Joshua Lozano from Fashion Week Is Apparently Very Sensitive

I thought the noise rock scene was the one place (well next to metal, I guess) that was free of whiny, politically correct crybabies; I mean, for fuck’s sake, you’ve got gun loving ex-Marine libertarian Tom Hazelmyer running Amphetamine Reptile, and of course Steve Austin from Today Is the Day, who is anything but PC. But, I guess I be mistaken. Incidentally I got into a little “spat” with a couple of people on a noise rock group on FB. Joshua Lozano is the singer/guitarist for Fashion Week, a band that I honestly enjoyed when I saw ’em open for Unsane at the Union night club in Los Angeles a few months ago. But, sadly, he’s another easily offended, pearl clutching, modern day church lady, as you soon shall see.

It started when some guy with a white guilt complex complained that the noise rock scene is just too damn white and male, so he asked for some recommendations of bands that had non-whites and non-males in them. Curiously, he didn’t ask if there were any bands with trannies or fags in them.

Well, what happens when you fill up your record/CD/MP3 collection with albums based upon the skin color and genitalia of the people in the band, rather than, ya know, the quality of the music? I think you know the answer. Anyway, why let a good troll go to waste? Joshua Lozano comes in later in the thread, and boooy does he come off like someone’s easily offended grandmother. Have fun…

noise_rock_thread_5.0

noise_rock_thread_7.0

noise_rock_thread_8.0

noise_rock_thread_9.0

Pretty funny, eh?

You Can’t Bring Your Dick Back, but You Can Kill Muslims

george_takai_militaryI know it’s hard for the precious reader to fathom the idea that the person writing this piece has ever had trouble with the ladiez, but it’s true! There are times when I go out to the bar, talk to a few broads and strike out! I realize that I look unfathomably good, but it indeed does happen. I’m trying to make myself look better through a tough workout and diet regimen, which will flatten my stomach and bring out my chest, so I strike out less. But indeed, there are nights – many of them – where I’m forced to retreat to my room and have sex by my lonesome, coming up with all manner of depraved scenario in my head (I don’t watch very much pornography), giving myself the satisfaction I was unable to obtain via some skank or lonely barfly.

Of course I’m not alone in this regard; most men aren’t Casanovas. And, since our teachers taught us in sex ed that strokin’ the ol’ pole is a natural function, there’s nuthin’ to be ashamed of. In fact, it’s damn near necessary sometimes. Hell, it’s SO necessary, that when you HAVEN’T jerked off in a while, your body will force you to extract some of your milky, white testicle ooze during a wet dream.

And just to gross out the reader even more, when I was drunkenly and sloppily banging Jo the ex-stripper, who does the “fill in puzzles”, and I kept pumping and pumping and pumping, blowing one wad after another and charging back up within seconds before pumping and pumping and pumping some more, she asked the fundamental question about the male sex drive; “aren’t you satisfied?” In fact, she privately messaged me and told me “you were like a machine last night!”

Machine-like fucking notwithstanding, she understood that the male sex organ, the DICK, if you will, CRAVES satisfaction; that rising feeling that keeps getting better and better and better until it peaks and a release occurs, causing semen to shoot out of the tiny slit in the head of the mushroom. When women say, “guys only think with their dicks”, they’re right. The NEED to satisfy the urge is so incredibly strong that guys will lose friendships, get into fights, risk their lives, accumulate great amounts of wealth and build entire civilizations because of it; men have gone to war, and empires have been destroyed because of it. I’m not going to go into the specific seduction techniques a woman would need to control a man via the power of the male sex drive, but let’s put it this way; if you’re a woman of even moderate attractiveness, you pretty much never need to work.

On top of that, many women have NO IDEA how therapeutic sex can be. People say music soothes the savage beast. Wrong; sex does. It releases endorphins, truly taking the “edge off” a shitty day and calming the nerves. In Falling Down, all Michael Douglas needed  was a good blowjob…

So, what happens when you can’t relieve the tension in your loins?

The most striking thing about Born on the 4th of July was how Tom Cruise’s character had lost his dick in Vietnam. The fact that he had to piss through a tube was bad enough, but the hooker he hired was utterly useless. What could she do for him? Rub his back? Lick his ear? Those are the things you do to tease a man before giving him the payoff, that is pleasuring his holy mushroom. Hell, my dick instantly hardens when someone rubs my nipple. All pleasure sensations eventually lead to the dick, and he didn’t have one.

