system-ironic, isn't it?

 Oppressors, victims when it seemed we have just shaken off such dichotomy, how did we go back so fast? And your race or gender being more important than the social status of your parents? You know what, any black woman from a rich household can mail me-I ll trade my white penis for her millions and never look back.So how did the popular opinion shift to sympathizing to this weird, victimhood- narrated reflection of marxism? I don't know, I only recently arrived here.

This is my Europe!

Yes, this is my Europe not yours.The place where the bones of my ancestors lay. The place where I grew up. The place where my children will grow.This is our land, land that my people died for in the millions fending endless conquests.The way I am part of this land and it is part of me-you will never feel it.So don't talk to me like you understand. Because you don't. And you never will. Oh and by the way:

This is my sky, not yours. I can see you smiling, unable to comprehend my hick stubbornness.
But is this guy so stupid, doesn't he know the sky is for everybody-I can hear you ask.Like I said-you wouldn't even understand. But just as a warning-the bond that the land creates with it's people is stronger than you may think.

It is after all, us the people that make the land. Yes, it has been here for millions of years, but it didn't know what it was before we settled it. The people came and changed the land, they were sometimes cruel and sometimes caring but they are the ones that shaped this land, plowed the fields and cut the trees, we made it what it is. And it needs us to remind it what it is.Yes us, not you.Yes, I know things change and populations move, religions and politics shift, but it has never happened in one night, in one generation even.

And yes, my people paid the heaviest price for that land.Many times.Do you know what giaur means? It s the Turkish word for kufar-unbeliever, but it was basically an euphemism for sub-human while the Ottoman Empire ruled the Balkans. My people lived through that and kept telling the land what it was so it doesn't forget. So when a loony politician tells me islam and political islam have it s place in Europe, sorry but I take it you guys just declared war on your own people

Why populism produces clicks but doesn't win elections

Have you ever considered how strong our resolve to not admit our own faults is? If we uncritically check the patterns that lead us to believing one thing or another, how often will we notice we were following the path that explains and excuses best our falterings. Finding excuses for our acts and for those whom we sympathize with has always been a strong trend for our subconscious. I love that example that obviously made strong  impression to my 4 year self from the kindergarten. After a huge fight erupted and was subsequently calmed down by the teachers they naturally started to trace back to the roots of all evil-the kid that threw the first punch. After few fingers were firmly pointed the defendant had to produce the speech so he brought his view on the incident: "I punched him because he later kicked me". The absurd statement must have struck me deep as it is the earliest memory I keep. The kid was challenged on the moral axis of the problem-the teacher conceded it is ok to defend yourself so she questioned who resorted to violence first. Him trying to find an explanation for the moral side of his act in a rash produced the mistake. What is more important is as the higher authority(the teacher) has put the issue as black and white-hit without being hit equals you are a bad person, he was trying to find an excuse that will put him back on solid track as one of the good guys.

As we grow up our thoughts and concerns tend to get more complicated and so do our excuses. I didn't get PhD because the educational system is fucked up, my business didn't go as planned as there is a lot of corruption in the regulations surrounding it, that girl didn't date me because women like jerks who treat them bad. We search to expand such excuses and as internet of today stands we are bound to find opinions or even studies confirming them. And as we so often see in last couple of years many politicians and media figures try to ride that wave-it's the new wave. The job of both types of entities has always been to tell the masses what they want to hear(in the case of politicians-and do what they please meanwhile, but that s another story). And this is why we have identity politics and why they are so successful. Let's view the problem from the point of those "delivering" the news or promises or politics. You need to speak to a maximum amount of people that you can put under the same brand and give them excuse for their shortcomings. And this is how all of a sudden cultural marxism theories came into play in usually quite anti-communistic America and from there it flooded the World. You are black and not doing well? Systematic racism! You are a woman that couldn't make it in STEM? Sexism and misogyny! The message is simple and resounding-EVERY woman must not be held accountable if she is not faring that well in life or can't get a boyfriend there is an explanation. White men conspired to deprive women of any decent paying job and they have disgusting taste for women. You are black and can't get a job? Well, it s all in the privilege .

Now, quite obviously there are patterns that we, the people try to fight every day that cause exactly the behavior described above. Misogyny can often be explained with similar way of thinking tho expanded in both directions-thinking someone is less capable of you and thus when he performs equally he has to be handicapped or just reversing the ideas and saying that men have it harder. There is tribalism that could be a logical reason behind black population being poorer and having lot less opportunities than their white or asian counterparts-most black people are ancestors of economical migrants or freed slaves and if they stuck to their communities and richer whites stuck to theirs tending to hire or do business with folks that look like them that could be one sound explanation of racial disparity in the US. The thing is those are not things that make men or white people evil, they are part of natural behavior on subconscious level that we must fight through realizing they exist and correcting ourselves when possible. The thing that the hysterical tribunes of the new PC era omit is that we are long gone into that process. One of the uniting points that help us determine the Western civilization is that everywhere in this sphere you go you will see laws defending equality and even many focusing on specifically defending groups of people that have been marginalized in the past. The fight in our heads I referred to above we also undertook long ago. This had lead to a society thriving and tolerant more than any that has existed in human history. My childhood was in the 80s I grew happily without ever thinking any of my female classmates was any different than me. All the evidence shows that said classmates felt the same way and that all the boys in my class were no different than me. So when feminists wave finger at me telling me how in fact men despise and even hate women I m being left puzzled-it harshly contrasts 40 years of living experience.

The fact that we are doing just fine doesn't stop the fame and money hungry from promoting suspicions and often even hatred between groups in society, they are keen to put new artificial dividing lines and spread people on both sides. Donald Trump's rise to prominence is the most obvious moment when such talk backfires.

Trump remains widely indifferent to the race problems not mentioning them and not taking a stance on them. That combined with his nationalistic rhetoric made many to accuse him of racism. Now not sure how american voters view Trump, but weather he is neutral or white racist when his opponents throw statements like the cited above they quite obviously provide ammo for him.

P.S.
I'm sorry Bernie, but that's not how you do populism-minorities are called minorities for a reason.And if you thought Tumbler wins elections, for now you've been wrong. What I m afraid of is that the day when it does might not be that far in the future.