The Faux Individualism of Social Justice Warriors Reply

By Aleksey Bashtavenko with Academic Composition

Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is widely regarded as one of the best self-help books of the 20th century. Indeed, Carnegie’s work is deservedly known as a modern classic because it is founded on powerful insights about social psychology. Today, there is no shortage of seminars and business classes teaching people to embrace the potent lessons of human nature that he has uncovered. Among these notions is the idea that “nobody wants to be told what to do” and that it is necessary to make people “glad to do what you want them to do”. It is difficult to appreciate this idea without fully understanding its subtlety and the many ways in which it can become enormously effective across all social contexts.

In other words, it is inevitable that people will be told what to do because human relationships have always been hierarchical. As a matter of evolutionary biology, the strongest of men exerted more influence over their tribe than weaklings. Similarly, the elders of the tribe have become chiefs and were revered for their wisdom. During hunting expeditions, the tribe leaders possessed considerable authority over their subordinates who were expected to obey their orders without question. Those who openly disrespected the elders of the tribe could be banished or slaughtered. Although the relations between women were less rigid,  the females also had an implicit understanding that some members of their tribe were more capable than others.

The underlying idea is clear: the more capable and competent a tribe member was, the more respect he or she commanded. In groups that constantly dealt with matters of life and death, social relations were hierarchical for one very simple reason. These groups could not afford to allow the weak and the incompetent to call the shots. That is why the relations between male hunters were much more stratified than those between female gatherers. This is also partly why hierarchies of military and police departments are far more stringent than those one can encounter in schools or nursing homes. Yet even there, the most experienced of teachers and caretakers are deemed to be more valuable than the complete neophytes.

Since time immemorial, in nearly all cultures, women were often deemed to be more socially skilled than men and even as recently as the Victorian Era of Great Britain, it was a truism that women were morally superior to men. Although most modern writers, including that of today’s radical feminists would question the accuracy of this observation, the proposition is not entirely without merit. In female groups, the leaders were often able to conceal the hierarchical nature of relations between members. This was easier to do than in male hunter groups because the relationships were already less hierarchical to begin with, albeit female leaders had to exercise considerable social skill and moral consideration to achieve this goal. Building on this insight, Carol Gilligan propounded an “ethic of care”, arguing that a feminine style of leadership should emphasize empathy and concern for others. When this approach is implemented effectively, female leaders can practice a democratic style of leadership.

Although such approach may be appropriate for schools or nursing homes where relationships are not especially hierarchical, it is less fitting for the male dominated cut-throat business environment. There, even the most accomplished of female leaders can only pretend to practice an ethic of care. In others words, such leaders manage to seize the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they preserve the natural hierarchy of relationships in a competitive business milieu. On the other hand, they have concealed this fact and thereby enhanced their popularity by pretending to practice a democratic style of leadership.

Clearly, this is a subtle maneuver that only the most socially intelligent of leaders can carry out effectively. It may also be true that women are more likely to succeed in this endeavor than men, yet Carnegie shed light on this timeless truth of human relationships long before Gilligan developed her ethic of care and the feminine approach to business leadership has even been explored in detail.

As it happens, Carnegie’s insight applies not only to business, but to all spheres of human relations, including that of child-rearing. By definition, children are not as wise or capable of as their parents. Therefore, it is impossible to conceal the hierarchy that defines the bond between parents and children. For centuries, children were expected to unquestioningly obey their parents who had few, if any moral obligations to justify their dictates. Yet, in light of the self-esteem movement that took root in the late 60s and early 70s, such a style of parenting has been deemed authoritarian and damaging to the child’s self-image.

Hence, it has become fashionable for parents to begin implementing Carnegie’s insight about making people “glad to do what you want them to do”. As such, parents routinely strive to bolster their youngsters’ fledgling self-esteem by engaging in false flattery and other tactics of psychological manipulation. In effect, the parents act as self-serving guidance counselors who tell youngsters what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear.

In keeping with the Dunning-Kruger effect, the children who were reared in this manner are entirely oblivious to how they are susceptible to the kind of subliminal influences that Carnegie wrote about at length. In comparison, children who were raised in a much harsher environment were able to cultivate the gumption and fortitude needed for a more skeptical outlook to various psychological appeals. In this sense, the self-esteem movement has deprived youngsters of the vital opportunities to become anti-fragile  and in the language of John Taylor Gatto, rendered the modern youth reliant on provisional self-esteem. In the end, the self-esteem movement appeared to defeat its own fundamental purpose. Instead of exposing the children to opportunities to learn about the unpleasant realities of life, it created a foundation for attitudes of delusional narcissism.