In Sam Fuller’s World War II epic, The Big Red One, after an explosion, one of the characters feels around his crotch and excitedly exclaims, “I still have my dick!” And don’t think there is ANYTHING funny about that. You could lose both arms, both legs, both ears and both eyes, have your tongue sliced off and half your face blown off, but if there’s a woman who can stomach blowing or fucking you, somehow life JUST doesn’t seem so bad.

You’re probably thinking, “yeah, okay, okay, I get it. Guys need their dicks, but what’s you point?”

I’m getting there, asshole!

Trannies are this week’s topic du jour thanks to Donald Trump banning them from serving in the military. And, while I have no problem with this decision, all sorts of issues have been brought up with regards to this sub-sub-sub-sub sect of society, one that nobody even thought about until some mentally ill assholes decided to shove their daddy issues down everyone’s throats.

“Transgenderism” is completely made up bullshit. You’re either a transvestite, which means you enjoy wearing women’s clothing, or you’re a transsexual, which means you had your dick cut off and replaced with an artificial vagina.

divine_2.0

And don’t get me wrong; I love John Waters’ films, but I would NEVER considered Divine to be a woman, and neither does John Waters.

“But, Edwin”, you say, “I STILL don’t understand what this has to do with men needing their dicks.”

Well, dipshit, what happens when a man becomes a transsexual? He done can’t use his dick no mo’. The physical male pleasure center is GONE, baby, and it ain’t NEVER comin’ back. I’ve read that the phony vagina uses the same nerves from the original penis, and the penis head is crafted into a clitoris of sorts, but I highly doubt the same satisfaction is ever achieved again. I mean REAL women, ya know, the ones who were born with a vagina, a uterus, an XX chromosome and the estrogen that makes them so emotional, complain that they have a hard time getting off. So the idea that one could achieve with an artificial vagina the same satisfaction one once achieved with his dick is pretty hard to believe.

Of course, the man who decided to become a “woman” knew all of this, right? Well, you would think. One of the biggest arguments against the “transgender” trend is that there is a 40% rate of suicide associated with it. The most popular and naturally foolhardy explanation for the high rate of suicide among trannies is that they get bullied and harassed to the point of wanting to off themselves.

Think about this VERY carefully… VERY VERY VERY carefully…

WHAT FUCKING GROUP OF PEOPLE HASN’T BEEN HARASSED AND BULLIED AT SOME POINT DURING HUMAN HISTORY??!!

According to this article, the high suicide rate among “transgendered” people has nothing to do with discrimination, but their high level of mental illness and depression. I’ll take it one step further. I would LOVE to see an HONEST study which EXPLICITLY measures the suicide rates of post-op trannies; because, you know what we call pre-op trannies in non-retarded land? MEN WHO DRESS LIKE WOMEN!!!

And remember, once you make the “transition” to the dickless side, there is no going back; no more nights of looking at whatever gives you a boner and relieving tension in a few simple strokes; no more splattering your goo onto your bedroom wall or sex partner’s face; no more endorphin release… it’s ALL gone…

On the other hand, if the ridiculous idea of aiding and abetting a dinky percent of the population pans out though Supreme Court fiat, and trannies are eventually allowed to serve in the military, they could relieve all their pent up sexual frustration by blowing away Islamic terrorists, so I guess it’s a win win.

Rap Metal Against Racism

limp_bizkit_antifaProbably the stupidest, yet longest lasting argument in the punk rock underground is whether a person can listen to a band in spite what they stand for. I remember getting chastised for professing my love for… ready for this… BAD BRAINS. One would think that being a fan of the Bad Brains, the all black punk band from Washington, D.C., would be the ultimate virtue signal, right?

Nope. As it turns out, the Bad Brains weren’t too fond of homos, and they weren’t quiet about it either. They attacked fellow hardcore bands like the Dicks, the Big Boys and Hüsker Dü for being “bloodclot faggots.” See, the Bad Brains adopted Rastafarian culture, and one thing the Rastafarians, much like the Muslims, can’t stand are “bloodclot faggots.” Now, does that matter to me personally? Of course not. I just like their music; super tight and fast hardcore punk with metal riffs and the occasional reggae jam thrown in. Most of the time I can’t even understand what they’re saying.

But I was yelled at for being one of those guys who “only cares about the music.” I’M NOT KIDDING. I was accused of not being righteous enough, of ONLY caring that I liked the music. You can probably assume that, for some of these people, listening to Skrewdriver is completely out of the question. I’ve talked about Skrewdriver before, but as a refresher, they were a 70s punk band that dressed like skinheads and released a couple of singles and one album of normal, generic, but still pretty catchy punk rock before their singer, Ian Stuart, continued to use the name with a whole new set of backing musicians and reinvented them as a white power band. And musically speaking, they’re okay.

Actually this type of thought policing has become pretty common in punk rock and other underground music genres; among other things, it has lead to bands being thrown off festivals and out of gigs for allegedly having “nefarious” views. “What? Your band was released by THAT label?” “You were seen hanging out with THAT guy?” “I KNOW what those symbols REALLY stand for, bucko! We’re hip to your game!”

Hey look! Here’s Wattie from the Exploited hanging out with what looks like a Nazi skinhead.

wattie_with_nazi_guy

But look at this! Here he is hanging out with a black guy wearing a Motörhead t-shirt!

wattie_with_black_guy

Well, fuck me sideways! Which one is it? Is he a Nazi, or is he not a Nazi? I don’t know, and I won’t ever again be able to listen to the Exploited until this issue is resolved.

Sadly, with such a low bar set on the quality of the music, and such a high bar set on “social justice”, the question I have for Antifas, punk rockers and other underground music weirdos is, “how SHITTY will you let your music get provided that the band shares your views?” Case in point, this brand spanking new video from a band called Stray From the Path. Go ahead, watch the video. I dare ya!

Not sure how far you got into video, but it’s not good. First, there’s the music. After a few bars of pick slides going up and down the guitar neck set to a funky drum beat, the singer, who (perhaps ironically) has a similar haircut to Milo Yiannopoulos and sounds like the singer from Rage Against the Machine, shouts “you just got knocked the fuck out!”; then a generic, overly-compressed, nu-metal riff plays behind his whiny, white boy rapping. Some of the phrases I could make out in the song include “fist held high”, “punishment fits the crime”, “racist President”, “it’s 2017”, “eye for an eye”, “that’s what he said”, “fuck him, and fuck you too”…

…did he just say, “we used to never let these dickheads have any control”? Which “dickheads” is he talking about? Is he implying that, back in the day, his righteous peeps, who don’t look like their older than 25, never let the Nazi skinheads have control of a venue?

Back up the train, negro. Since I was 14 years old, back in the late 90s, I started going to shows at Harpos in Detroit, where I saw Gwar (where my ex Melissa fucked Dave “Oderus Urungus” Brockie!), the Misfits (with Michale Graves, the place was packed!), the Dead Kennedys (with Brandon Cruz, only about 20 people showed up!), Danzig, Clutch, Corrosion of Conformity, Manowar, Motörhead, Cradle of Filth, Rotting Christ, Usurper, Six Feet Under, Murphy’s Law, Cannibal Corpse and even heavy metal’s number one homo ROB MOTHERFUCKING HALFORD. The place was known as a hangout for neo-Nazis, and I’ve even met a few. Someone told me a story where a bunch of Nazi skinheads started fights and pushed people around at G.B.H. and Napalm Death shows since both of those bands are openly anti-racist. At the Danzig gig, I saw a bunch of them doing Hitler salutes. Now, is chunky Milo implying in the video that he and his peeps would have taken a stand against these guys, many of whom are built like linebackers and either fresh out of or on the way to prison? I’m sure that would have worked out REALLY well.

…other choice passages from the song include “preach hate”, “what makes you think that you’re the superior race?!” and of course the very original “NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF!!!”.

But secondly, and barring the fact that the band members don’t look too different from what many AltRighters look like, the video tells the story in which a guy in a MAGA hat goes into his home, where he has a Hitler poster and a bunch of swastikas on his wall and a TV playing clips of Richard Spencer at one of his “identitarian” conferences, and plan some sort of terrorist attack, only to have his plans foiled by “brave” anti-racist “activists”, who break into his home, mug him at gun point, beat him down, tie him up and tattoo a swastika onto his forehead.

