What’s the Deal with Cop Hating Libertarians?

hot_female_copOccupying a bizarre, yet fascinating – well, fascinating to me, at least – spot in the modern zeitgeist is the cop-hating libertarian. Now, I’ve always considered myself to be a libertarian and have been called one by people on the both the left and the right, but one thing that I’ve always had trouble understanding is the libertarian who has a vehement hatred for the police.

I understand where it COMES from. When I was a young, obnoxious teenager, I too hated anybody who wore a suit or a uniform of any type. I thought ALL of these people were assholes who take your freedoms away and stop you from having fun, while filling their coffers and enslaving people through bureaucracy. The first band I ever listened to was Metallica. In “…And Justice for All”, they sing about a corrupt politician, who uses money to subvert the justice system; in “The Shortest Straw”, they sing about how you’re put on trial Kafka-style for something you didn’t do, and no matter what you do, you’re always guilty; in “Eye of the Beholder”, they preach against censorship; in “Leper Messiah”, they attack manipulative people, who sell religion to rubes that don’t know any better; in “Fight Fire with Fire” and “Blackened”, they express their fear of imminent nuclear annihilation at the hands of the two big political powers at the time; and in “Disposable Heroes” and “One”, they condemn war since like war totally sucks. Ironically then, they go on to express the necessity for war in SOME instances in “Don’t Tread on Me.”

But THEN, when my radar moved into the amateurish, under-produced and less musically skilled world of hardcore punk, the bands had an entirely new target for their resentment. In “Police Story”, Black Flag sing about a war on the street between the cops and kids; in “Police Truck”, the Dead Kennedys shout down police brutality; In “Cop Cars”, the Exploited express their paranoia whenever they hear a police siren; in “Fascist Pig”, Suicidal Tendencies call cops “fascist pigs” (or rather, they ironically claim that “I wanna be a fascist pig!”); in “The Badge”, Poison Idea claim anyone who becomes a police officer does so because he has a thirst for power; in “Cop Killer” by Body Count (ain’t it a hoot how Ice-T plays a cop on Law and Order now?), “Kill the Police” by GG Allin and “Cops for Fertilizer” by the Crucifucks, the respective bands advocate KILLING the police; and in “No More Cops”, a band CALLED Millions of Dead Cops says the world would be a much more peaceful place, and that people would just get along all nicey-nice if we just got rid of all cops (no need to kill ’em). Hell, even Motörhead have a song called “Lawman” that attacks narco-cops (actually being a narc is pretty lame). By the end of the 80s, Gangsta rappers N.W.A. added a racial element to the anti-cop sentiment with “Fuk da Police.”

The basic message from punk, rap and some metal is that, if you enjoy freedom or, if you’re a freak or outcast of any type, the police are NOT your friends.

As people grow older, their views tend to get more nuanced, and they stop taking the messages in songs at face value. This is why they realize that it’s contradictory for a leftist punk rock band like the Dead Kennedys to sing a song called “Government Flu”, while advocating for MORE government. They realize that, when the Dead Kennedys bash Christianity in “Religious Vomit” or when Motörhead do the same in “(Don’t Need) Religion” or when Crass sing that there are no gods or masters, that it’s hypocritical to not bash Islam with equal fervor. They also realize that it’s pretty silly to say that people in the United States are oppressed, while completely acting as though the oppression in Islamic countries is no big deal or even worse, advocating Socialism or Communism as if we don’t already have models for the failure of both ideologies.

In other words, they realize that the left is the problem, that they’re the real advocates for authoritarianism, censorship and taking away whatever freedoms we have.

Yet they still hate cops.

Hatred for the police on the left is pretty simple to understand. Leftists just think that cops are racist, unfairly targeting minorities for harassment, abuse and murder. Without doing any further research into the cases of Rodney King, Michael Brown or Philando Castile, they figure, “the cops are white, the people they beat or shoot are black, so therefore, the police must be beating and shooting black people because they hate them.” When you point out that cops kill more white people than black people, that black people kill more black people than either white or black cops or that the reason that possibly blacks have more run-ins with cops than other groups of people is because they commit most of the crime. As stated many times elsewhere, blacks make up 13% of the population, yet are responsible for more than 50% of the violent crime. With the left, none of these other factors are ever considered, and based upon this ignorance, idiotic, left-wing movements like Black Lives Matter are allowed to fester and grow.

But, for libertarians, specifically cop hating libertarians, the story is a bit more complicated. My guess is that, in general, they feel that cops are part of the state apparatus, and that they have too much authority, which they can exert onto people at will. Unlike leftists, they don’t see a racial problem; they see a problem with nutsoid cops, who will attack anyone and everyone just because they’re having a bad day or someone just doesn’t look quite right to them. In their view, cops will occasionally discriminate upon the basis of race, but not to the same degree that leftist SJW’s or Black Lives Matter activists think they do. They see THEMSELVES as just as much a part of the anti-cop struggle as leftists and BLM activists, but they feel that the SJW’s and BLM activists need to worry less about racial discrimination and realize that ALL civilians are targets for the police.

Of course, all of this is silly and idiotic. I’ve heard individual stories of people claiming that cops harassed them when they were 100% innocent, and I believe they’re probably telling the truth; but as someone who was stopped by the police for drunk driving and attempted to drive away, when I was surrounded by the police, I stepped out of my car, put my hands in the air as the officers requested, and I was safe of any threats to my life. Do officers overstep their bounds? Sure. Is there an epidemic of officers overstepping their bounds and using the power of the badge to harass, beat and murder people? Now, you’re going to have to give me a WHOLE heckuva lot of evidence to prove that, kiddo.

And God forbid the mainstream media gets a hold of a story which involves a cop and a citizen because, if the right factors are involved – white cop/black “victim” – they’ll spin a wonderful yarn that excludes key details; I bet you didn’t know that Rodney King was high on PCP, and that he had two passengers in his car that both complied with the police when they were stopped. And please don’t get me started with that gentle giant Michael Brown, who robbed a liquor store and tried to grab the officers gun, before he was rightfully shot.

On one hand, cop hating libertarians fully advocate for conceal and carry because it supports the 2nd amendment, but I’m curious how they feel about the Trayvon Marton/George Zimmerman scenario. After all Zimmerman wasn’t a cop. He was just a citizen acting within Florida’s stand your ground law; he was being beat down, defended himself and was found not guilty of murder. On the other hand, they find pro-active, stop and frisk policing, which lead to a severe drop in violent crime in New York during the 90s, to be completely reprehensible; nothing short of an attempt to steamroll over the 4th amendment.

Of course this too is nonsense since the Supreme Court officially ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about the stop and frisk method of policing, and many have seen how it’s lead to a sharp fall in crime and rise in the standard of living for people living in low income communities.

My question to these cop-hating libertarians is if they honestly equate working class men and women, who decide to become police officers of some local jurisdiction because they have no other training, to federal agents who work with the FBI or the CIA and attempt to spy on them using drones or if they feel that local and even state police are really part of the globalist machine. Because, if these allegations are true, and the cop that stopped me the night I drove drunk and said “cool shirt!” when he saw my Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! t-shirt, works for the state apparatus, then I’ve got way bigger things to worry about than getting back my driver’s license!

Why Mainstream Liberals, Moderates and Democrats Are the Real Problem

eat_a_dickWith some BernieBro “pulling an A-Team” – my new colloquialism for firing a lot of rounds at no particular target and hitting almost nothing – on Majority House Whip Steve Scalise and the recent outrage surrounding Kathy Griffin and her holding a prop of what looked like Donald Trump’s bloody decapitated head, liberals have been feigning outrage, claiming, “GAWSH, they don’t represent US!!! We may HATE Donald Trump and any politician with an ‘R’ by his or her – actually it’s zhe’s, fascists! – name, but we certainly don’t advocate using violence against them!”

I believe that these people are 100% sincere in their claim, and I also believe that they’re sincere when they say things like “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In fact, I have several friends who identify as liberal, leftist and even “left-leaning” who know I voted for Donald Trump and don’t think I’m the antichrist for doing so. We have many fine conversations about a variety of topics from films, music and the arts but, when it comes to politics, many of my liberal or left-leaning friends balk and guffaw at certain claims that I make.

Some of their choice responses include the following:

“Fine, Edwin, if leftism is a mental disorder, than I guess we’re your mentally ill friends!”

“Yeah, SURE, the Democrats JUST want to take your guns! NO WAY are they ACTUALLY concerned about keeping guns away from psychos, unlike your precious Republicans!”

“Come ON, DUDE, you GOTTA at least admit that global warming is real, COME ON!”

“Sure, Edwin, you’re inclusive to ALL people, especially the Muslims, right?”

Now, first of all, as if this point needs to be made in the current year, the concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” are completely meaningless out of context, and furthermore, Democrat and Republican are just the names of parties (if I told you that I love the OLD Democrats, ya know, like George Wallace, you’d probably never talk to me again). When Rory Carroll interviewed me for his piece in The Guardian about conservatives living in Los Angeles, I told him that, like most people, I vote on policies, but because of my beliefs and voting record, I end up on the “conservative” side of the chess board. If you put a gun to my head demanding to know how I label myself, I’d say I’m a basic bitch libertarian (still don’t know if I’m supposed to capitalize that or not) with a wider Overton window than most; this has made my Venn diagram overlap with that of the Alternative Right, which I either am or am not considered a part of by certain people. However the idea of reducing complicated topics – abortion, guns, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, drugs and crime – into binary choices that fall under the categories of “liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right” or Democrat and Republican is simply acting as a herd animal OR lacking in critical thinking.

With my liberal friends, I believe it’s the latter, and that is why they are so dangerous.

I honestly feel that, as much as my liberal friends are astute, analytical and rational about their respective interests, hobbies and professions – film, literature, music, engineering, math, etc. – they are completely ignorant to the mechanisms that have been running our world since at least the mid-1960s.

The negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy after the end of the Cold War and the over the top, cartoony stereotypes surrounding openly right-leaning people have made people afraid to label the left exactly for what it is; Communism. Throw in corporate collusion, and you have Crony Capitalism and Corporatism and have it cross national borders, and you have Globalism, which is nothing more than an attempt by a few elites to enslave the peoples of the world under a totalitarian, one-world government.

On the Savage Hippie podcast, Ann Sterzinger asked me when the “modern, far left version of the Democratic party began.” I told her it started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and his war on poverty, the first real attempt in American history to socially engineer equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

The quick and basic history of the two major American parties goes something like this:

The Republican party began in 1854 with more or less the intention of disrupting the Southern agricultural economy – largely, but not entirely fed by slavery – by pushing for industrialization with factories that were primarily set in the North and owned by top hat wearing, cigar chomping Capitalists with funny mustaches. And if you think for a second that Abraham Lincoln truly cared about emancipating the slaves for some moral reason, you’ve got another thing coming; he made racial statements that would make David Duke blush, and he blatantly claimed that, if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it. On top of that, after the Civil War, he proposed sending every black person back to Africa. Anyway, after the North obviously won the Civil War, by all intents and purposes, the United States became a libertarian country where people were barely taxed, and some people got really rich off of the new industrialized economy; with very little exceptions, there were almost no social programs on the federal level to help people out, and Americans were forced to sink or swim. Some of the ones who swam got rich, effectively showing the potential of a country which gives its citizens the ability to succeed or to fail. Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed, many lost their life savings and a good amount of people lost their faith in a system where the federal government doesn’t take an active role in helping people. Unfortunately, in the three and half decades since FDR’s election in 1932 and the new deal policies which he instated, what was intended to help get a few people working again and to stimulate the American economy morphed into an attempt to socially engineer the nebulous concept of “equality” (again, I ask: equality of what, exactly? Ability? Opportunity?).

So then, am I calling the Democratic party a Communist or Globalist party? No… not entirely…

Again, as I said earlier, I believe liberals and so called left-leaning people mean well, but unfortunately, their lack of in depth political analysis, and their being quick to jump at anything that stinks of “racism”, “sexism” or any word with “phobia” attached to the end of it will be their, and subsequently everyone’s, downfall.

If the war on poverty worked, why are inner city blacks still disproportionately poor? Did any of these people ask that? Do they even know WHAT questions to ask?

The basic notion among the modern “liberal” left is that, if they see something as “unequal”, the laws must be tweaked to “fix” the inequality; it never simply exists as is. Since women and minorities were under-represented in certain professions, well-meaning politicians instilled affirmative action quotas that were implemented either by consent decree or by making the tests to get into certain professions easier; professions such as firefighting. In 1971, IQ testing was outlawed, so now employers had to come up with less efficient ways of testing if a potential employee would be qualified for work. One of the most egregious example of socially engineering equality in recent years is allowing for blacks to get into universities with 200 less SAT points than whites or Asians. Now, I ask, is that judging a man by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin?

When experiments, such as instilling race or sex quotas or the pumping of money into inner city schools in hopes of achieving higher academic success in kids who come from single parent homes and don’t care about learning, fail, do you then continue to pump more money into inner city schools? When having the government pay a single mother for every kid she has leads to her having more kids so she can have more free money and continue to depend on the government, do you continue having the government pay her for to have kids? When stricter gun control measures in Democrat-run inner cities fails to solve the problem of gang-related drive-by shootings, while dinky, “homogeneous” (feel free to consider that “code”) have virtually no gun restrictions and ZERO gun violence, do you push for stricter gun control measures?

In all cases, logic would dictate “no.” So why do liberals keep advocating for such policies?

The old Communists attempted to recruit people off the streets to attend secret “community organization” meetings, in which someone lectured his crowd about the evil, oppressive nature of the Capitalist system. People would be fired up when they compared their working class status to that of the well-to-do Wall Street fat cats, CEO’s and company owners, who live off the labor of the people they employ, crying “it’s not fair!!! Oppression!” A few rubes obviously bought it, at least for a while. But somehow that kind of thinking went by the wayside when the average American got married, bought a house, had a couple of kids and lived happily ever after in a nice, clean suburb. Not the most exciting life, but we can’t all be Rockefeller.

So, when the old-guard Communism didn’t work, the nu-Communists or cultural Marxists, decided the struggle wasn’t going to be between the “haves” and the “have nots”, but between the so-called “dominant” culture and those people it allegedly dominates. Traditional gender roles were apparently “oppressive”, so came the feminist and “women’s lib” movement to address the “imbalance”, even though there was never a time when women were barred from entering scientific or STEM fields; they then, and mostly now, simply CHOSE not to. There was a disparity between the white man and the negro, so clearly whitey CAUSED that disparity, and now the negro needed some payback – forget that welfare more than compensated for any “reparations” and with interest to boot. Somehow Hispanics and Asians are never compared with blacks, only white people. And of course, the culture is too “straight”, and homos need more mainstream representation, so you better accept their dildo swinging, assless-chap wearing “pride” events, or you’re a “homophobe”; have straight people ever needed parades to represent that they like pussy?

And unlike old-guard Communism, the recruitment to become an apparatchik in the “struggle for equality”, isn’t done in secret meetings, but in the classrooms of universities and on “comedy” news programs by “social comedians” like Jon Stewart, Jon Oliver, Trevor Noah and Steve Cobert. Students are taught that a “history of slavery”, “racist policing” and an overall “racist system” is the reason blacks can’t get ahead, yet completely neglect that the Japanese were put into internment camps during World War II and came to dominate the tech industry. Students are taught that there is a “rape culture” under a system of “patriarchy”, even though rape used to be punishable by death; so does that mean that, during less “enlightened” times, we DIDN’T have a rape culture? Apparently, in universities, 1 in 4 women will be a victim of rape… or is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 7? How exactly do they define rape? Is it when a woman walks alone in the street, and a guy pulls her into an alley and has his way with her? Is it when a girl gets too drunk, and a guy fondles her neither regions without her knowledge? Is it when two consenting adults have sex, but since the woman was drunk, she couldn’t REALLY have consented? I’ve done the third example many times, so I guess I’m a rapist even though I’ve been drunk as well.

Oh, and apparently our culture was discriminatory towards gays until we “fixed” that with “gay marriage.” And while one would think the “gay-struggle” was won, and leftists would take a rest, think again! The left now wants you to recognize a man who dresses like a woman as “transgendered” rather than as a man who dresses like a woman, which WAS typically called a transvestite. And while it’s still accepted that a man who has is ding-dong chopped off and replaced with a fake vaginal device is a transsexual, I’m “transphobic” if I prefer not to sleep with or date this person, since I prefer to date and sleep with women who were, ya know, born women.

And, to top it off, in true Orwellian fashion, new words have been invented to describe anyone who fits the dominant culture. If you’re a “straight white man”, you’re now “hetero cis normative.” If you believe that there are two sexes – not counting hermaphrodites – you’re “gender binary.” And if you happen to be white, “hetero cis normative” and “gender binary”, you’re of the dominant culture and have some sort of privilege.

I asked someone an honest question; “if I’m dating a girl, and she decides to identify as a man, does that make me defacto gay?”, and she took to offense to it.

The question of why she took offense to what is a perfectly logical and reasonable question brings us back to our main point. She considers herself a liberal or left-leaning person and believes that my question comes from the insensitive point of view of an oppressor towards people who identify as “non-binary.” She means well, but she knows not what she does, and she will undoubtedly in the future be the kind of person who will push to implement more policies favoring people with the delusion of being “non-binary”, rather than what the person would have been called a decade or so ago; cuckoo.

This same person sees a black person get killed by a police officer and doesn’t question for a second WHY it happened. Was the black person committing a crime? Was he or she being rude to a police officer during a stop? Was he or she resisting arrest? The answer is always the same; racial discrimination. Forget that more whites, than blacks are killed by police. Forget that blacks consist of 13% of the population, yet commit more than 50% of the violent crime – mostly to other blacks. Forget any of the unpleasant details. If a white police officer – or white person in general – shoots and kills a black person, it’s ONLY because he or she harbored racial animus. The solution? Impede police from doing their job with needless bureaucracy. The result? More violence and death in the ghetto and more disparity between whites and blacks as whites leave the ghetto.

This same person hears of a case where a woman is raped on a college campus and doesn’t for a second wonder if alcohol was involved, if the person had sex with someone she didn’t like and then regret it later, or in the case of the phony Rolling Stone gang rape article, completely lie about it. The solution? Kick men off of college campuses if women accuse them of rape. The result? Men stop approaching women in college or at bars because they’re afraid that they too will get in trouble with the law.

This same person will worry about remembering proper pronouns; she’ll worry if she “mis-gendered” a person; she’ll concern herself of whether it’s more racist to “see color” or “be colorblind”; and if this person happens to come in the form of a man, he’ll worry if asking a girl on a date will lead to a charge of sexual harassment, or in some cases, rape.

And this person will think he or she is completely and 100% on the “right side of history” and in keeping with the times. He or she, who doesn’t follow politics in any meaningful way, will never question the narrative and simply try to keep in lockstep with it, thinking that things always need to be ” moving forward”, and with all the well-meaning intentions in the world, he or she will drive us all off of a cliff.

The Alt-Right, Punk Rock and Fake Boobs: An Analysis

20170324_131131

The worst thing about people who are full of shit is when they become fans of things that you both enjoy and are a much, much greater expert on. I think I’m in some position of authority to state that most punk rockers don’t know as much as I do about the Alternative Right or the general umbrella of the new right. And similarly I think it’s safe to say that most people on the Alternative Right have only a cursory knowledge of punk rock. So, as someone who is a damn near expert on both of these topics – not saying I was ever on the vanguard of either of these movements – I think I’m at least qualified to call bullshit on a recent article published by Playboy magazine.

But before I even analyze the recent Playboy piece “5 Punk Rockers Explain Why the Alt-Right’s ‘Punk Movement’ is Garbage“, let’s ALL put on our bullshit detectors.

