Milo Yiannopoulos: Dangerous

Paedophilia is the first—and only—thing that should come to your mind from the name ”Milo Yiannopoulos”… according to the vocal opposition. Reflecting the escalated political polarisation in the United States, Milo’s political enemies machinated a public controversy by strategically releasing a year-old video recording right before the CPAC convention where Milo was to speak. While the controversy didn’t cost Milo his fan base, I believe it did further marginalise him from the mainstream.

More recently, there was an attempt to denigrate Milo with a video showing people, at a bar with Milo, making Nazi salutes. He swiftly addressed the video on social media, though, claiming it was intentionally staged.Dangerous

Why these attempts to discredit Milo? Dangerous, Milo’s bestselling book on current political issues, doubling as something of an autobiography, explains Milo’s point of view. One answer lies in the book’s title: to his enemies, Milo is dangerous. I originally figured that his sharp delivery of politically conservative opinions is hard for leftists  to argue against, making him dangerous. In Dangerous, Milo points out a different danger, referring to himself belonging to a sexual minority:

I’m also particularly terrifying to the Left because they see in me a repeat of the 1980s, when workers across Britain and the United States turned to Reaganism and Thatcherism. In the age of Trump, the Left are worried I might not be the only dissident minority. They’re afraid you might agree with me.

The Alt-Right isn’t what it used to be

A brief introduction of Milo Yiannopoulos is in place. He’s a journalist and an eccentric conservative political commentator. Religion Catholic, nationality British, with Jewish, Greek and Irish ancestry. A provocative personality known for outrageous statements and escapades targeting leftism, feminism, Islam, etc. Recently gay-married to a black man.

I’ve been thinking about the ”alt-right” recently. The mainstream media frequently discusses the movement whose mascot is Pepe the frog. The media doesn’t really get it right, though, according to Milo.

Is Milo alt-right?

He says he isn’t. But in his book, he clarifies the obscurity surrounding the concept. You see, something happened to it.

Milo credits himself for the ”most influential piece of political journalism” in 2016: ”An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” published on Breitbart, the popular conservative (alternative) news source. In this article, he described the alt-right as a movement for a wide variety of conservatives. Later, ”alt-right” was redefined as something exclusively sinister:

In effect, the extremist fringe of the alt-right and the leftist media worked together to define ”alt-right” as something narrow and ugly, and entirely different from the broad, culturally libertarian movement Bokhari [the Breitbart article’s co-author] and I sketched out. This wanton virtue signaling was wholly unjust to young members of the movement who were flirting with dangerous imagery and boundary pushing. Bokhari and I called them ”memesters,” and those are the people I will always speak up for.

Milo has something more to say about the media’s influence:

From day one, the media had an agenda with the alt-right: turn it into a synonym for ”Neo-Nazi,” and then accuse all young conservatives of being members of the movement. It’s an old game, and it’s growing exceedingly tedious. ¶ Because I was guilty of writing the only even-handed analysis of the alt-right—in other words, I gave them a fair hearing, as I thought journalists were supposed to do—the mainstream media decided to crown me the queen of the movement.

Milo uses several pieces of character evidence to disown today’s alt-right. While today’s alt-right is racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic, Milo is a Jew with a black boyfriend. In his speehes, in response to allegations of belonging to the alt-right, he always describes in obscene detail how he pleases his black partner in bed (humorous but distasteful; if there’s one thing I don’t trust about Milo it’s sexual moral, even if the paedophilia-advocacy allegations are unbased).

In addition, Milo points out that alt-rightists have repeatedly expressed their hatred towards him. This is a questionable defence, though, as recent revelations suggest Milo has been fraternizing with Richard Spencer, an alt-right icon and white supremacist, among other communications.

The culture wars

The aforementioned political polarisation in the Western world may interestingly have its roots far back in the past. Early on in his book, Milo educates his readers about Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s plan to undermine the foundations of the capitalist society—family values, nationalism, and religion—through culture in order to succeed in a proletarian revolution.

Today’s popular culture is to great extent like Gramsci envisioned, which feels like a grave concern to me as the society is falling to more and more insanity based on ”progressive” ideology rejecting the reality.

Milo writes that the left adjusted Gramsci’s ideas and practically won the culture wars in every field: media, academia, and the arts. (One artform refused to give in to ”cultural Marxism”: the gamers.) He fiercely criticises the right for failing to fight these battles and speak to the masses. Milo convincingly explains what makes left-wing cultural warfare so appalling: the left wants to eliminate all fun, strictly control artistic freedom, and make everything political. (Gaming, he claims, was the only artform ”naturally resistant” to this politisation. Milo’s insights into gaming and internet cultures are among the most informative contents of Dangerous.)