I mean, I can’t even. Andy Nowicki and I disagree over which is the more important problem with the video; that it sets up a ridiculous straw man, saying it’s okay to beat up anybody who you perceive to be a Nazi, which Richard Spencer is most certainly not (they could have at least gotten it right and put Andrew Anglin on the TV) or that the song sucks ding dongs. I say the latter. As of this writing, the “Goodnight Alt-Right” video has received 16,301 dislikes (one of which is mine, thank ya very much!) and 2,960 likes. It’s not totally clear if most viewers of the video don’t agree with the message, just think the song blows or both. If you want a video with a stupid, “anti-Nazi” message that’s set to a good song by a good band, click here! At least the Off! video resembles a grindhouse flick and has Brian Posehn, Dave Foley and David Yow playing Nazis in it.

But the question I have for the Antifas, punks and underground music weirdos is: are you okay with rap metal just as long as they don’t do it just for the nookie?

 

The Red Pill

red_pill_poster

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrossgood

I’m truly thrilled that The Red Pill, the documentary from Cassie Jaye about her “journey” from being a feminist to not being a feminist via the Men’s Rights movement, has received an 8.7 on IMDB and a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. Honestly, I am. It means people are opening their eyes and starting to listen to something other than the mainstream, “women is so oppressed” narrative.

But let’s be honest here; unless you’re an anorexic, nerdy sissy boy, who only hung out with kinda cute, glasses wearing hipster gurlz, the ones that LOVED being your friend, but made you wonder why YOU’RE always being friend-zoned in favor of guys with a fraction of your intelligence, and THEN made you feel GUILTY for complaining about it, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about The Red Pill. The movie treats feminism as if it’s the main problem in our society, rather than one of the many weapons used by the cultural Marxist and globalist beast to try to destroy Western civilization; in fact, the notion that it could even BE a left/right, or rather globalist/anti-globalist issue, isn’t even touched upon. I’ve never considered myself a Men’s Rights activist. Many of the figureheads in the men’s movement don’t even see it as a left/right issue. I’ve actually known many “anti-feminist” men who don’t realize that feminism IS a form of leftism, and that supporting anyone on the left IS supporting the very ideology they say they’re against. Or to put it more succinctly, A Voice for Men editor Dean Esmay’s support for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 election is tantamount to a civil rights leader in the 1960s supporting George Wallace.

There is a segment that lasts all of one minute – among 120 of them – that addresses how, in the 60s, the equality warriors switched their target from capitalism to patriarchy, but it’s so dinky, that one wonders why Jaye even bothered putting it in the movie in the first place.

But if we’re going to REALLY be addressing the elephants in the room, and if above all else, film is a visual medium, where the images are intended to elicit a reaction, it’s actually kind of infuriating watching shots of the cutie Cassie Jaye, who resembles a plumper, rounder Christina Applegate – don’t worry, Cassie, I wouldn’t make you lose 15 lbs. to have a seat on MY casting couch – interviewing pathetic looking, depressing old men, as they tell their stories about losing everything to a system that’s stacked against them.  I mean, JUST THE FACT that she’s IN the frame with them getting all misty eyed, listening to them talk about how they got royally screwed, while not addressing how incredibly privileged she is in our society by being blessed with hotness, struck me as painfully disingenuous. I mean, sheeyit, lady, you may be a narcissist, but do you have to make it that obvious? But who knows? Maybe this will lead to other women joining in an anti-feminist insurrection.

In The Red Pill, Jaye interviews key figures in the Men’s Rights movement; honestly the only ones I recognized were Paul Elam, Dean Esmay and Karen Straughan; I’m too lazy to look up the rest of ’em. One of them was a 60s male feminist, but changed tracks when he realized all that “freedom” women achieved by tossing off the “shackles” of their normal, middle class lives in favor of becoming spinsters and cat ladies didn’t provide the satisfaction they once imagined it would. But basically, we learn about all of the typical men’s rights talking points; women who trick men by not taking their birth control and enslaving them to a life of child support payments; men who see their coffers depleted in custody battles only to get to see their kids a couple hours a week; female on male spousal abuse not being taken seriously; male rape not being taken seriously; lighter prison sentences for women for the same crimes men committed; men working life threatening jobs to provide for their families only to be told they’re oppressing women; the male/female wage gap myth; and of course there’s a bit of male circumcision thrown in at the end for all the mondo fans. Don’t tell the Jews, though; they may get this movie shut down in your town (psst, I’m allowed to say that because I am one)!!!