This is partly why the youth continue to receive their provisional self-esteem from guidance counselors, teachers, professors and left-wing campus activists who inundate them with opportunities to engage in endless virtue signalling.  Today, there is no shortage of clubs student activists can join that are dedicated to diversity, environmentalism, fighting sexism, racism, transphobia and so forth. To become members of such organizations, they need to do little more than claim to believe in any PC cause the Democratic Party espouses and to hate those who oppose it. In other words, people of all creeds and sexual orientations are welcome, as long as they do not sympathize with any right-leaning views.

In contrast to the modern social justice warrior, a person whose upbringing was not defined by the self-esteem movement would have little sympathy for the campus radicals’ cry for censorship. Unlike them, such a person would have enough confidence in himself to not feel threatened by people who express views that are different from his own. He also would have no need to be told that he fights for a noble cause and that everything else he does is wonderful. Hence, he would become his own person in the strictest sense of the term because he would have no reason to be “glad to do what he is told” as he would have no need to trade off his intellectual autonomy in return for constant validation and reassurance. That is why the contrast between Berkeley’s student activists who demand censorship and Mario Savio’s Berkeley Free Speech movement from the 1960s could not be any more glaring. Savio’s cohort demanded freedom from censorship, yet today’s Berkeley activists for the very opposite of what the initial Free Speech movement stood for. The pioneers of the Free Speech movement wanted to be independent, yet today’s Berkeley activists are begging their deans, leftist professors and bureaucratic cronies to tell them what to think and feel. Unlike the countless business-people whom Dale Carnegie mentored, the academic elites no longer have to do anything to make the student body docile enough to be happy to be told what to do because their minions already arrive on campus pliable to political manipulation.

Vulgar Anti-Vulgar Libertarianism 1

Kevin Carson defines vulgar-libertarianism as follows:

Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term “free market” in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because “that’s not how the free market works”— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of “free market principles.”

Vulgar Anti-Vulgar libertarianism is the view that one is being anti-vulgar while espousing views that marginalize the freedom of entire groups. Take note the recent hit piece on C4SS against Milo Ylannopulos

One also has to be familiar with past pieces at C4SS against “rape culture” and “white privilege”. While trying to be hip, relevant, and “anti-establishment”, they are in fact pushing the establishment class warfare view. Entire groups of people, i.e men and “whites”, are being marginalized and their grievances are being made irrelevant.

Identity politics are actually very anti-libertarian in that they are collectivist in nature. E.g. Us versus them, you’re either with us or with the terrorists, men are pigs, women are all gold diggers, etc. This is why you’ll see me railing against MRA’s as much as the Social Justice Warriors. They all use the class warfare system of conveying information.

If they want to be successful in their anti-state endeavors, they need to reach out to all of these groups. Not just those currently viewed as loons and on the fringes of society.

Former ‘Antifa’ Speaks Out Against ‘Antifa’ Reply



*EXCLUSIVE* Former Antifa Speaks Out Against Antifa

I’ve decided to submit this article anonymously to protect against any potential retaliation.

I like to start off by saying that, although I now disavow Antifa, I will always be Anti-Fascist, against racism and against hatred.

In order to understand Antifa and how they operate and “recruit”, I will start by telling how I became involved with Antifa.

My story beings in the Fall of 2005. I was 15-years-old, a Sophomore in High School and recently had gotten into the underground Punk and Hardcore scene.

It was Friday and my friends and I were pumped about an Oi/Punk/Hardcore show that was taking place that evening in the city.  This was only my 4th or 5th show that I had been to, but they were always a good time to be had by all…. until this night.

I was expecting an energetic night filled with punk music and typical teenage shenanigans: sneaking a 40oz in the bathroom with my friends, trying to talk to girls, and feeling like a big shot because the club let you smoke even if you weren’t 18.

Punk shows were awesome to me because they were ours. My best friend was Korean and it was cool to have a place where no one cared about race and they didn’t judge you for having blue hair and shit and you weren’t suffocated by preppies and jocks that we had to deal with in the suburbs.

The night was going perfect, everything felt right, it was one of those magical nights where everyone was being cool and the bands were kicking ass.

All of the sudden, however, my life was about to abruptly change forever…

I heard a commotion towards the front of the club with people yelling, screaming and fighting.

My friends and I moved towards the ruckus and I saw a crazy brawl happening. The band that was playing stopped their set, jumped off the stage and forcefully ran past us and started throwing down with the aggressors.


Robert Stark talks to Ryan Englund about the SJW Riots Reply

The Stark Truth. Listen here.









Robert Stark, Co-host Pilleater, and Rabbit talk to Ryan Englund. He blogs at Samizdat Chronicles


The The UC Berkeley Antifa/SJW Riots against Trump and Milo
The parallels between Milo’s color blind Civic Nationalism, and the Alt-Left, Rabbit’s identitarian Alt-Left
How FOX News and other mainstream conservatives outlets have described the Rioters as Alt Left, and how that contributes to SJW entriest into the Alt-Left
Alt-Left Founder Robert Lindsay disowns the Left Wing of the Alt-Right over Trump, and calls for an Alliance with the PC/SJW Left against Trump and the Republican Party
Ryan’s point that there cannot be an Alt-Left/SJW Alliance
Ryan’s critic of SJW’s/Antifa from a Classical Marxist perspective
Ryan’s article Are You Tired of Winning Yet? on Trump’s performance, both the good and bad aspects
Trump’s accomplishment stopping the Trans Pacific Partnership and his immigration policies
Trump’s plutocratic cabinet, and talk about repealing Financial Regulations
Trump’s foreign policy, his saber rattling against Iran, and how the combination of Trump’s friendliness to both Israel and Russia has divided the Neocons
Saudi Arabia and the Petrodollar
The Dakota Access Pipeline, Oil Nationalization, and Alternative Energy
Romantic racism, and how it has effected the environmental and antiwar movements
Social Credit, and the Alberta Social Credit Party

When Government Acts, “Unintended Consequences” Follow Reply

By J P Cortez

In 1850, French economist Frédéric Bastiat published an essay that is misunderstood, or more often, unread, titled, “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.” Bastiat brilliantly introduced the idea of opportunity cost and, through the parable of the broken window, illustrated the destructive effects of unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, because of misplaced belief in government benevolence, even the most powerful and successful members of the American citizenry often miss the point.

According to Reuters, Ramin Arani, a co-portfolio manager of the $25 billion Fidelity Puritan fund, said while discussing his current bullish stance of gold, “In terms of unpredictability, there is a tail risk with this administration that did not exist with the prior…There is a small but present possibility that government action is going to lead to unintended consequences.”

Arani’s overall bullish stance on gold is sound. Given the political climate, gold is an attractive “insurance” for equity exposure. The problem doesn’t lie in his financial analysis, but rather in the seemingly innocuous comment that followed.

“There is a small but present possibility that government action is going to lead to unintended consequences.”

To suggest the chances of unintended consequences are merely “small” is extremely naïve.

Notwithstanding myriad examples of government action leading to unintended consequences, including, but certainly not limited to, minimum wage laws, rent control, social security, and the disastrous war on drugs, there are countless examples of unintended consequences brought on by government action that should resonate with a multi-billion-dollar portfolio manager. Yet they seem to have fallen on deaf ears.


The Maoist Infiltration into Anarchism Reply

By Aragorn

One of the reasons that anarchism has become a popular political perspective is because in many contexts (for instance mass mobilizations or broad direct action campaigns) we seem open, friendly, and nonsectarian. This is in great contrast to visible (and visibly) Marxist or Leftist organizations, which either seem like newspaper-selling robots or ancient thorny creatures entirely out of touch with the ambivalence of the modern political atmosphere. Anarchists seem to get that ambivalence and contest it with hope and enthusiasm rather than finger-wagging.


The public face of anarchism tends towards approachability and youth: kids being pepper sprayed, the general assemblies of the occupy movement, and drum circles. These are the images of the past five years that stand in contrast to the image of anarchists as athletic black clad window breakers. Both are true (or as true as an image can be) and both demonstrate why a criticism of anarchists continues to be that (even at our best) we are politically naïve.


Of course very few window breakers believe that breaking windows means much beyond the scope of an insurance form or a janitorial task, but that is beside the point. What matters is that the politics of no demands makes the impossible task of intelligent political discourse in America even more complicated (by assuming that discourse is a Pyhrric act). To put the issue differently, the dialectical binary of both engaging in the social, dialogic, compromising act of public politics while asserting that there is no request of those-in-power worth stating or compromising on isn’t possible. It is cake-and-eat-it thinking that is exactly why Anarchists must do what Anarchist must do1.


Keith Preston on Milo and the Antifa Reply

An interview with C-Realm Radio o30. Listen here.

On February 1st, 2017, Brietbart News technology editor, Milo Yiannopolous, was scheduled to give the final lecture on a US speaking tour prior to the publication of his upcoming book. The event was canceled when about 150 black-clad and masked people set fires, assaulted people waiting to get in the lecture hall, and goaded the police by throwing firecrackers at them. Some consider this a heroic example of anti-fascist “direct action.” Others see it as leftist hooliganism. KMO and Silas welcome Keith Preston of back to the C-Realm to talk about the history, beliefs, and tactics of the antifa (anti-fascist) movement.

More Than 200 Inauguration Day Protesters Face Felony Rioting Charges Reply

Look for Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice to come down hard on these folks. But at least they will have finally achieved their dream of living in a multi-cultural society where same-sex relationships are the norm.

By Alex Pfeiffer

The Daily Caller

Thanks to Washington, D.C.’s felony rioting statute, 230 anti-Trump protesters will face up to 10 years in jail for rioting.

Activists race after being hit by a stun grenade while protesting against Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

Police stand near a limousine which was set ablaze during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, D.C., U.S., on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif