The Alt-Left and The Alt-Right Are The Same People (or social justice is the same as white nationalism)

We are seeing an increase in mass shootings in the last few years. Republicans blamed it on the policies and behavior of Obama, Democrats are blaming it on the policies and behavior of Trump. Both are right, both are wrong. What people don’t seem to realize is that the alt-left groups, like feminism, BLM, LGBT and the “social justice” movement, are the same people as the alt-right groups like the white nationalists. How can this possibly be? They seem to be bitter enemies. Often clashing in the streets with encounters ending in bloodshed and property damage. It is true they play for different teams and there is a bitter rivalry between them, but the teams themselves are in the same league.

Aren’t groups like feminism, BLM, LGBT and Social Justice leftwing groups advocating for their groups and white nationalists ultra-rightwing? Well, yes, but only if you look at it from one perspective. From the perspective of an average person, both groups are leftist. All of these groups are designed to advocate for their particular group identity. People who do not identify with their group identity are looked at as the enemy. In all of these groups the “we” is much more important the “me”.

To illustrate my point let’s look at the chart I’ve made. A little background may be needed to understand this chart. At the heart of all of this is the desire for freedom and liberty. The question becomes how do we get there. When you peel back all the layers of our lives, things like our families, friends, religions, politics eventually you get to the foundations of your belief system. Essentially, what makes you believe what you believe. The question, with regards to freedom and liberty, at the base of it all is,” Do I own myself”. While most everything in your life falls on a spectrum, this does not. This is a binary choice that defines your axiomatic truth.

On the left side of the chart you have collectivism, you can also use “social”, to describe this side of the chart. On the right you have Individualism, you can also use “personal”, to describe this side of the chart.

If you answer “yes” to the question of self-ownership, then you also, by definition, also own your property, your rights and your justice. These things belong to you as an individual. This means that you can buy and sell your property as you see fit. Rights are universal and every person on earth owns these rights for themselves. This means that you can buy and sell, or give away your rights as you see fit. Justice is personal. This means that you and you alone are responsible for your actions. You are punished for crimes as an individual and you are rewarded for accomplishments in the same way.

If you answer “no” to the question of self-ownership, it means that you cannot own property. Property is owned socially, or by society at large and divided by whatever mechanism the community sees fit. Rights are social, meaning that the community dictates who has rights and who does not. Generally, this is decided by creating a scale of privilege and oppression. Rights are taken from groups that have more privilege and given to those with less privilege. In this way, the most oppressed people have the most rights. This is done to balance the scale and make everyone as equal as possible. There is social justice. This means that the groups formed in this hierarchy of privilege and oppression are wholly responsible for both crime and accomplishments. You might have heard people say things like, “all white people are racist”, or “all straight people are homophobic”, or “black people invented the…”. In short, there are no individuals, only your group identity.

These core belief systems give rise to the line at the top of the chart. This is the political layer, where your core beliefs are put into action. If you answer “yes”, you tend toward capitalism. If you answer “no”, you tend toward socialism. These are broad terms that have many variations. Communism, for instance, is just a subset of socialism, the most extreme version. Anarcho-capitalism is the most extreme form of capitalism. If you think of communism as being at the extreme left of the line with 100% collectivist worldview and anarcho-capitalism at the extreme right with 100% individualist worldview, then what is in the middle? It would stand to reason that it would tend to be 50% communal and 50% individual right? In political terms you could say that it is a system where the property is owned by individuals, but controlled by society, or the other way around, where the property is owned by society, but controlled by private individuals. Well, there is such a system, it’s called national socialism in the first case and crony-capitalism in the second. Both have the common term, fascism. This is area of the chart with the blue rectangle.

That’s right! Fascism is only extreme right when viewed from the lens of a socialist. For a capitalist, fascism is an extreme left position. Social justice groups, like the feminist movement, BLM and LGBT, are using the same worldview as the white nationalists are. Collectivism. Sure, they are way more extreme leftists than white nationalists are, but the outcome is always the same. When Antifa calls the KKK Alt-right, they are basically admitting that they use the same worldview.

Why is there a rise in violence in recent years? It’s because collectivism always leads to violence. 100% of the time. Why? Because of that pesky hierarchy of privilege and oppression. The weak make the rules and get to impose them on the strong. The oppressed get the rights and justice until they become the oppressors and the cycle starts over. There is a constant competition for the title of most oppressed. Couple that feeling of constant dread of being deemed “privileged”, with the knowledge that you can do nothing about it because you don’t own your rights, or yourself. At the end of the day, all you have left is violence.

So why is this all happening? One of the main reasons is that the idea of social justice has been adopted by major universities, media outlets and government. The concept of privilege has been almost universally adopted as true in these places, although there is no basis in fact for it. White men are starting to feel oppressed by these other social groups and are fighting back. See what I did there? “white men are starting to feel oppressed…”. As if there is a single entity called “white men”. It’s really hard not to get caught up in the language of the leftist.

How can we fix this? In short, education. We need to make sure our children understand their self-ownership. Once they get to college it’s almost too late. We all need to think deeper than republican/democrat. Get to the essence of why you believe what you believe. Is your core belief system in line with your politics? You can’t be a socialist if you think you own yourself. You can’t be a capitalist if you believe in social justice. If you are an individual, you have to realize that feminism is bad for women, BLM is bad for black people and LGBT is bad for gay people. If you can’t be that honest with yourself, how are you supposed to teach anyone else? By all means, use the chart above to help you if you need it. If you have questions, talk to someone you trust. Talk to me if you have no one else. I’ll do my best to help you.


Modern Feminism and Why it Fails

I think it’s about time I wrote something on feminism. Actually, my daughter asked me to write about it. I have 4 kids, including the oldest daughter, boy/girl twins and the youngest boy. I’ve always had a fondness for strong female leads in movies and TV shows. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of my all-time favorite shows. The only sport I follow is MMA through the UFC, and Rhonda Rousey is currently my favorite fighter. The point is, I don’t hate women. To modern feminism, that doesn’t matter, the fact that I am male means that I must objectify Buffy and Rhonda, and therefore I hate women. This is why the movement is doomed to fail.


  1. the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms: the women’s movement, the feminist movement, women’s liberation, female emancipation, women’s rights;

informalwomen’s lib

“a longtime advocate of feminism”

Seems like common sense. Who doesn’t want equality right? I’m sorry, that was the old feminism, you know, the one from the turn of the century advocating that laws and rights be equally applied to both men and women. Advocating that any law that applies to men such as voting and owning property should also apply to women. Nothing special, just equal opportunity under the law. Those were truly pioneer women, in some cases literally killing themselves for equality. This blog is not about that kind of feminism, it’s about modern feminism.

Modern Feminism is a movement that advocates for equality of outcome over all areas of life where men and women interact, using a wide range of social, political and legal means.

This isn’t about equal opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. Modern feminism is based in victimology. What I mean is feminists always see women as victims of some injustice or another, by definition. In video games, in the movies, in TV and in life, women are always victims of the whims of men. We’ve all heard terms like, “objectify”, “misogynist” and “patriarchal”. I used to think they were just a natural group of insults hurled by man-hating, liberal idiots, but in doing a little research for this blog I found out that there is such a thing as “feminist science”, that produces theories based in what can only be described as feminist reality. This is a reality that does not resemble the one you and I are familiar with. Now I realize that when feminists try to ban words like “bossy”, or force employers to pay women more based on a myth that women make $0.77 for each dollar a man makes, they aren’t just man-hating, liberal idiots but man-hating liberal idiots using “science”. I also found out that they hate liberal men just as much as any other group of men, so at least there’s that.

One of the foundations that modern feminism is based on is the “subject/object dichotomy. Basically, this states that subjects act and objects are acted upon. Objects can’t have a true human identity and/or feelings because they are just objects and can’t be seen any other way. As an example let’s look at video games where women appear in scantily clad outfits while men soldiers go around shooting them, or using them, or whatever else happens in video games, (sorry, I don’t play video games). Since men are acting out in the fantasy world of the game it means that the women characters are simply objects within the games structure and therefore less than human. Therefore men will objectify women in the real world. Therefore the games must be either changed or banned. How about a real world example? Strip clubs. Men go into strip clubs simply to view naked women. They don’t want to know these women as people, they don’t want to know their names, their struggles in life, they just want to ogle them and go home. Men objectifying women. Misogyny. Patriarchy.

The problem with this is illustrated when you apply this kind of logic to other areas of life. Any kind of buyer/seller relationship could be characterized this way. When you buy your groceries you don’t care what the cashier’s name is that rings you up so you are objectifying them. When a doctor treats a patient, all they care about is treating the illness, they are objectifying them. The other thing that illustrates the insanity of this position is that there are two sides to every transaction. Let’s look at a strip club from the stripper’s perspective. You go to work and dance around for nameless, faceless, ever changing “Johns” riding them of their money. When their money runs out, they leave and are replaced with another one. Who is objectifying whom? The patient is using the doctor for the sole purpose of getting well. They don’t care about the doctor’s home life. The cashier is getting paid to scan groceries, they don’t care about the customer as a person. There are two sides to every transaction. In a consumer driven society the subject/object equals out. In other words, it is non-existent.

Modern day feminists believe that only men are subjects and only women can be made objects and therefore every action a man takes objectifies women, no matter what. Good deed, bad deed, no deed, you as a man are a misogynist, patriarchal objectifier. This is why silly notions like all sex is rape are prevalent among the ideology of hard core and mainstream feminism. This is also why the modern feminist movement is generally not popular among women and is ultimately failing. The most ironic thing about the modern feminist movement is that in order to support the position held by feminists, you would have to believe that women are in essence inferior to men and therefore laws must be passes to protect them against the patriarchy.

Whether you like it or not, the world was built by men, in virtually every way. The roads, bridges, buildings, businesses are all residue of the efforts of mostly men. That is an ugly fact, but a fact none the less. Women were subjugated for millennia. Women were treated no better than property for the better part of mankind’s existence. Another ugly, but true fact. That is not to say that there were no women involved in building this society, just that most of the labor was done by men. There have been exceptions to the rule throughout history like Madame Curie and Joan of Arc just to name two.

The feminist movement of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s sacrificed life and limb to change the way women were treated by the law. They succeeded in removing the legal barriers, but the infrastructure remained. Equal opportunity is true feminism. Women now have choices. Just because a self-proclaimed feminist doesn’t like the choice doesn’t make it patriarchy. Women making choices is a good thing. Staying home and having babies, getting ahead in the workforce, a combination of both or neither are choices that should not be judged by other women. Equality of outcome removes choices and thereby sets women back 100 years. It’s funny how every feminist in the effort to ban the word “bossy”, claims to have been called bossy as young girls and yet still were able to make millions and even billions of dollars anyway. I’m all for my daughters being feminists, just not modern ones, but that is really up to them. I want them to protect themselves, make their own choices, live their own lives on their own terms and own their place in this world, wherever it takes them.

Feminism doesn’t decide what job a woman can and can’t do, women do. Feminism doesn’t decide what games women should or should not play, women do. Feminism doesn’t decide what women should or shouldn’t buy, women do. I have an idea, instead of being feminists, liberals, conservatives, this race or that gender, why don’t we try just being human insead?