Tag Archives: puritanism

The Alt-Right Would Enjoy Living Under Sharia

If it weren’t for the dread of having to worship a different sky goblin, I swear these people would have a field day being able to revert their treatment of women to that of the 1800s.

Jordan Peterson claims women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup or high heels at work; that sexual harassment is their fault and women and men likely aren’t able to work together.

This guy has been praised for a good couple of years for his stand on newly invented gender pronouns; ever since, he has evolved into the go-to conservative academic for opposition to whatever the left tries to push. Although he sounded levelled to begin with and more tempered than the usual reactionary band, it seems that at the end of the day, philosophising aside, he holds the view of a religious puritan – women should be mandated to stop “provoking”, because men can’t help themselves.

Though his solution is not to have them covered from head to toes, as those in Islamic theocracies are, the drive is identical – women enjoy too much freedom of expression; they should be treated as sexual nitroglycerine and have a dress code imposed on them when men are present.

Never mind that women who abandon their femininity in aesthetic terms (some radical feminists for instance), giving up makeup, cutting their hair short and at times growing their armpit hair, are referred to, by the same crowd, as a disgrace to womanhood and completely unappealing.

Nope. They don’t want them dressing like men (that causes impotence apparently), but they don’t want them excessively feminine either, as unwanted erections are also an inconvenience. They must want some virginal, nun-like characters whose sole intention is to make sure they are not noticed. Who would know that their appearance is likely to cause offence for all the wrong reasons.

Reinstate Magdalene laundries while you’re at it. Dickhead.

Why red lipstick, he asks. Well (I’m paraphrasing), it’s because it’s indicative of sexual arousal. Because every woman going to work, apparently, is not worried about the long hours, mortgage, debt, family duties or a boring job – she goes there specifically to show her male colleagues how she looks when sexually aroused. Every single day, as she gets ready, that is her drive. For an academic, such views are incredibly simplistic and idiotic.

Never mind that a woman goes out in public in a manner she feels comfortable in, and some wouldn’t leave their homes without the makeup routine – partly because they know that if they don’t look their best, they might be jeered at by the same entourage which also jeers at them for looking too appealing. They just can’t win, can they? And by winning, I mean be left alone.

I don’t suppose the same standards would apply to ladies well past their prime, considerably overweight ones or those with a visible physical defect. Men who think like Jordan Peterson are only concerned with the object of their own desire – young,  very attractive women. Maybe if they stopped wanking off to porn every day they would cease to look at a colleague and immediately think she is provoking through the colour of her lipstick, like a Playboy bunny. I understand male hyper-sexuality, but FFS, they can keep these obsessions to their private space.

I think it’s grotesque for a woman to set off to work each day keeping primarily in mind that her male colleagues or employers will study her from head to toes. And that she, just by being female, is some kind of threat to their mental well-being.

Which brings me to the fact that I don’t understand the alt-right’s opposition to Sharia law, where women are concerned; if someone were to formulate a similar doctrine for the west, changing only what specifically pertains to Muslim worship, I reckon they’d be more than happy. Apparently, they’ve got vagina on their brains to such extent that women in their vicinity are a danger/ in danger.

Stefan Molyneux, another guru for young men who can’t get laid and become nostalgic for eras they’ve never experienced, claims, among other things, that a woman belongs in the home, for breeding purposes (I know I sound like a feminist here, and believe me, I’m not; I simply find this approach vile, as is any attempt to impose a lifestyle choice to others). Being a homemaker is a choice, in the west anyway. It’s not my place or Molyneux’s to dictate what a woman should want out of life.

The illustrious bullshit spinner also has a rather strange obsession with the clitoris (a woman wants to tie a string to her clit and drag the man along, paraphrasing again). His misogyny, transparent down to his tone, which oozes anger and frustration, is poisonous to young minds.

One notable position he holds is that women are responsible for starting families with complete arseholes – as if, you know, during courtship an arsehole actually displayed his natural behaviour. In other words, if a woman finds herself in an abusive situation and is unable to leave, it’s her fault after all. The idea that women only date aggressive men and should instead date “nice” members of Incel was what motivated Elliot Rodger to go on a shooting spree. AWALT is not some innocuous groan of frustration thrown around on Reddit; it actually has consequences.