Milo believes his own approach to be winning: he constantly ridicules the left and disregards political correctness in doing so. So far, this has made him attract lots of attention among students, i.a. Students are a very important target group as universities are so thoroughly filled with left-wing hegemony. (We are reading more and more about the suppression of free speech on campuses and other such concerning developments.)

Milo’s outrageous humour is found on pretty much every page of Dangerous, making the book hilarious to read at times.

Victimisation is weaponisation

As we all have surely observed, the left is fixated with the settings of oppressors and the oppressed. A good position in the ”victim hierarchy” means prestige and benefits among the leftists. Milo explores the case of a Black Lives Matter leadership aspirant who turned out to be white according to his birth certificate. He’d also embroidered the story of how he got beaten in a racist attack. And there are other similar cases of forged victimhood accounts.

The social justice activists are distorting more than just their autobiographies, Milo claims. He points out how the BLM movement’s talking points are in conflict with factual social problems within the black community and how their actions are actually counteracting black people’s interests.

It’s sad that due to political polarisation, Milo’s suggestions for improving the conditions of people of colour are totally rejected on ad hominem bases by the left.

Milo proceeds to thoroughly and successfully criticise left-wing activists’ narrative. This is one of several chapters of his book that explores the disproportionate classification of people into oppressors and victims. It’s no news that the left evaluates whites on whole different standards than people of other ethnicities. Frustratingly, they are blind to their own racism when, say, redefining the term ”racism” in a racist way. Milo exposes blatant racism in speeches and actions of left-wing/”progressive” activists, ignored or downplayed by their co-leftists.

In separate chapters, Milo explores the wide-spreadedness of left-wing bias in the media and warns about the same biased censorship being implemented in social media. (The social media part is most unnerving.) He also addresses his own permanent ban from Twitter, which he says was the best thing that has happened to him publicity-wise.

Islam gets its own chapter in Dangerous, too. Muslims are a most challenging group when it comes to left-wing oppressor/victim classification.

A few quick points to cover the rest

  1. The most difficult thing to understand in Dangerous is the conflict between Milo’s religious identity and sexual orientation. His absurd synthesis between the two seems to be working for him, though.
  2. Milo is optimistic about the future of conservatism. His explicit optimism may also be a trick to motivate his followers. The book’s last chapter is advice for young minds about how to take on the cultural battle.
  3. ”Fake news” has become a politically biased characterisation of certain news sources. By the way, I also remember Milo stating earlier in a lecture of his that ”fact-checking” is a form of biased journalism (I don’t think he mentions it in Dangerous). This was sort of a revelation to me, because now I don’t have to wonder why the woman who has been labelled the fact-checking journalist of Finland is also one of the journalists with the most politically coloured updates on social media.
  4. There’s so much more than what I’ve managed to summarise. Dangerous spans numerous subject matters and even broadens the reader’s general knowledge.

Was my book review boring? I’m sorry, I don’t have Milo’s sense of humour. Entertainment-wise, I can promise you that Dangerous is far more interesting to read.

Knowing the media’s left-wing bias, the recent exposé by BuzzFeed must be taken with a grain of salt. Milo had this to say about it:

Recently I learned that Buzzfeed had acquired a large volume of my private emails. Within them are conversations with friends, colleagues and loved ones going back some years. Buzzfeed reproduces some of these emails in its coverage today. In addition, a video has emerged that shows me singing karaoke in a bar in Texas in 2016. Unbeknownst to me, Richard Spencer fans made racist hand gestures during my rendition of “America The Beautiful.” These same racists took a video of the event and sent it to Buzzfeed this week. As I have always said, the far Right hates me as much as the far Left does: I am told a figure on the Right paid one of Richard Spencer’s nutty goons $10,000 for this video. He has been bragging about it for weeks. Which suggests the whole thing was a set up, engineered by white nationalists to take me out. As some of you know, I have severely impaired vision and I did not see these hand gestures happen. Here is the statement I have just sent Buzzfeed: "I have said in the past that I find humor in breaking taboos and laughing at things that people tell me are forbidden to joke about. Everyone who knows me has seen me make jokes about some awful things. But everyone who knows me also knows I'm not a racist. As someone of Jewish ancestry, I of course condemn racism in the strongest possible terms. I have stopped making jokes on these matters because I do not want any confusion on this subject. I disavow Richard Spencer and his entire sorry band of idiots. I have been and am a steadfast supporter of Jews and Israel. I disavow white nationalism and I disavow racism and I always have. “I have severe myopia, due to a congenital eye defect, as has been widely reported and as many people know or have seen from my squinting during public speeches. In a dark bar, I did not see these hand gestures. If I'd have realized white nationalist losers were hailing me as their leader, I'd have immediately walked off stage. I stand for, as always, race-blind nationalism. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm enjoying my honeymoon with my black husband.”

A post shared by MILO (@milo.yiannopoulos) on

It’s only fair that Milo gets to share his side of the story. Dangerous might work as quite an eye-opener. Even for those who mostly disagree, the book should bring about some healthy criticism when it comes to the mainstream media and political hegemony. That said, Milo certainly isn’t right about everything and does deserve his fair share of criticism. In general, you can’t leave your political convictions hanging from some ”hero”, for sic transit gloria mundi.

Mainokset

Kuvablogi: Wittenberg

Tein pikku reissun Wittenbergiin katselemaan uskonpuhdistuksen 500:nnen juhlavuoden meininkiä. Vaiherikas menomatkani opetti minulle ainakin, että ei kannata lähteä yksin ulkomaille.

Vanha kaupungintalo

Kaupunkikuva oli siisti ja huoliteltu. Wittenbergin tori ja vanha kaupungintalo. Marktplatz und das Alte Rathaus.

Linnankirkko

Kuuluisa linnankirkko, jonka oveen Luther naulitsi 95 teesiä. Kyllä, näin myös sen oven! Schlosskirche.

Muotokuvat

Ikoninen Martti Lutherin muotokuva Lutherin kotimuseossa. Myös vaimo Katharinan kuva on alkuperäinen 1500-luvulta.

Lutherin kotimuseo

Ensin se oli luostari, uskonpuhdistuksen jälkeen Lutherin koti, ja Lutherin kuoleman jälkeen rakennus kuului yliopistolle. Nyt se on maailman suurin reformaatioaiheinen museo. Suosittelen, siellä riitti katseltavaa! Lutherhaus.


Liiman poistaminen muovista

Viimesyksyisellä Espanjan-matkallamme seurueemme oli huolissaan loisista. Keksimme muka hienon ratkaisun eli tilkitsimme matkalaukun vetoketjun teipillä. Valitettavasti kyseessä oli ruma ruskea pakkausteippi, joka jättikin sitten jälkeensä ruman ruskean liiman. (Lutikoita ei toki tullut ei-toivottuina matkamuistoina.) Kaiken kukkuraksi matkalaukku oli lainassa isältäni, eikä sitä tuossa kunnossa voisi palauttaa!

Miten teipin liiman saa irti pehmeää muovia olevasta matkalaukun saumasta? Erittäin hankala materiaaliyhdistelmä. Ratkaisun tarjoaa kuvaavasti nimetty How to Clean Stuff.net -sivusto.

WP_20170831_12_31_23_Rich

Liimainen matkalaukun sauma.

WP_20170831_12_31_40_Rich

Kostuta liima ”hankausalkoholilla”. Kotoani sattui löytymään isopropyylialkoholia, jota sitten käytin pumpulilla levittäen, vaikken tiennyt, mitä sivuston mainostama ”rubbing alcohol” tarkoitti. Wikipedia kertoo, että sillä voidaan tarkoittaa juurikin isopropyylialkoholia. Isopropyylialkoholia eli isopropanolia saa ainakin apteekista. (Varo aineen myrkyllisiä höyryjä.)

Vaihtoehtona alkoholin käytölle mainitaan saippuavesi. Se ei kuitenkaan sovi tällaiselle mulle-kaikki-heti-nyt-ihmiselle, koska liiman pitäisi antaa liota useita tunteja. Alkoholia käytettäessä voidaan edetä välittömästi seuraavaan työvaiheeseen.

WP_20170831_12_32_15_Rich

Irrota kostutettu, pehmitetty liima pois kuivalla, pehmeällä pyyhkeellä. Käytin vanhasta tyynyliinasta tekemääni räsyä.

WP_20170831_12_33_02_Rich

Se toimi! Kiitos, internet!