We’re also given the counterpoints to these arguments from some harpy at Ms. magazine, some gay Jewish guy and of course the loud, shrill and obnoxious Big Red, who kinda resembles my former friend Sarah.

But another thing that bothered me about the movie is that it didn’t really address how feminism negatively affects women. Maybe Cassie Jaye hasn’t learned about hypergamy yet or that the only things feminism really accomplished was making it easier for men to get laid since it made women sluttier, while boosting the sales for antidepressants and keeping pet store owners in business. At VERY least, Jaye addresses that getting catcalled and having to look pretty (aww, poor baby) don’t really seem to be that big of problems in comparison with getting crushed to death in a coal mine avalanche, getting blown to bits on a battle field or having your life savings drained. And hey, in about 20 years, once the flesh starts to sag and wrinkles start to show, she won’t even HAVE to worry about getting catcalled.

A decade ago, when I was at Grand Valley State University, I picked up a book from the women’s center called Transforming a Rape Culture. At the time, I thought it was the stupidest thing I’d ever seen, and most people balked at the suggestion that all men are rapists or predisposed to commit rape. Also, apparently it wasn’t considered “oppressive” to refer to slutty women as sluts; it was just honest. In fact, I LOVE sluts! They put out the quickest, and thanks to all that female empowerment, they’re not just damaged women with daddy issues! All of this was before Obama was even President. A lot has changed since then. Men can now put on dresses and call themselves women; women who get gang-banged by twenty dudes are considered “empowered”; men who ask women on dates can be accused of sexual assault; man, has society progressed! Thank you Cassie Jaye for setting the clock back about ten years.

Boys Are Boys, Girls Are Choice and Girls Will Never Be Boys

If the left can politicize everything, than goddamn it, so can I! Below is a video of the Monks performing their classic “Boys Are Boys and Girls Are Choice.”

The song is from their 1966 LP, Blank Monk Time, one of the many fine additions to the more obscure cannon of 60s rock, right along side The Village Fugs Sing Ballads of Contemporary Protest, Point of Views and General Dissatisfaction and The Fugs by the Fugs, The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators and Easter Everywhere by the 13 Floor Elevators, The Seeds and A Web of Sound by the Seeds and Here Are the Sonics!!! and Boom by the Sonics.

You can read all of the Monks’ biographical trivia at their Wikipedia page. The important thing to know is that they dressed like monks when they performed, and they had a unique approach to the two and half minute song formula that focused on rhythmic hooks and utilized the fun “chinka-chinka” sound of Dave Day’s banjo, somehow making the songs so stupidly catchy that there are times when I could listen to Black Monk Time on repeat for days at a clip. Also their sound influenced the deliberately repetitive “vamping” of German “kraut rock” bands like Can and Neu!, and the Fall site the Monks as a huge influence and have covered several of their songs.

Now, obviously, there’s nothing political about the song “Boys Are Boys and Girls Are Choice”; it’s just a song about the joy of being a guy going after a girl (presumably when it was more fun and wouldn’t get you accused of rape). But in the current year, when “transgender” freaks are pushing an agenda that says a person can now choose his, her or its gender, rather being ASSIGNED a gender at birth by, ya know, having a set of cock ‘n’ balls or a wet, oozing vagina, the song BECOMES political.

On top of that, it celebrates heterosexuality; I mean, if you’re a straight guy, girls are choice, aren’t they? Provided they’re not fat or ugly, that is. And don’t get mad at me for saying that; being fat and ugly are problems that are relatively easy to fix.

Ironically the people at Light in the Attic records, who released phenomenal vinyl and CD reissues of Black Monk Time, probably think I’m a “transphobic” bigot for writing this piece. Or maybe they too secret believe in the song’s message and are trying to push the Monks’ evil and vile agenda.

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, you’re accused of peddling “hate speech”; then they do as many mental gymnastics as it takes to find the parity between the drive by shootings in black communities and, say, instances of domestic violence or other non-gang related crimes in suburban communities. That way they can claim that all communities have equal distribution when it comes to crime. One girl I know even said that he was raped in the all-white Texas town where she’s from. Bad as that is, I don’t see how she can compare that directly to gang violence such as drive-by shootings, but hey, people need their “equality.” 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.