All in all, I can find clear congruence between adepts of Sharia law and this new generation of right-wingers (MRA, alt-right, Christian conspiracy nutters etc; they are all patting each other on the back for being “red pilled” when it comes to women). These are some of the points they seem to agree on:

  • A return to outdated moral values and social standards is necessary;
  • Attractive women should cover up to avoid male attention;
  • Men just can’t keep it in their trousers and sexual assaults are provoked;
  • There is rampant sexual immorality in the world, with a focus on sexual minorities;
  • Women either belong in the home, with alpha males as providers, or should be rejected altogether as whores and deviants;
  • The alpha male must protect his territory, status, ego etc;
  • Militarism and hawkishness are apparels of “true alpha males”;
  • Men should be the unquestioned leaders of their households and communities (it’s not like Jim Jones and Warren Jeffs didn’t do a splendid job);
  • Adultery on a woman’s part is unforgivable, whilst men can fuck about all they like, or have multiple wives, respectively;
  • Women’s nature is to be submissive and a variation in that sense is deviant/ rebellious;
  • In group interactions (work for instance), men and women are better off separated.
  • Women are immature and unworthy of leadership positions or intellectual endeavours.

It’s slightly amusing that just today I learned of research carried out by Dr. Hector Garcia, regarding the god archetypes humanity seems to construct. “The Alpha God” details the links between our late primate ancestors and our current behaviours and aspirations, culminating in the kind of being we imagine as worthy of worshiping.

The archetype of an all-powerful alpha male, before whom mortals must bow (I’d never known apes also bow before alphas in their group, hence that’s where all the submission rituals must come from…and believers think they are establishing a connection with the divine… when they are in fact just imitating apes).

The being Christians and Muslims worship is very, very concerned with men’s inability to control their sexual urges and women’s moral duty to cover up.

This has nothing to do with ethics or spirituality but with Cro-Magnon understanding of human nature.

 

Puritanical Groups: Frankenstein’s Monster

A story emerged recently, not nearly as interesting from an ideological point of view as from a psychological one.

In a way it’s classic: someone founds a group or participates in its founding, based on a set of principles. Overtime, the disciples grow more radical than the founder, turn on this person venomously and take the reins, going as far as making false accusations or starting a smear campaign.

This happened recently to Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks but also co-founder of Justice Democrats, a group seeking to contribute to the success of its candidates of choice. Besides contributing to the very start of Justice Democrats, he gave them substantial popularity through his alternative media channel (perhaps the most successful on the left).

Their gripe with him? Well, it turns out no less than 18 years ago (19 in fact, now), he wrote some pretty unsavoury things on a blog, regarding his frustration with women, general opinions on them etc.

Almost two decades ago. If anything should still matter for incrimination after two decades, in the life of any individual, it would have to be extremely serious. Something in the vein of war crimes, murder, rape or child molestation. Certainly not blog posts written on a whim, showing opinions which evolved overtime into their polar opposites.

It’s a total witch hunt. Whatever you can call Cenk Uygur, you cannot call him sexist, racist or anything else they claimed. He’s one of the leading voices on the left (far left in fact), at least in the alternative media; anyone who has followed TYT even sporadically is aware of the absurdity of these labels. They called him “part of the patriarchy” and claimed “he perpetuated rape culture”; something along those lines.

They called those off-the-cuff rants “horrifying”. Which leads me to believe said characters must’ve reached their (presumed) maturity during the SJW culture and haven’t read much worse. As others have mentioned, my first thought was whether they were, in fact, still wearing nappies when these blog posts were written. And whether their lack of understanding of someone’s opinions evolving is due to their lack off opportunity, age-wise, to go through such changes themselves.

So they’ve known this guy for a year (at least), interacted with him frequently, and somehow “failed to notice” he was “racist and sexist”, until these old posts popped up. It doesn’t seem to strike them as odd. A switch was activated in their heads and, boom – their views on him turned on their head.

Ideology aside, there is no difference between these zealots and religious ones. This prudish, couch-fainting reaction to anything slightly unpleasant from someone’s past, however inconsequential. Either they are the embodiment of a perfect record, not old enough to have ever offended anyone significantly, or they are just as susceptible to the same type of attack (likely to come from their midst at some point).

All that said – the far left created this cannibalistic “monster”.

I’ve come across gloating on TYT about people losing their jobs over tweets (not necessarily from Cenk Uygur; I can’t recall), and this is very common in the progressive camp. This isn’t the same as he was volunteering there; however in terms of one’s reputation being tainted, it’s comparable.

What the Justice Democrats did was to apply what they understood as one their immutable principles (thoughtless condemnation and banishing of other people).

 

 

The Far Right Purity Test – Funny As Fuck

I guess nothing spells “irony” like a metastasised hate group eating itself up from the inside, becoming the very thing it claimed to detest.

For a good couple of years, if not longer, the right has played the persecuted ideological minority card, by denouncing censorship attempts, all along displaying unity – from moderates to extremists, those leaning right have agreed on basic issues and supported each other, until the first could not be differentiated from the latter.