Robert Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Published in 2005, The Politically Incorrect guide to Islam is still amazingly current in 2017. If one were to judge the book by its cover, one would presume it to be sensationalist and provocative. The contents are, however, more civilised than the tabloid-like cover. The author, Robert Spencer, has done a good job referencing relevant source material. The book is probably not very balanced, but the author does make some concessions to Islam’s side of the story, even when he would get away with presenting Islam in a more negative light. It’s important to point out that writings more amenable to Islam are surely also biased (reversely), but this bias isn’t routinely called out because it conforms to political correctness.

Islamic terrorism was a grave concern to many in 2005 already. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam made many important points and taught me several new things. Where to start?

Deus vult

Not only alt-right slogan: Deus vult can be found in many places, including this book’s dedication page.

What is Islam?

In the Finnish education system, different religions are studied in both junior and senior secondary school. They are all shown in a politically correct, positive light to promote tolerance. This is where my first knowledge of Islam comes from.

Islam was founded some 1,400 years ago by Muhammad, considered a prophet in the religion. What’s new to me is the detailed biography of the prophet himself. ”Prophet of War,” as the first chapter’s provocative title says. Interestingly, Muhammad fought in tribal wars before his religious revelations in A.D. 610. Later, he turned against his own tribe (the Quraysh) for not accepting his new religion. The Qur’an, Islam’s holy book, gives justification for waging religious war. Spencer writes that the Qur’an verses that justified the early Muslims’ attacks against the Quraysh led to the general Islamic principle that defending the religion overrides different moral standards. Later, the Qur’an permitted the Muslims to breach a treaty with the Quraysh in Islam’s interest, for example.

Muhammad went on to share his faith to other tribes. This sharing was eventually violent in nature. With the rejection of Islam by Jewish tribes, Muhammad eventually commanded, ”Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” He had a Jewish civilian assassinated for mocking Muslims. And there’s much more. None of this was told in school.

Muhammad’s aspirations to spread Islam and collect war booty are supported by the Qur’an every step of the way. The Qur’an promises great things to every faithful Muslim. The ones that fall in jihad are taken to Paradise to be served by beautiful ”voluptuous women”—and even ”young male servants handsome as pearls well-guarded,” to please men of different proclivities. Tendentious Islamic teachings bring about a most interesting perspective: that Islam isn’t a mere religion, but a self-empowering ideology built to subordinate the entire world under its power. Islam, ”submission.”

Islam’s nature as more than a religion is obviously not a novel thought. Some commentators speak about ”political Islam” in contrast to religion-only Islam, but there isn’t really any ”non-political Islam” to begin with. As Spencer illustrates in his Politically Incorrect Guide, the religion orders shari’a system to be established in all societies. There’s no separation of religion and state, on the contrary.

The Crusades as defensive wars

Apologists of Islam constantly refer to the Crusades to demonstrate that Islam isn’t any worse than Christianity. They may even claim that the entire conflict between Islam and Christianity started from the Crusades. Spencer argues that this is all just a PC myth.

Spencer recounts the historical background of the Crusades up to the detail and attempts to make a case against Islam-victimizing historical interpretations.

Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in 1095 appealing to the fact that without defensive action ”the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked” by Muslim forces. Read the book for a detailed account of centuries of persecution by Muslim tyrants in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Some of the more ignorant Islam-friendly political commentators have dismissed news about modern-day persecutions of Christians in the Middle East by claiming that Muslims were there first. This obviously contradicts clear historical facts. As Spencer explains, before the Crusades, Muslims had already conquered over two thirds (!) of the Christian world (including parts of Europe). We think about the Middle East and Northern Africa as Islamic areas, but they were originally Christian. And while Christianity was in its early days spread by word of mouth by persecuted believers, later Islam would be spread by sword, and the believers were themselves the persecutors.

The Christians’ three options under Islamic rule

This is what an unbeliever can traditionally choose from under Islamic rule:

  1. Convert to Islam.
  2. Pay the jizya, a tax for non-Muslims.
  3. Die.

The Christians or Jews deciding to keep their faith and pay the tax would be treated as second-class citizens. They would be forbidden from telling Muslims about their faith. They would also be forbidden from constructing churches. They might even be forbidden from wearing certain kinds of clothing reserved for Muslims. The collecting of the jizya tax used to be a humiliation in itself: the unbeliever may be hit on the head or neck, and up to the 20th century, he would be held by the beard and struck on cheeks.