Is Playboy not the magazine that 13 year old boys jerked off to for the first time? Is it not the “classy” boobie mag that was started by a pipe smoking, middle aged-cum (no pun intended)-dirty old pervert, who would feature pictorials of attractive women with their beach blonde hair and big, fake boobs? Wasn’t Hugh himself the subject of the wrath of second wave feminists?

Yeah, I know… Playboy has articles too; and there are people who actually read the articles, rather make their fathers question why all the pages in his books are stuck together. And, from my understanding, there was even an era when Playboy actually had good articles from “legit” writers like Woody Allen – who, liberal as he might be, bless his soul, never became a feminist or stopped being a pussy chasing dog – and Gore Vidal. But that was the 60s, and you had to feign intellectualism in those days.

Regardless of its praising of certain liberal causes, Playboy has long since been just a porn mag-lite (no beaver shots), known for launching the careers of airheads like Jenny McArthy and Pamela Anderson.

So why, all of a sudden, do they fancy themselves the authority on punk rock and feel that they can decide that “the Alt-Right’s ‘Punk Movement’ is Garbage”?

First of all, there IS no AltRight punk movement, because if there was, then my name would be in the article. Not only am I the guy who printed the first ever Punks for Trump t-shirts (only 50 left as of this writing; BUY BUY BUY!!!), but that’s Matt Forney, one of the definitive AltRighters, in the picture below wearing one.

forney_with_chicks

But, even if the article’s writer, Michael Tedder, was aware of this fact, he still misses the point entirely:

Members of the alt-right have of late made the argument that “conservatism is the new punk” and that gadflies like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos are the modern day truth-telling equivalents of the Sex Pistols and the Clash, pushing back against social justice warriors and political correctness culture. In their eyes, their old, retrograde ideas—which inevitably manifest as fear and outrage at attempts to curb white male privilege—have suddenly become avant-garde because of…safe spaces or something.

Neither Alex Jones nor Milo Yiannopoulos are “AltRight.” They’re libertarians. They’ve adopted some of the less extreme views of the AltRight – that cultural Marxism sucks, that SJWs of all stripes and shades are stupid and that Islam is a threat to Western civilization – but they were never considered part of the movement; to call them AltRight would be like calling the Cars a punk band. Sure the Venn diagrams overlap, but they’re not one and the same. To be honest, I’m not considered “AltRight” by some of the more radical elements either because I’m not a White Nationalist, I don’t believe that all ethnic groups need to be separated at all costs and I don’t fit the proper genetic stock. The AltRight actually has quite a bit of diversity of thought under its umbrella, but a person on the left will never take the time to investigate any of this.

But I digress. As far as the “new right” (which includes the AltRight) being considered “the new punk rock”, well… I suppose that depends on how you define “punk rock.” And that’s where we get to the meat, spikes, leather and chains of the article; unless, of course, you’re a modern day vegan-feminist-hippie-crust-punk, who dodges showers the way the hippies dodged the draft. Then you probably think the original punks were fascists for wearing and eating dead cow.

Most AltRighters don’t know that much about punk and all of the bands it produced or its various sub-genres and their spin-offs. If ANYTHING, while AltRighters might espouse the general, “offend the easily offended” attitude of the Sex Pistols, and while I think Trump is pissing off all the right people, AltRighters specifically probably have more in common with the Oi! band 4Skins, who wrote this wonderful anti-immigrant slam “One Law for Them”, in which they quote the “rivers of blood” speech by Enoch Powell, or the Canadian punk band Forgotten Rebels, who have the hilarious “Bomb the Boat and Feed the Fish”, in which they advocate a rather more, um, violent solution to the problem of mass immigration from third world countries. Hell, I’d even say they have more in common with hardcore punk bands like Agnostic Front, who have the anti-welfare screed “Public Assistance”, which got them in a heap of shit with the PC brigade, or Minor Threat, who mince no words in “Guilty of Being White”, or Black Flag, who sing about the changing ethnic demographic in Southern California in “White Minority” (oh, but they’re being ironic, cantcha tell?!).

But, instead Playboy claims they found the TRUE representatives of punk rock, and these people, who quite obviously have next to no knowledge of the AltRight, explain why someone on the AltRight can’t be punk.

First they get a quote from Victoria Ruiz from some band called the Downtown Boys. (And if you leftist fags say, “uh, what a POSER, you’ve never heard of the Downtown Boys?”, I’ll say, “go fuck yourself, you’ve never heard of Aryan Disgrace, Metal Urbain or the Mentally Ill.”)

Alice Bag, who has actually done the work of being a punk rock star, recently said via Facebook: “Punk has been portrayed as music by and for angry white males, but in its inception, it was a rebellion against all rock cliches. Gender, ethnic, sexual and class taboos were all challenged by our early punk community and that is a story which is not very often told. People of color, queer folk, women—all were present from the very beginning of Punk.”

Yeah, fine, Alice Bag and the Bags are actually really good – how can they not be? They had Geza X on guitar! – but Republican Johnny Ramone has done WAY more work of being a punk rock star. Not to mention Lee Ving of Fear, who wrote the classic “The Mouth Don’t Stop (the Trouble with Women).” And so has leftist clown Jello Biafra. So what? Okay, fine, Darby Crash, the singer of the Germs, was a fag. And their guitarist Pat Smear is black. And Ivan Julian, the rhythm guitarist for Richard Hell and the Voidoids, is also black. And the Bad Brains are all black and were known for their queer-bashing because they “be Rasta, mon, and Rasta don’ like no bloodclot faggots!” Again, so what? That changes precisely what again? The answer is coming; wait for it:

I think that this is exactly why it is nonsense when the alt-right strings together vapid words to try and incite a playground fight with those of us who put blood, sweat and tears into creating an expression that is the antithesis of everything that these alt-right meatheads represent. They are simply a distraction to the women, femmes, queers and people of color filling the columns of Spin, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, the New York Times and numerous other publications that report on culture. I don’t see actual alt-right bands headlining Coachella, I see Beyoncé and Kendrick Lamar—two of the most punk in terms of crystallizing dissent about the status quo —artists taking the stage. Real punk is and will always be a total threat to the alt-right and their culture, which is based on white supremacy. Otherwise it isn’t real punk. The alt-right’s tactics are FAKE PUNK. The alt-white (I mean right) want us to sip tea, but we are drinking fresh water from a firehose.

In other words, according to this person, the AltRight DOESN’T represent the punk rock ethos because they AREN’T represented in corporate mainstream media and DON’T perform at corporately sponsored music festivals. I think even the old timey leftists at Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll would raise an eyebrow at that. But more specifically, AltRighters and anyone who espouses views that are heretical to the PC establishment need to be purged from all mainstream discourse. Also probably the main reason no “AltRight bands” have ever performed at Coachella is because THERE ARE NO ALT-RIGHT BANDS to speak of. And even if there were, they wouldn’t be invited to play these festivals. In fact corporately sponsored festivals like the Scion Rock Fest has dumped bands when they were suspected of having “nefarious” connections. But apparently Beyoncé and Kendrick Lamar are totally punk as fuck, man.