Nowadays however, in their – sometimes almost literal – crusade, activists have started cannibalising each other based on devotion to the cause, or perceived lack thereof, akin to the far left. It seems some activists are more zealous than others and are starting to demand that their fellow crusaders apply the principles they declaim in their own lives, lest they be considered hypocritical.

These three stories speak for themselves.

Lauren Southern is being called out for promoting a traditionalist lifestyle she doesn’t lead yet. She is also being called out by Richard Spencer for not being/ declaring herself racist enough.

The 22-year-old has come under attack for constantly promoting Judaeo-Christian family values (or the appearance thereof), without being married or having started a family herself. She recently put up this video as self-defence, explaining things of a personal nature, which no one should ever have to explain to the larger public. Unless, perhaps, they are making generalisations about how others should live and what their happiness should stem from. The irony is that she is such a fan of a paradigm which restricts women in many ways, and although she now knows what it’s like to be grilled on one’s personal choices, she continues her advocacy.

Puritanism is detestable not only because it forces human nature into a box, in a Procrustean manner, but also because it is utterly neurotic. Its wannabe enforcers are often carrying the load of repressed emotions and desires; through their activism they are often trying to rein themselves in, rather than other people.

With regards to the racial stuff, I sympathise with Miss Southern to a point. When one picks a side based on traditionalism and potentially religion, they don’t exactly expect to join the ranks of white supremacists. However, Spencer is right when questioning her so-called ignorance while joining an identitarian movement. There’s no way she joined and spent time with these people without knowing what they’re actually about.

Kim Davis, the “traditional marriage” advocate, was targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church for being “an adulterer”. Arguably, not everyone in the Christian right can be associated with Neo-Nazis; however, they share the homophobia and the purity requirement is very similar for all extremist ideologues.

Whilst Mrs Davis’ actions were no more significant than refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple, organisations opposed to same sex marriage have hailed her as a hero for two years. In fact, she now engages in activism abroad, as if she had anything but bigotry to show for her position.

What is hilarious is that in 2015 she was targeted for picketing by the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, for advocating traditional marriage whilst being on her fourth one, which breaks the no-divorce fundamentalist rule. She was also criticised by the Mormon leader for that same reason. In conclusion, when one chooses to wank off about their righteousness and role in the so-called army of God, they should be prepared to be ripped to shreds by fellow believers. In case she didn’t know, there’s no love or fellowship of any kind in a cult.

Tara McCarthy, an ethno-nationalist (white supremacist), now decries the treatment of women in the far right by male counterparts.

This is particularly funny, not just because the far right has made a good case against modern feminism in order to lure in sympathisers, to gradually lead them down the path of ethnic and racial hatred. It’s funny because the women congregating with such men were well aware of their views on the female sex in general. And while they were more than happy to see other women targeted by these men in said manner, having it turned on themselves proves less than savoury.

It is apparent to anyone outside of far right circles that the movement has a strong misogynist component. Why these women though they were special is a good question.

There are now Red Pill Christians as well, congregating not as the loving meek and mild, but as supporters of what the Bible mostly transmits about women, which is in line with Red Pill-ers in general (women are inferior, weak, manipulative and should be put in their place).

Not an anti-Semite? Too bad, you Zionist shill.

It’s really funny how, although they purport to reject most people different from them, certain “identitarian patriots” are still classed as traitors simply because they don’t hate Jews as well (the word antisemitism is actually broader yet has come to be understood simply as hating Jewish people).

I don’t know what it is, but to be respected by the cream of that crowd, you simply have to hate them, down to the last one. I mean I do know – apparently, they “own everything on the planet” and are looking to “destroy the white race” by promoting white people “breeding with inferior races”. Never mind that the theory makes absolutely no sense, from start to finish, being littered with illogical claims and clutching at straws to demonise an entire group, Nazi-style.

To be fair to the accusers, many evangelical Christians and commentators catering to them, as well as politicians whose voter base they constitute, are actual Zionists, or at least propagandise as such. The recent response to Trump’s initiative of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, against international consensus, has proven that. There were sickening propaganda pieces from the likes of Molyneux or Paul Joseph Watson (sickening in terms of one-sided, ignoring the very complicated situation over there).

However, it should only take a brain larger than a chicken’s to realise disagreeing with Israeli policies should by no means involve blaming all Jewish people on this planet for them, let alone hating them.

Many of those accused of “shilling for Israel” in crusade mode are in fact raging xenophobes and racists. But presumably, they just don’t go far enough.

All in all, the right is no different than the left in terms of activism and extremism. Certainly not in terms of division or puritanism.