Reply to Jacobin’s David Sessions on ‘Woke Capital’

by Serban V.C. Enache

In his article, ‘The Right’s Phony Class War,’ David Sessions claims that “woke capital” is a myth invented by the social conservative right, and the right’s opposition to this myth is somehow aimed at hurting the majority of Americans, from all backgrounds, because, after all, big corporations [and Big Tech in particular] are just benign suppliers of demand – it’s not as if they engage in social engineering or anything [sarcasm]. Sessions concludes that the right doesn’t have an economic program to empower the working class, quite the opposite. I agree with this conclusion, but I disagree with the premise.

Sessions doesn’t address at all the fact that conservative ideas and outlets, to one degree or another, are being censored by Big Tech, and he likely welcomes this phenomenon. More so, from his writing, the author doesn’t believe in a managerial class of vested interests in the United States that holds cosmopolitan views. Cosmopolitan elites are a fantasy in the author’s view. As if, somehow, there are no liberals, no xenophiles in the top echelons of society, part of trans-national corporate interests and factions who are pushing for Globalization. The author implies that the only elites are straight, white, xenophobes… xenophobes who haven’t built a single mile of new wall since Trump took office.

Denouncing “woke capital” — business interests voicing support for progressive social politics — has become an obsession. […] In June, Arkansas senator Tom Cotton gave a speech on the Senate floor denouncing “the dictatorship of woke capital,” by which he meant “a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people.” The freak-out about “woke capital” not only rests upon a fictional sociological divide between a hostile ruling class and a resistant populace, but the residual fantasy of a socially conservative “moral majority.” The basic laws of capitalist marketing dictate that corporations respond to their customers’ tastes. What social conservatives interpret as economic power tipping the scales in favor of progressive values is really a response to what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe: between 65 and 69 percent of Americans, in all ethnic demographics and regions of the country, support gay marriage, and a clear majority supports trans rights.

This is plain manipulation. The author is using a [liberal] market argument to explain capitalism, which is funny, since writers for the Jacobin are marxists; and marxists claim that capitalism is all about replicating [certain] socio-economic relations in order to perpetuate itself. This means that the population is constrained in what it can demand and what the capitalist system is allowed to supply. It’s also important to distinguish between capitalism, as Adam Smith understood it / industrial capitalism as opposed to finance capitalism [maximizing shareholder value ideology], and the social engineering that’s going on today, just like it was during the Cold War, when State secret services sponsored both conservative and left-wing ideology. I remember a bit by George Carlin on national television on the issue of private vs public means of transport, asking himself, since when do the people get what they want?

I ask Sessions, what do gay rights and trans rights have to do with bs notions spewed in “progressive” echo chambers like: men can become pregnant too, gender is a social construct [not biological at all], the US flag is racist, only whites can be racist, the encouragement of children to engage in sexual activities, straight and otherwise, the promotion of Government-subsidized abortion irrespective of circumstances, the promotion of hormone therapy for minors, including toddlers, with sex change being the aim, the promotion of hedonism etc…

I agree that the tories aren’t the “moral majority” and that they haven’t real economic solutions, but spare me the sophistry. Big Tech is engaged in social engineering, and the establishment [State and private sector] clearly has had a liberal bias and it retains it – despite Trump being in office. Sessions also employs the appeal to majority fallacy and commits a straw man as well. He states that a majority of Americans support gay rights and trans rights. Sure, and a majority of Americans oppose socialism. What’s to be done, Mr. Sessions? You’ll most likely argue that a majority of Americans hold this view due to mainstream anti-socialist propaganda. Well, the conservatives can say the same with regard to the pro-LGBTQ stance. Sessions also cites a survey in which a majority of Americans say that immigration is a positive thing. This is the straw man I referred to earlier. The question was immigration, as in legal, regulated immigration – not illegal immigration; and the latter point is what conservative politicians oppose, well, in their speeches anyway.

No matter how loudly populist conservatives rage about cosmopolitan elites and woke capital, no matter how much they pretend the Left only cares about political correctness, there’s only one side that has a plan for the real America.

Yes, I’ve heard that before and quite the plan it is. Huge Government investment [Green New Deal], medicare for all, including for illegal aliens, and State-sponsored abortions irrespective of context, thus making the practice a preferred method of birth control, plus open borders [a boon to capitalists] – the result of all this being endless competition among workers, higher rents and interest payments and homelessness as a result of uncaptured land values, overcrowding, sanctuary cities, social and ethnic unrest, more crime, and a bigger slice of the pie for the vested interests. What a splendid vision of the future… Subsidizing the likes of the Koch Brothers while lying to voters that the “progressive” State is going to keep Big Capital in check by cranking up the marginal tax rate.

The American Left has sold out to CIA money more than half a century ago and did all it could to separate itself from the Eastern Block. That’s why they’re so alien today in visage and message to anyone who actually lived in a popular or socialist republic. Its obsession with open borders has everything to do with the [shared] agenda of its ideological nemesis. You can read more about it here. In conclusion, if Trump won’t get a second executive term, it’s not going to be a victory for the Left, but a defeat for Trump, losing on his own beard, as we say here in Romania.

‘Woke’ Hypocrisy concerning Porn

by Serban V.C. Enache

This NBC article from last year talks about data collected from a popular pornography website, in which over 1/3 of the views for gay male videos come from women. The “sexuality researcher” [whatever that means] Lucy Neville surveyed more than 500 women over five years for a book she wrote. Many of the women with whom she spoke said “a lot of the problem they have with heterosexual porn is that they focus on the female body,” not paying enough attention to the male physique. According to her survey 55 percent of the women said they had imagined themselves as men while engaging in gay male pornography. The women surveyed also expressed a “strong desire to consume porn that is ethical in some way,” and they found some heterosexual porn “exploitative.”

But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. The article insists that women find a lot of straight porn dehumanizing and exploitative to women and that they feel the women in these pictures aren’t enjoying themselves. But the same concern is not extended to the performers in gay male scenes; some of whom don’t even consider themselves gay – it’s just another avenue for them to make money. One respondent from the survey said that even in aggressive gay male scenes “it looks like the pleasure they’re both getting is very, very different than straight aggressive porn.” Utter rubbish.

Neville was curious to know whether gay men would be concerned or offended about women’s fetishization of gay male sex. But after interviewing more than 200 gay men, she reported that most saw no problem. I can’t help but point out that, were the genders reversed, they’d be labeled as sexists and part of the exploitative patriarchy.

The NBC article ends on a hallucinating note, citing a woman surveyed by Neville who claims that “If it’s helping people explore romance and sexuality – and possibly breaking down over-representation of heterosexuality in the media – then it’s probably a good thing.” This statement is complete bs.

First of all, heterosexuality is not “over-represented.” The vast majority of humans on this globe are heterosexual. To claim it’s over-represented, as if it’s an artificial phenomenon or a conspiracy, is like visiting Japan and complaining that mongoloids are over-represented compared to caucazoids; or complaining that insects are over-represented relative to mammals. Second of all, how exactly is pornography conducive to encouraging romance? I’d argue it has the opposite effect. You can’t claim heterosexual porn dehumanizes women, but say nothing, or make the opposite claim about gay male pornography. You either measure with the same yardstick, or you’re just a hypocrite engaging in sophistry, pursuing an ideological agenda: social engineering to collapse any semblance of normality – treating heterosexuality like a disease or a conspiracy.

Why Alex Jones is a Fake Anti-Globalist

by Serban V.C. Enache

Disclaimer. I’ve never been a fan of paleoconservatism, and I’ve never held Alex Jones’ brand of journalism in high regard. That being said, he did do good things in his career, he did fight the so-called ‘good fight’ for a time; and I didn’t hold back to give him credit when he had good ideas. Like in the case of public utility social media; and I was opposed to him being deplatformed. Unfortunately, Jones’ channel has become a cesspool of hawkish intoxication. I’ve been watching his show up on Infowars for a good many weeks now, and I’ve made a personal, final assessment on the narrative he’s pushing.

I’ll make a list of points and, if readers disagree, they can watch or listen to Infowars to see that I’m not arguing a strawman or making stuff up. By the way, I love Gerald Celente’s segment on Infowars. He’s great.

Alex Jones says that Iran could have been permitted to have a nuclear bomb by now, if Iran didn’t threaten nuking people all the time. And Jones questions whether or not the first oil tanker incidents were false-flags. He is inclined to believe that Iran may have been behind them, because the Iranians “are crazy.”

Sometimes Jones makes funny voices to ridicule various people he dislikes. One of those voices he does sounds awfully close to Netanyahu’s. There’s nothing wrong with that, albeit it’s ironic, given the fact that Jones and Infowars have shilled so much for Israel and Netanyahu. Jones claims that the Rothschilds [and by implication the Globalists] want Netanyahu dead. As always, Jones finds the ‘enemy’ only on the Israeli left; because the Israeli ‘right’ are incapable of pulling off dishonorable deeds, no? Israel, under the Netanyahu administration, is selling technology, including military technology to China – to the “Chicoms” [Communist Chinese] as Jones calls them. Yet you won’t hear Jones mentioning this fact, let alone criticizing it. In fact, Jones will go out of his way to cut off callers or people he’s interviewing, if the dialog hints at putting the spotlight on Israeli meddling and crimes.

Alex Jones thinks the Palestinians are “invaders,” who are all about invading other people’s lands. He said that even those Palestinians who had their land taken away are invaders – and Jones said “quote” in the sense that they really weren’t push off the land [by American and European Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. What a travesty. So much bile, so much ignorance and manufacturing of history.

Alex Jones believes the Globalists have cornered the US, trapped it into an inevitable war with China. Last time I checked, there were no Chinese military units in proximity to US borders, land or sea. Rather, it’s the other way around. And he always demonizes China for what US secret services and US big tech are doing, not just in the US, but in foreign countries, including allied states. Jones is more concerned with a spy agent from another continent, than he is about the spy in his own country. As if Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China were responsible for US companies deplatforming him. China is militarily encircled by the US, and Jones would have Americans believed the Chinese are an existential threat to the United States. Whether he realizes it or not, Jones is making the case for US hegemonic [imperialist] policy and wants it strengthened.

Alex Jones keeps pushing the “socialism kills” narrative, and often cites Venezuela as the perfect example of this; but just as you might expect, makes no mention of how US sanctions [levied by the Trump Administration two years ago, combined with Western European sanctions and confiscation of Venezuelan assets abroad] impact the daily lives of ordinary Venezuelans. If all the blame lies with Maduro’s party, why would you support sanctions against that country? It’s like seeing a handicapped person on the street, and then tripping him up to fall flat on his face and break his nose and teeth. Instead of condemning US-sponsored regime changes in South America and US-led economic warfare against these countries, Jones is silent as a snake. But then likes to complain about foreigners storming the border and lays all the blame on Soros propaganda outlets, enticing foreigners to come to the US, where they’ll be given free stuff. Isn’t Alex Jones and his ilk part of the problem on this issue? You know, the two sides of the same coin? The two wings of the same bird?

Alex Jones often puts up scenarios in which the [conservative] people in the US will rise up to overthrow the tyrannical Government. He’s made numerous statements, albeit of a theoretical nature, that someone has to intervene with a gun to stop what he deems an injustice. Infowars features written and audio-video material about a coming civil war in the United States, triggered by the leftists, the liberals, the communists… While Jones is clever enough to put disclaimers, “I’m not saying launch an offensive war,” his narrative ultimately radicalizes conservatives. He’s using the same tactics Antifa uses, and then blames Antifa for fomenting “terrorists” and “terrorism.” It is staunch hypocrisy and he can’t claim the moral high ground.

Alex Jones used to criticize the bubble economy; the economy that’s kept from tanking via “artificial” means. But now, since Trump’s in office, Jones is attacking others for making the same criticisms. Jones labels this as a conspiracy to kill confidence in the economy, to topple Trump. Jones claims that the age of fiat money is nearing its end, that crypto currencies will take its place, and that’s important for the US Government to channel fiat funding into the military sector primarily, for the inevitable battle with the Chicoms, lest the US be invaded and conquered. Alex Jones is cheering for Trump to engage in military keynesianism, despite the fact Trump has already engaged in it. It’s not enough according to Jones.

Alex Jones is pro-life. He thinks that the lives of children and of the unborn are sacred. Yet his fiscal conservative stance runs counter to his professed beliefs. What happens to the children of the poor? What happens to the children of those in the middle class, who weren’t poor when they had the children, but have become poor due to circumstances beyond their control? And food is just one part of the problem. What about housing? What about electricity and running water? What about health care? What about education? What about access to jobs and job security? Alex Jones has nothing on this front. His sympathy for children ends after they’re born. The “free market” will handle it from there. Meanwhile, the so-called free market is only free for rent-seekers, usurers, and cartels.

I don’t mind different ideologies as much as I mind ideological inconsistency. You can’t call yourself pro-life and be against the Welfare State. Call yourself what you are: a social darwinist. And since Jones likes to invoke Adolf Hitler and the Nazis all the time in his dialogues and monologues – I clue him in on Nazi socio-economic policy. The Nazis, even though they practiced eugenics, they had full employment and welfare policies in place. The Nazis would have discarded individuals based on their genetic value, not based on their economic condition like Alex Jones. He’s the typical conservative fraudster. Unlimited Government money for the military. Little or no Government money for the civilian economy. In his view, the former is capitalistic, free-market, and patriotic; the latter is socialistic, communistic, and treasonous.

At the beginning of the month, Jones had someone on his show, who hinted at a secret liberal conspiracy between Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin. Jones didn’t cut him off, didn’t challenge him on that point in any way. The only times I’ve heard Jones commenting about Putin, at least recently, was on the submarine incident, hinting that there’s likely something sinister behind it – insert your preferred secret alien tech theories here…

In a most recent episode, a self-proclaimed right winger [not a republican] called in to suggest that Trump is a ruse. Jones cut him off immediately and talked over him like he had a severe case of verbal diarrhea, then Jones pretended the caller had shut the phone on him. He’s so desperate, he won’t allow a critical POV on Trump whatsoever. Censoring your audience isn’t productive; it looks as though you have something to hide / fear.

I believe these points are enough to prove my case. Alex Jones is a false anti-Globalist. He doesn’t condemn US economic warfare, responsible for creating waves of migrants and refugees. He doesn’t condemn Israeli Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians – on the contrary, he squares all the blame on the Palestinians. His invectives for the neocons pale to insignificance when contrasted with the invectives used against the upstart ‘radical left.’ He’s a pathetic cheerleader of Netanyahu. Never attacks [Jewish] Zionism or Christian Zionism. In fact, Jones went so far as to justify and defend Jewish ethno-centric influence over US national and foreign affairs. But God forbid the Jew in question should be an anti-zionist. No, that would make that particular Jew a servant of the Globalists. Meanwhile, Trump’s using the US military in the interests of a foreign state, Israel, doing Netanyahu’s dirty work. But that doesn’t count as “globalism” in Jones’ book. You see, the Iranians, and the Iraqis, and the Libyans, and the Syrians, and the Afghans own all the liberal media outlets and Democrat politicians in the United States and formulate the country’s foreign policy and its domestic agenda [sarcasm]. That’s why Alex Jones is a despicable shill and propagandist for the other half, the other face of the Establishment. American exceptionalism is nothing without tanks, guns, bombs, and lies.

Contemporary Liberalism is Mental

by Serban V.C. Enache

Years ago, whenever I saw a comment saying “liberalism is a mental illness,” I would shake my head, bewildered on what such a statement means. But after hearing more and more liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that some sort of synaptic misfire happens in the brains of these people. I saw a recent material on RT live, sadly, I couldn’t find a link to the particular piece, on gender-neutral uniforms being adopted in some schools in the UK. One of the two guests interviewed on RT, Linda Bellos Obe, confessed to being a lesbian, a feminist, and a grandmother [nothing wrong with these things], said she is in favor of school uniforms [again, nothing wrong with that] and that she supports the ban on skirts in schools – all skirts, not just miniskirts, ALL skirts. Then she stated that girls [in schools] object to boys “fetishizing” them. Come again? And this person is a “equality law specialist.” That’s absolutely frightening… She makes the case for [gender-neutral] school uniforms that children and people in general like to be part of a club; and that the uniform signifies membership to that club. That’s just an argument for mass-conformity, something that the ‘cultural left’ fought against decades ago; but it seems that fight wasn’t about liberalization, or the goal was changed / mutated in the meantime. Hence the label “regressive progressive.”

To quote George Carlin, I wouldn’t want to be part of any group in which you either have to wear a hat, or you can’t wear a hat. In school, I experienced both systems: uniforms in primary school and just a dress code in high school [no obscene or vulgar outfits or offensive messages on outfits]. Obviously, the latter system gives the student a lot more leeway and I prefer it. The liberal feminists of today seem bent on shackling women to their political agenda and political organizations, instead of persuading them via a set of moral principles. The former path takes little brain power expenditures and brings in cash, the latter path requires actual work put into debates – and if we’ve learned anything during the last ten years or so, liberals don’t want debate, because such a forum “allows racist and sexist viewpoints to be heard.” That’s the exact same logic religious fundamentalists would invoke, such a forum “allows heretical and blasphemous viewpoints to be heard.” It’s the same logic the Establishment uses to prevent alternative / reformist POVs to spread among people.

I fully agree with the other person who was interviewed, Chris McGovern from CRE. I believe his position was completely sensible and in the interest of both straight and non-straight students. Whether the school in question has a uniform policy in place or not, girls should be able to wear pants if they want to; girls should be able to wear skirts if they want to. Ditto for boys [ever heard of kilts?]. But Linda Bellos Obe, the so-called “equality law specialist,” labeled dissent on this issue among the left as unwelcome infighting. In other words, we mustn’t work out contradictions, because that diminishes the tribal strength. Promoting ‘gender neutrality’ by opposing the manifestation and expression of the feminine is unjust as it is absurd, and it is unworthy of a so-called free and tolerant society.

Now, to the issue at hand. If the parents are down with gender-neutral uniforms, that’s fine. But don’t tout this particular norm as a great leap in human progress, because, if anything, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a policy that limits free expression.

The communist countries of the 20th century and of the 21st century didn’t ban skirts for girls! Not even the Bolsheviks could come up with such a ridiculous thing as to ban skirts, with the possible exception of China under Mao Zedong. But hey, now we know from whence the contemporary liberal-feminist doctrines stem. The communist regime in Afghanistan [prior to the US-backed Talibans collapsing it] allowed women to wear skirts, including miniskirts! If a liberal feminist from the 21st century would have warned an Afghan woman from the ’80s that a skirt makes men “fetishize” her, she would have said you’re crazy, get out of my way, I need to go to work. Here are some pictures. School girls in the [former] Soviet Union. School girls in Cuba. School girls in North Korea. School girls in Venezuela. Women in the [former] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Today’s liberal ideology, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is on some issues more oppressive than Bolshevism. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC interview with Noam Chomsky from 1977, in which he accurately explains contemporary liberalism. I don’t know if Chomsky still feels the same today; regardless, his assessment from ’77 was spot on.

The False Anti-Militarist Propaganda

by Serban V.C. Enache

The liberal media has bashed Trump’s desire to have tanks and airplanes show up on the 4th of July to celebrate Independence Day. They labeled it as an example of “militarism,” a way of “politicizing” the event, and compared his desire to that of a dictator. Unsurprisingly, liberal Americans seem to live in a bubble. A great many countries on the globe, be they democratic, less democratic, or totalitarian, show off some of their military units during their respective national day celebrations – this includes armed soldiers, cavalry, tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, ballistic missiles, airplanes, and the like.

Before linking videos in support of this fact, we must stress the staunch hypocrisy of the liberal media and of the Democratic Party. One of the most progressive presidents in terms of economic policy, Harry Truman [a democrat], levied permanent conscription. After WW2, the US took over from where the British Empire left off. The US operates almost 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world. It provides military assistance to most of the world’s dictatorships. During the election campaign, before Trump got into office, the mainstream [liberal] media was deploring Trump’s isolationism [America First policy], fearing Trump would close down military bases and get US soldiers out of foreign conflicts and territories. The liberal media, who is de facto advocating for unlimited immigration and no borders, during Obama’s two terms was praising the President for his administration’s record number of deportations [of illegals]. The same liberal media which produces crocodile tears for the fate of refugees and economic migrants quickly dries up those tears when it comes to foreign policy – when it comes to countries who won’t dance to Washington’s tune. To hell with them. Bomb them. Levy sanctions. Starve them out. They’re no different to their neoconservative counter-parts in the establishment. Under Obama’s presidency, the number of drone strikes increased eightfold compared to the Bush Jr epoch. Seven countries were bombed by the US under Obama’s watch, some of them were dismembered and condemned to ruin and chaos: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. We factor in economic warfare [trade sanctions], the giving of intelligence, funds, and arms – either directly or via proxy to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Daesh. And since people are unhappy with the health situation under Trump, let’s not forget that health care premiums under Obama’s turn also rose.

And if we contrast all the war crimes, all the corruption, all the theft, all the injustice perpetrated by US administrations since WW2 up to the present, including Donald Trump’s administration – we see a clear pattern of militarism, hypocrisy, consistent war profiteering, violence, and death. “Fascism” didn’t start with Trump or the GOP. It didn’t stop with Obama or the Democrats. US financial and military hegemony is BIPARTISAN. It always was. Always will be. Liberals, kindly spare us of your hypocrisy, of your false humanitarianism. The World doesn’t believe it.

Now, then, let’s see some of the other countries who display military units during their national day celebrations: Mexico, South Africa, Romania, China, Iran, France, Russia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Austria, Vietnam, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, and many, many other countries.