Next we have Chris Freeman of Pansy Division, the only name on the list I recognize. Feel free to read his lengthy, bitchy diatribe yourself. The only thing that stuck with me was this:

Punk rock for me was about free-thinking more than free speech, and I say that not to minimize free speech but to point out how robotic life had become in the 1970s.

Uh, oookay…. moving right along then…

Well, what do we have here? Erika M. Anderson seems to be the only person of the bunch with a brain!

I think if you define punk as simply being a group of angry young men wanting to say “fuck you” to dominant societal norms and current values, then the roots of the alt-right are definitely one of the most punk things going on right now.

AGREED… but:

But that’s like narrowing your definition of punk down to the Sex Pistols—which was basically a boy band put together by a pair of London clothing designers who wanted to use shock tactics to promote their fashion line. I much prefer Crass (who were anarchists, feminists, environmentalists and better songwriters!), X-Ray Spex or even Pansy Division. But my guess is that if you are truly invested in the theory of alt-right as new punk, then facts about the diversity of the movement aren’t really going to appeal to you.

Oo, calling the Sex Pistols a boy band… them’s fightin’ words! Julian Temple’s 2000 documentary The Filth and the Fury puts that myth to rest. Plus, even if it were true, that doesn’t change the fact that “No Feelings” is one of the best songs ever. To be fair, Crass makes some pretty righteous noise even if they’re views are stupid, and X-Ray Spex tear it up with their noisy, bleating sax and Poly Styrene’s caterwauling; I don’t think I’ve ever heard Pansy Division. Regardless, I AM invested in parts of the alt-right, but as proven above, I’m aware that there were black, gay and gurl punks. Her rant concludes with this:

Indeed, it’s all keks and lulz until a con man takes office and fills his cabinet with incompetent billionaires who don’t actually care about free speech, poverty, or really anything but themselves. Turns out there is a thin line between being punk and getting punk’d.

Oo, she’s clever!

Some guy named Andy Nelson at least gets one thing right:

It is no great secret that for all its posturing and incremental progress over the years, underground punk is still, regrettably, a culture dominated by straight whites males.

I wouldn’t say “regrettably”, but:

The notion that expressing all the hateful bigotry that the entirety of American society has been reinforcing forever would resemble the anti-establishment in any form is a premise so asinine and feeble-minded it is nearly beyond comprehension. Insofar as “Alt-Right Punk” is a real thing, I remind you that we’ve seen this type of thing before, and we’ve seen how it ends: Just ask Dave Smalley and Michael Graves what kind of traffic that moronic website ConservativePunk.com is getting these days.

Hey, if you don’t like it in the United States, you’re free to live in such tolerant countries as Iran and Saudi Arabia. As for Dave Smalley and Michael Graves, I’m not sure what kind of traffic they get on their moronic website these days, and I’m too lazy to check.

And finally Patrick Stickles of some band called Titus Andronicus (isn’t Shakespeare racist or something?) begins with:

In determining if conservatism/“alt-right” is the “new punk” or “political punk rock” or whatever they are saying, we must first address the distinction between “punk,” the ideology, “punks,” who practice said ideology, and “punk rock,” the musical genre/fashion template with which we associate acts like the Sex Pistols or Ramones or Black Flag and “punk rockers,” those who adhere to those templates.

No, we mustn’t. Well,you can if ya want, but I’m going to listen to this here Dictators song and have myself a vodka/diet coke mixer.

Is the Clash Just Skrewdriver in Disguise?

Being on the right and being into punk rock… but those things can’t POSSIBLY go together? Or so I’ve been told by a handful of people who recently called me a poser, saying I remind them of Ian Rubbish, the singer for a made up band called the Bizzaros (not, of course, to be confused with the Bizarros from Cleveland), that was featured on a Saturday Night Live skit and whose Johnny Rotten-esque singer – played by Fred Armison – praises, rather than denounces, Margaret Thatcher.

Well, yeah, England COULD use another Margaret Thatcher no matter how many songs the Exploited wrote in which they call her a cunt. But, what’s interesting, aside from how people found it hilarious to compare me to this Ian Rubbish character, is that people said I CLEARLY missed the message of punk as espoused by Joe Strummer and Mick Jones, the Lennon/McCartney figures of the Clash (well except that Mick Jones is a guitarist, but that’s besides the point).  THE CLASH?! REALLY?! Clearly YOU, Mr./Mrs. Know-Nothing-About-Punk-Rock, missed the message of punk as espoused by THESE songs:

“Well there goes a girl and a half/she’s got me going up and down” – “Peaches” by the Stranglers

“I don’t really wanna dance/Girl, I just wanna get in your pants” – “I Need Lunch” by the Dead Boys

“You’re wild, and I’m wild about you” – “Wild About You” by the Saints

“I got a new rose, I got it good/I always knew that I always would” – “New Rose” by the Damned

“Gonna smile, I’m gonna laugh/you’re gonna get a blood bath” – “Glad to See You Go” by the Ramones.

“Why don’t you get raped?” – “Get Raped” by Eater (my last ex REALLY liked Eater by the way.)

“You tried it out for once/find it all right for kicks/and now you find out that it’s a habit that sticks/you’re an orgasm addict” – “Orgasm Addict” by the Buzzcocks

So there you have it. Punk rock stands for girls and a half who make you “go up and down”, while wanting to get in a girl’s pants, who you are wild about and who might be your new rose, all while laughing before giving someone a blood bath or telling a girl to get raped; oh, and of course jerking off.

How did you people, who know so much about punk rock, miss THOSE messages?!

But what’s really ironic is that these people, who claim that I missed “what punk’s about” because I don’t follow whatever Marxist/leftist nonsense that the Clash espouses – and which Kathy Schaidle, the adorable punk rocker turned Takimag columnist who told me to check out the Forgotten Rebels, called “gay” on the Savage Hippie podcast – apparently missed what it’s about as well. At least according to the anarchist band Crass, who spits on the Clash, their phony labor-leftist pose and their being signed to CBS-fucking-records for crying out loud.

They said that we were trash,
Well the name is Crass, not Clash.
They can stuff their punk credentials
Cause it’s them that take the cash.
They won’t change nothing with their fashionable talk,
All their RAR (rock against racism) badges and their protest walk,
Thousands of white men standing in a park,
Objecting to racism’s like a candle in the dark.
Black man’s got his problems and his way to deal with it,
So don’t fool yourself you’re helping with your white liberal shit.
If you care to take a closer look at the way things really stand,
You’d see we’re all just niggers to the rulers of this land.

Oo, almost got a Jim Goad vibe going there… err, maybe not…

Of course, I think Crass and the Clash are both retarded.

But THEN, I read the lyrics to the Clash song “Safe European Home”, and I had a “what the fuck is THIS shit?” moment! I’m nearly getting a boner at telling the modern day, Clinton supporting, corporate leftists that their “anti-racist, left-wing” proletariat heroes are pretty much about as racist as Skrewdriver. Don’t believe me? Okay, let’s see…

Well, I just got back an I wish I never leave now
(Where’d ya’ go?)
Who that Martian arrival at the airport, yeah?
(Where’d ya’ go?)
How many local dollars for a local anesthetic?
(Where’d ya’ go?)
The Johnny on the corner wasn’t very sympathetic
(Where’d ya’ go?)

translation: I just arrived in Jamaica, and I REALLY feel like an outsider. None of these guys even want to sell any drugs to me!

I went to the place where every white face
Is an invitation to robbery
An’ sitting here in my safe European home
Don’t wanna go back there again

translation: I’m white, Jamaicans will rob me, this place is scary and I want to leave.

Wasn’t I lucky, wouldn’t it be lovely?
(Where’d ya’ go?)
Send us all cards and have a lay in on Sunday
(Where’d ya’ go?)
I was there for two weeks, so how come I never tell now?
(Where’d ya’ go?)
That natty dread drinks at the Sheraton Hotel, yeah?
(Where’d ya’ go?)

translation: I’ve been here for two weeks, and this place still sucks.

They got the sun and they got the palm trees
(Where’d ya’ go?)
They got the weed and they got the taxis
(Where’d ya’ go?)
Whoa, “The Harder They Come” and the home of ol’ Bluebeat
(Where’d ya’ go?)
I’d stay and be a tourist but I can’t take the gun play
(Where’d ya’?)

translation: I thought I would like this place because of the sun, palm trees, weed, taxis, The Harder They Come and bluebeat, but I’m a white guy who can’t handle all of the crime in this country.

Okay, that’s not as bad as Skrewdriver and their, “they come here to this country from the jungles and the trees”, but it’s still not the leftist, politically correct, “power to the people” crap that people typically associate with the Clash. I mean, the group is blatantly saying, “Jamaica is a shithole, and as a white person,  I probably don’t belong there.” Hey, don’t yell at me! I didn’t write it! I prefer non-racist bands who talk about banging broads and killing people.

Of course, knowing punk fans, they’ll probably rationalize it and say that I’m totally mistaken and misread the lyrics. OR, maybe I can get the leftists at Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll to denounce the Clash the way they did with the Anti-Nowhere League for THIS song:

 

We Did This for Your Own Good, Liberals

liberty_meme_muslimIt amuses me to hear leftist call me or anyone on my “side of the isle” – since, after all, as my lovely podcast co-host Ann Sterzinger said, there are 55 different genders and only two political positions you can choose from – paranoid when their collective fear of an America under President Trump is so irrational that they have put their blinders up to the absurd reactions of all of the people who  are crying in the street and being let out of their college courses to mourn that Donald Trump is now the 45th President.

According to angry leftists, Donald Trump isn’t just a Presidential candidate with a different point of view; his election is plainly and simply the triumph of EVIL.  In their warped view, the United States has a healthy population of angry, straight, white men, who are fed up with all of the progress that has been made by blacks… er, I mean persons of color, women, gays, Muslims, Jews, trans people and anyone who isn’t straight, white and male, and now it’s open season on them.

“Oh no, Trump is going to make it legal to kill gay people!”

“Donald Trump is going to do away with sexual harassment laws and cause a rapid rise in workplace ass pinching!”

“With Trump as President, it will now be mandatory to show Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will in high school classes across America!”

“Donald Trump is going to organize mobs to burn copies of the Koran and the Torah in largely Muslims and Jewish communities!”

The sad thing is the left are now so lacking in self-awareness that they will take these hyperbolic statements at face value.  “Hey mom, we just watched Birth of a Nation in history class.  I want to be a hero like those guys in the white hoods!”  Of course, as usual, the left’s logic crumbles under the most basic scrutiny.

In fact leftists have their heads so far up their asses that they will never realize how much good we did for them by sending S.S. America off the course of the Clinton ice berg.

Women – we won’t be importing 100,000 Syrian refugees into the United States.  Isn’t that great?  The U.S. won’t end up like Sweden, the rape capital of the world, now that we chose a candidate who has zero intention of importing immigrants who adhere to a belief system that says it’s perfectly okay to rape and molest women who don’t follow their oppressive holy book.  I KNOW; Trump said, “grab them by the pussy” ten years ago and called Rosie O’Donnell a fat pig, but I assume – and I guess I’m right since Trump won – that most people don’t give two shits about what someone said on a decade old video when, ya know, the other candidate wants to start World War III.  Oh, and Rosie O’Donnell IS a fat pig, so shouldn’t Trump be applauded for his honesty?

(Note: I know someone is going to mention the abortion issue.  My thoughts on it are as follows.  Women shouldn’t be HAVING abortions in the first place. If I have to explain the contradiction that a person would get charged with a double homicide when killing a pregnant woman, yet abortion is somehow NOT murder, well, ya know… HOWEVER, as far as Roe vs. Wade goes, it’s not going anywhere under Trump even if he does choose a conservative judge.  Regardless of comments he might have made saying he’s against abortion, considering his flip flopping, I doubt Trump has much of a stance on the issue one way or the other.)

Gays – See above.  Only replace “rape” and “molest” with “kill”  and “throw off of rooftops.”  Also see the Orlando night club shooting for further evidence that Trump is on the side of the gays.

Blacks – I don’t think Trump even explicitly mentioned blacks other than saying that the inner city communities could use some work.  If law and order are concepts that freak you out, you may want to examine how you live your lives because the national crime statistics aren’t exactly in your favor.  Of course, it’s no skin off my back because I don’t live in an inner city community around a lot of black people, but I do feel a little bad when I hear about that little girl that was gunned down in a drive by shooting.  Don’t yell at me if people don’t take you seriously when you shout black lives matter in their faces after another police officer shoots one of your own for trying to grab his gun, your city erupts in a riot and all of those nice businesses move out when they collect their insurance money.

Jews – Again, he’s not letting Muslims into the country, so you should be relieved about that since they hate you and want to kill you; maybe if they had not allowed them into France, the Charlie Hebdo massacre wouldn’t have happened.  Also, Trump’s daughter is married to one.

Muslims – I think your religion is garbage, but, if you’re in this country, I don’t see what Donald Trump can do to you or why you’re so scared.  You might want to police your people better, not play the victim when one of your own blows something up and not call everyone who criticizes your backwards way of life a “racist.” Also:

islam_religion_of_peace

If ANY one of your people comes after me for this, you’ve further proved Trump’s point.

Mexicans – And what are you so scared of?  Did Donald Trump ever say he plans on having a program of mass deportation for American citizens that hailed from Mexico?  Did he ever say he’s going to open Mexican death camps?  I’m just dumbfounded by what exactly leftists are so worried about.  Where do the majority of the illegal immigrants come from?  Mexico.  Do many of them rape, murder and sell drugs?  Yes.  Do we want to eliminate one source of rape, murder and the selling of drugs?  Yes.  Is it ethical to copulate just to have your kid be born on American soil so you can use him or her to make you into a citizen?  No.  I think that pretty much covers that.

Pacifists – remember, in 2003, when you yelled at George W. Bush for invading Iraq because of all of the American and Iraqi blood that was spilled over the alleged purpose of “democratizing” a group of people that refused to be democratized?  Yeah?  Well, now it’s 2016, Clinton wants to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria to further attempt to “democratize” a group of people that refuses to be democratized.  Only, you’re not yelling anymore.  And why is Clinton so hellbent on starting shit with Russia?  I didn’t realize spilling innocent blood was a progressive value, but I suppose it is if it’s done by a woman.  Well, don’t worry; we saved your fathers, brothers, sons, uncles and male cousins from having to get blown up on foreign soil.  Actually, with this new “equality” mandate that women have to sign up for the military, we saved your mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts and female cousins as well.  You are welcome.

Gun owners – this may seem like a strange group to identify because most gun owners are Trump supporters, but this one is from personal experience.  I know a supposedly anti-big government libertarian type who collects guns.  Yet, when I mentioned that I was voting for Donald Trump, his head nearly exploded.  I was a bit confused by this because I was voting or the candidate that was not going to regulate firearms out of existence.  His aversion to Trump was pretty much the same as everyone else’s; he’s racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and not fit to be in the White House.  Well, thanks to us voting for a racist, sexist, homophobic Islamophobe, who is not fit to be in the White House, you’ll be able to continue to collect your firearms.  Can we get a thank you?

Fathers – this may seem like another strange group to single out, but I have at least two friends who are fathers.  I asked one of them what he would do if his son ever became an “Otherkin.”  For those who don’t know, “Otherkins” feel they were born in the body of the wrong species.  Naturally, as any sane person would, he told me that, if his son was involved in this online community, he would have a long talk with him and possibly cut off his internet access.  Yet he voted for Clinton against that “great evil” Donald Trump.  He will never realize what a foolish mistake this would have been if Clinton had won.  In a society where a man can put on a dress, claim to be a woman, demand access to the bathroom of the opposite sex and have an online community as a support group for his mental disorder, having a yelling harpy in the White House would only further force the media into an anti-male frenzy – similar to the current anti-white frenzy fostered by eight years under the Obama administration – and would make the world a confusing hell hole for the next generation of young men.  Thanks to us, your sons will now be able to ask you normal dating questions like, “what’s the best way to get a girl’s number?”, rather than, “am I a bigot if I prefer the girl I’m dating to have been born a girl?”  You are SO welcome.

I know a lot of reasonable liberals, leftists, Clinton supporters and other forms of anti-Trumpsters who have accepted defeat and are ready to give Donald Trump a chance.  These people understand that Donald Trump isn’t the second coming of Hitler.  He’s just a man with a different view from theirs.  Unfortunately there are those who are in denial, who have attempted to petition the electoral college to simply vote against the people because they don’t like the outcome of the election, who are in the streets crying and moaning or who are being let out of their university classes to have grieving sessions as if someone in their family died.  They don’t realize FOR A SECOND how fucking stupid they look, and that we’re laughing at them.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re impotent.  They can deface all the cars they want, call people every name in the book, gang up on people in online forums, beat people up, attempt to humiliate people and perform all other manner of bullying, but they’re toast.  Sorry left; you lost.  We don’t care about your feelings anymore.  We don’t give a flying hoot if you think we’re racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic bigots.  And remember; we did this for your own good.

How to Fix Democracy

20160930_122802Right after the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, we all sat down on our blogs, podcasts,youtube channels and social media, and began analyzing the results.  Who was the real winner?  Who made the better points?  Who looked like the bigger asshole?  The general consensus among 99% of the mainstream media is that Clinton won hands down because… well, because… SHE’S CLINTON AND NOT TRUMP, YOU RACIST/SEXIST!!!  She talked a lot about some nebulous concept of “income inequality”, made up the cute term “Trumped up trickle down”, smiled condescendingly and, from some sources, even signaled a few times to the moderator in order to get him to help her gang up on Trump.  Trump, on the other hand, laid out a few solid jabs in the form of attacking her and her husband’s support for NAFTA and pulled no punches when saying that inner city ghettos are shitholes.

Unfortunately he was also a bit defensive when questioned about allegedly supporting the Iraq war (which he never did) and was forced to defend himself against allegations of not paying an architect for designing one of his hotels or something.  So, in that respect, he didn’t exactly look good.  To the people who ACTUALLY analyzed the debate, the result was somewhat of an in-between loss and win, with Clinton being spoon fed soft ball questions – nothing about emails or Benghazi, of course – while Trump was forced to defend his not releasing his taxes, accusing Obama of not being born on American soil and other tabloid nonsense that most Americans don’t care about.

But, at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because the majority of American citizens aren’t analytical or deep.  So, what we – and by “we”, I mean Trump-supporters from all sides of the right-o-sphere (hey, I still LIKE mainstream conservatism, I just think it needs a good kick in the ass) were concerned with was not so much if Trump “officially” won or lost the debate, but rather how it would effect the psyches of the majority of people.  My belief is that, if any man is even thinking of voting for Clinton, it MUST be because his wife is denying him sex.  Otherwise, if you’re a man, and you saw the way in which Clinton condescendingly smiled and the phony performance she put on, and you still didn’t get mad, then you’ve never worked for a company with a human resources department.

In other words, most people are not voting analytically; they are voting from the gut.  And people who are allegedly smart engage in this all the time.  If you’ve been paying attention at all to the world around you, you would be absolutely fearful of the kind of world that Hillary Clinton will foist upon the American people by letting in something like 100,000 Syrian “refugees” into the United States.  The number one issue behind this election is immigration, with law and order in the inner cities and renegotiating job killing trade agreements in a second place tie.

The argument against Trump from liberals is simply that he’s a big, racist, meany-head, who wants to deny amnesty to those poor “refugees” and close the border to Mexico because he hates Mexicans.  Oh, and that he hates women and calls them fat.  THAT’S IT!!! They have no other argument against him.  The argument against Clinton is that, with a population of a third of a billion people, she wants to let in MORE people, and have those people be from a part of the world with a culture that is FAR different from ours; and, as witnessed in places like Sweden and France, just doesn’t mix well; I mean, unless by mixing well, you mean white women having mixed race children after being raped by a Muslim from Somalia.  While that is technically a “mix”, it is not a good mix by most people’s standards.

Clinton will continue policies that were started by the Bush administration, the very administration these same Clinton supporters attacked in 2003 for going into Iraq and turning it upside down, effectively leading to the birth of ISIS.  I guess, in their minds, if a woman does it, it’s all good, right?  Now, in a normal person’s mind, keeping a group of people, whose values aren’t your values, out of your country, while NOT blowing them to bits is FAR more humane than bombing their country back to the stone age and THEN letting their refuse into OUR country.  Of course, when I told a liberal feminist chick that, “Clinton wants to bomb the Allah Akbars, and that isn’t humane”, her response was, “uh, Allah Akbar is a saying, not the name of their people.”  Apparently mine and Trump’s words are more hurtful than burning napalm.

But we’re not dealing with normal people; we’re dealing with people who don’t vote based on policies and logic, but people who vote with their feels.

When I was younger I had less respect for people who didn’t do their “civic duty” by not voting.  “It’s part of being in a democracy, man!”  A more naive version of me had equated “voting” with knowing what the fuck you’re actually voting for.  Nowadays, I have FAR more respect for people who say, “I can’t stand either of those assholes, and I’m not voting” or “meh, don’t care about politics”, then the people who go around encouraging people to sign up and vote.

In fact, as many on the Alt-Right and contrarian right would agree that they would SEVERELY limit who is allowed to vote.  When I posted something along those lines on Facebook, my former “friend”, Tom E (not going to say his last name because if this gets back to him, he might have a hissy fit and threaten to sue my ass) told me I was advocating Herrenvolk democracy.  But that’s bullshit.  I DO feel there ARE certain groups of people who, by any logical and moral standard, have NO right to vote.

For instance, welfare recipients have no right to vote.  Why does someone who sucks at the government teet and gives nothing back have equal say on how to spend the money I earned?  That one should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.  Furthermore – and this may seem harsh, but – people on disability  should’t have the right to vote.  Even if someone legitimately needs to be on disability, that person is still taking government money, and there are far too many people, like my former friend, gay fag “skinhead” Nick, who could work, but chooses not to so he can spend government checks on booze and drugs.  Either they have to make requirements stricter, or we have to employ harsher rules.

But, let’s get down to the real nitty gritty.  Welfare is still a choice, and disability is something you get on later in life when you discover you can’t or decide that you don’t want to work.  Let’s talk about the horrible, awful, discriminatory concept of… GENETICS!!! Who REALLY shouldn’t have the right to vote?  To be honest, as far as race goes, I don’t fuckin’ know.  We’ve seen numerous demographic voting shifts with virtually all ethnic and racial groups.

DON’T YELL AT ME!!! I know blacks have trended Democrat since the 60s, but I honestly feel that’s cultural, rather than genetic.  The real controversy appears to be with letting women have the vote in 1920.  As Ann Coulter once correctly stated, “if women couldn’t vote, we’d never have another Democrat in office ever again.”  Of course women and liberals in general got mad, but it’s essentially true.

Women don’t vote based on logic, numbers or on what policies work for everybody, but on what the government can dole out to them; women are wired to like security, and the government has become the new sugar daddy.  They’ll try (and fail) to rationalize why giving them free everything is a net good for everyone – and, if you’re a good looking guy in your 20s, who just wants to fuck loose hoes, I suppose it is.  The very second that women got the right to vote, they voted in overwhelming numbers for prohibition.  Since the 1920s, with the woman’s vote, the government has increased in size.  With the government providing the sustenance, women can finally be “free” to slut around on the its dole and not need a men to provide for them.  The government provides money to women for every child they have, and, when they decide they don’t really want to have a child, the government provides the abortions as well.  Now feminists want the government to give them free birth control, as if paying $40 a month is SUCH a huge expense, and non-feminist women will go along with it EVERY SINGLE TIME because it’s another level of security.

So, the question someone might ask me in is, “are you saying your solution is to take the vote away from women?”  NOPE!  Somewhere in my libertarian lizard brain, I STILL feel that the law should treat everyone equally, while not insuring equal outcomes even if my empirical brain also realizes that there ARE differences in races and sexes – especially the latter – that guide people to make the choices they do.  So, what’s the bottom line?

Administer a voting test!  That’s it!  Every year, if you want to vote, you have to take a test and PROVE that you’ve got the goods to vote.  If you don’t know what you’re voting for, or if you’re just voting on your feels, then you shouldn’t have the right to vote.  But, if you can prove that you know what you’re talking about, then by all means.  The test would be administered every single year before every election your local governance might have.  Okay, in towns with like 2,000 people, where they vote the same way for trash commissioner, I suppose you wouldn’t need this test.  But, in densely populated areas where you vote for your congressman or the President, you simply have to take this test, and, if you score roughly 85-90%, you can vote!

That way you show your opinion means something.  The very first question would ask how much the national debt is.  If you can’t write in the approximation of the national debt – no, you don’t need the EXACT number – then you fail.  If you get it right, you move on.  There would be questions on which demographics commit the most amount of crime, which groups of people contributed to what policies and their net effects and questions in general pertaining to historical events and their impact.

For example, a question might be, “which group of people were slaves at some point in their history?”  If I need to tell you that the correct answer would be “all of the above”, then you shouldn’t vote.

And, If you pass the test, you’ve proven that have the mental wherewithal to debate politics and policy, to determine which programs and laws to keep and discard and to decide where other people’s money should be allocated; that way you’re not just voting because the politician you hate called someone fat.  With this test, nobody could complain they’re being discriminated against, and that way, the tiny percentage of women who enjoy reading about history, politics and statistics of group demographics, and deal with the facts in a dispassionate nature, will get to vote, while the rest can go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or Cheating on Your Boyfriend of Five Years.

Oh, one last thing: if you have a name like Deandre Jones or Dung Pham, you would be represented by a number, rather than your name, so you could never complain about being discriminated against for your race or ethnicity.  Cool? Cool!

 

I Was Interviewed By Matt Forney for This AltRight Life at Right On.

I was interviewed for over an hour for Matt Forney’s show This AltRight Life over at RightOn.net.  We talked about our time hanging outside the RNC, including being chased around by SJW zombies and attending Milo’s fab cocktail party, my Punks for Trump t-shirts and the leftist hijacking of punk rawk.  Hopefully you’ll find listening to it as enjoyable as I found doing it.