The aforementioned three choices are today presented to Christians in ISIS-controlled areas, according to a news article. In mainstream Islamic countries, several aforementioned restrictions for unbelievers are in place, such as the prohibition to proselytise. In Saudi Arabia, religions other than Islam are completely forbidden. Recently in Indonesia, a Christian politician was imprisoned because he said that Muslims are allowed to vote for him.

Historically, the poor treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim-conquered lands combined with the jizya contributed to the majority of people converting to Islam.

Were the Crusades worth it?

Spencer admits that looking at the Crusades’ objectives, they failed miserably. Yet he points out that the Crusades managed to slow down the Muslim forces’ attempts to conquer Europe, and this may have been decisive for Europe remaining Christian.

Would Muslim conquest of Europe have been so bad? Another PC myth states that diverse religions have peacefully coexisted under Islamic rule. Spencer claims that history testifies how Islamic rule has decayed other religions, such as Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity. The decay of Christianity in Europe would have been a great loss for humanity. Spencer believes that Christianity was essential to the birth of not just modern-day Western values such as human rights but also modern-day science, whose development has made people’s lives better worldwide. Spencer writes about the philosophy of science in much the same way as Tapio Puolimatka, the Finnish professor who has written books and given lectures on the very subject of how Christianity’s understanding of God enables empirical natural science.

Spencer believes that today’s (post-)Christian society also deserves to be preserved against the spread of Islam. He points out that Islam doesn’t acknowledge universal human rights as declared by the United Nations. Some Islamic countries have formulated their own human rights declarations instead of adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From the reality of life in several Islamic countries, we can all understand why that is.

They want an Islamic state

The Politically Incorrect Guide to IslamOne major thing that was new to me has to do with ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). This organisation (or state) appeared into my consciousness out of the blue a couple of years ago. Suddenly, it occupied areas in the Middle East and spread terror also in Europe. The Politically Incorrect Guide doesn’t address ISIS, of course, as it was written a decade earlier. But it does contain some interesting information as to the group’s ideology.

As you may know, ISIS has established a state, not acknowledged by the international community, ruled by caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They believe that Islam commands them to build this caliphate. I’ve read that they also believe in some sort of apocalypse in our days and a final battle to be fought between the forces of Allah and the forces of evil.

Now, to what the Politically Incorrect Guide has to say. Even before ISIS, several Islamist groups and religious commentators were calling for a caliphate to be founded. You see, Turkey used to be the successor of the old Sunni Islamic empire, until President Kemal Atatürk abolished the caliphate in the 1920s and made Turkey secular. (As we know, Turkey has recently been moving towards Islamism, again.) Ever since, jihadists have been calling for the reëstablishment of the caliphate and the renaissance of the umma (worldwide Islamic community). They believe that the secularisation of Turkey was a Western conspiracy. Restoring the caliphate was also Osama bin Laden’s goal.

Spencer writes that terrorism expert Daniel Pipes estimates 10–15 % of Muslims worldwide to support the jihadist agenda. Even far higher estimates are referred to in the book.

Left-wing double standards

When debunking PC myths about Islam, Robert Spencer recurrently points at the moral double standard of the PC establishment.

Bill Clinton suggested that the sack of Jerusalem in 1099 was the ultimate cause of the September 11 attacks. Yet the Muslims’ sack of Constantinople in 1453 does not burn in anyone’s memory. No president has pointed to it as the root cause of any modern-day terrorist acts. Indeed, it is less well known today than another sack of Constantinople: the one perpetrated by misguided Crusaders in 1204.

This is one illustration of the strange, unacknowledged moral double standard that PC types use when evaluating behavior by Westerners and non-Westerners: Any number of massacres and atrocities can be forgiven non-Western, non-white, non-Christian people, but misdeeds by Christian (or even post-Christian) Westerners remain seared in the world’s collective memory. […] It’s a tacit admission of a fact that the PC establishment stoutly denies in every other case: Christianity does teach a higher moral standard than Islam, and more is expected not only for observant Christians, but of those who have imbibed these high principles by living in the societies molded by them.

Today, this double standard culminates in claims that only whites are capable of racism and that discrimination of whites cannot be racism, if they can be discriminated against in the first place.

The point

Am I calling for a war between Christianity and Islam? Certainly not. What I am calling for is a general recognition that we are already in a war between two vastly different ideas of how to govern states and order societies, and that in this struggle the West has nothing to apologize for and a great deal to defend.

While The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam is somewhat biased, I think it underlines certain facts that are relevant to the modern Westerner but are constantly left unsaid or even denied by the mainstream media and political commentators. ”Islam has nothing to do with Islam” is a caricature of the liberal/progressive statements made in the aftermath of more and more frequent terrorist attacks and religiously motivated acts of violence. A Westerner easily forgets what a central role religion has in the world-view and values of other peoples in the world.

It’s not that these different values are wrong from an ”objective” perspective, it’s that the collision between Western liberalism and Islamic culture produces severe conflicts. A liberal, modernised interpretation of Islam might nicely integrate into European societies, but as Robert Spencer points out, so far there’s no sign of such a reformation within Islam. Liberal attempts to conceal the conflict between Islam and Western values, while well intended, actually constitutes a disservice to reform-minded Muslims:

Some countries in Europe are currently going through major demographic shifts. Now is the time to acknowledge the facts and become familiar with those sides of Islam they don’t yet tell about in schools. I recommend reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades); if you worry about the book’s unbalanced tone, read a book with the same subject matter but liberal undertone, in parallel.


Men’s rights movement – a gateway drug for white supremacism?

A journalist who has branded herself as the fact-checking journalist of Finland shared a noteworthy article on Twitter. The article, based on anecdotal evidence and liberal/progressive ideological axiomata, serves as a case in point for why such a big proportion of people today distrust journalists and the media.

Really dissecting the article would require considerable amount of work as the contents overall arouse so much doubt that I wouldn’t trust any of the background narrative. For example, is the man mentioned in the lead actually a white supremacist, or is this a deliberate misrepresentation by the author to promote his own world-view like the rest of his writing? Originally written with social media in mind, my recent observation could well apply to professional news media as well:

Noteworthy as the MRA*-bashing article might be, checking every little detail thereof would be a waste of time as the article’s conclusions are monumentally failing regardless of the background details’ factual accuracy.

*) men’s rights activist

Firstly, as noted, the article relies on anecdotal ”evidence” to make its case. This and that person used to be an MRA, and now he’s alt-right! Let’s not look into what most MRAs statistically end up doing, as that would deprive us of a clickbait of a headline! Not even correlation is truly demonstrated, let alone causation. The article goes on with even more anecdotes, this time to create the illusion that it’s listing all the (im)moral principles of all the MRAs and alt-rightists. These two groups are, for obvious motives, presented as closely together as possible.

After his anecdotes, the author proceeds with typical liberal/progressive rhetoric reducing his journalism to political pamphletry, surely aimed at the publication’s narrow-minded target group. You know what this rhetoric entails: the typical dichotomy between the privileged and the oppressed. Wasn’t journalism supposed to question everything and present multiple differing points of view?

Closer to the truth. While the journalist epically failed to substantiate this alleged link between the MRM and white supremacism, something can be said about the matter. I’m certainly no more familiar with the MRM and the alt-right than the article’s author (meaning, superficially familiar at most), however the overall picture of today’s ideological divisions in the first world is pretty revealing. You see, I do believe the MRM and white supremacism have a connection, after all. There’s just no putting sins of one group on the shoulders of the other.

It only takes common sense to understand that alt-rightists are more likely to align themselves with the men’s rights movement than with feminism. Why might that be? Was the MRM a gateway drug? (If only I could rely on your common sense and consider this a rhetorical question…) A far-rightist will find more to exploit in the MRM than in feminism. S/He may not agree with everything the MRM stands for, but there’s enough common ground to work with.

To draw the conclusion that MRM leads to white supremacism would be dishonest, even outrageous. A person’s beliefs, ideas, and values will obviously serve as a causative factor leading to both these alignments independently. There’s no doubt that other MRAs are found in whole other positions in the political spectrum. They are going to have more sincere motivations for their activism, such as honestly egalitarian values and the aim to make the society better for everyone.

Women of the Red Army - Russian revolution - October revolution - soviet power - communism - bolshevik party

This Flickr picture of the Red Army was tagged ”journalism” and ”feminism,” for some reason.

There are numerous correlations similar to that of the MRM and the far-right. Liberal/progressive commentators have the habit of characterising proponents of tighter immigration policy as racist. Obviously, a racist will be more likely to promote tighter than looser immigration. This doesn’t mean that most people with reservations towards immigration are racists. To present a different kind of example, there likely is a strong correlation between feminism and violent, even lethal, far-right/anarchist terrorism. Even veganism is probably associated with left-wing violence, as it once was with Nazism. Islam also has a correlation with terrorism, and it actually might be a gateway drug; the MRA-bashing journalist will be investigating this when pigs fly.


%d bloggers like this: