LD50 Gallery hosts white nationalists in pathetic bid for noterity

The Dalston London art gallery, LD50, directed by a 35-year-old Spanish woman and former herbal-supplement-company owner named Lucia Diego, acted as a platform white nationalist art and speakers all last year.

Alt-right blogger Mark Citadel is one of the white male speakers, with  pretensions towards being a member of Victorian nobility, on a crusade to free white men psychologically enslaved by women and minorities.

The concepts of free speech, truth to power, white nationalism and misogyny are all strangely intertwined in his brain.

Those concepts are all in direct contradiction, as it is impossible to have a white nation without women or a white nation without oppressing the free speech and movement of non-whites, but let’s put that aside for a moment.

Reading through the frenzied scroll of Mark Citadel’s  stilted, 19th-century-styled writings, you may get the impression that what he says about minorities wielding secret power  is original just by virtue of being confrontational.

It’s not. Blaming minority conspiracy for government failure, in effusive language, has been done before. The Nazi party also did the same thing, falsely blaming jews for undermining a Government which became unpopular amid WWI chaos and painting them as heroin dealers.

But perhaps this is a good sign. White male resistance is a sign of progress towards a truly equal governance. The inevitable outcome of any egalitarian or democratic progress in the Western world, if you think about it.

Supposing democracy ever got more (or even was incorrectly perceived to be more) effective at representing marginalised or popular groups, the incumbent wealthy white male population would naturally protest.

The incorrect perception that black people and women were fairly represented in US politics was on the rise in the Obama years when visibility and the profile of black politicians  increased. Despite this, the number of black representatives in the house is less than in the general us population (10% in the house vs 16% of the US population) and in the Senate it’s worse with black representation at 1% of the Senate. Women are also underrepresented  in Congress, about 20% in each house despite comprising 50% of the population.  There is no evidence that minority interests are  advanced by government, especially as calls for stronger laws protecting against rape and police brutality against black people go unheeded.

So much for minorities secretly controlling the American government.


Given the  incoherent and poorly reasoned nature of the ideas presented by this gallery and its acolytes, it is apparent the events taking place at this gallery are all about appearances and the psychological desire for “otherness” rather than substance.

O.D. Untermesh put it perfectly in his article on the LD50 Gallery in Mute: “Take away the veneer of irony and you see only a few slimy individuals toying with repugnant ideas that most good artists would give no merit, even as illusory discourse.”

Diego Lucia’s art galley website is evidence of her reveling in the attention the recent controversial exhibitions have brought. It doesn’t matter that the attention is not really even directed at the art itself – because the emotional register of the artwork was by all accounts superficial – but at the gallery’s apparent utility as a neo-nazi meeting space.

The gallery is so keen on all this attention that it has idiosyncratically included a feed of  negative tweets about itself,  pathetically posting:

Daily updates – come back,  dont miss it !

In a blatant cry for attention, female nazi apologist Lucia Diego, is a hanger-on in the vanguard of the misogynistic “Alt-right All Boys Club” trying to gain a shred of notoriety in the indifferent art world, all while enjoying the privileges and protections of egalitarian liberal democracy that egalitarian women attained.

That these individuals are willing  do the equivalent of a silly tap-dance to the centuries-old tune of intolerance in hope someone will mistake if for a new smash hit just shows how low creative people will stoop to for fame.


Thanks White Feminism… no, really, THANK YOU!

For all you male people attacking #whitefeminism in the midst of almost wholly male-led reactionary rightist movement (except for a single female in a minor cabinet role), created in the #Altright media with Donald Trump as a figurehead, which just happened to occur at the same time as Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the office of President….

I wonder what your chances of being injured by your partner are?


I wonder how high your statistical chance is of being an only parent is?


I wonder how high your statistical chance of dying in poverty is?


I wonder how many times you put up with unwanted advances from a female while a work because your boss was also female?

I am glad all of those statistics are not worse than they are (for women of many ethnicities) – and here in the West that is thanks to people like Gloria Steinem, Emmeline Pankhurst and Emma Goldman –  women who fought for equal rights and had a vision of radical equality in their time. Thank goodness they did so so I can carry on the flag and am not a dependent sexual slave, beaten and knocked up perpetually! While many women  continue to be domestically abused, poor and work for mainly men it is not legal for them to simply kill us outright (in the US) anymore! Horray. With a woman at the helm of the world’s most powerful country for the first time ever, was there a chance those murder rates and poverty rates would go down even further? I like to think so.

Many of the best known early feminists in the West happened to be “white”,  and I sincerely hope other “white” women will not abandon the life-affirming and just cause of equal rights for the sexes, just because of their natural skin pigmentation. Moreover, I hope they can encourage and join in solidarity with women who do not have the same skin pigmentation.

Maybe if you anti-feminists on the left stop misdirecting your anger at fellow activists, and swallowing the propaganda Kool-aid  that kept everyone during the election from focussing on BORING OLD LEGISLATION, you can actually stop the legislated destruction of democracy by the right rather than getting more likes for trendily braying in the rightist echo chamber of anti-activism.

Is Lionel Shriver missing the point on cultural appropriation?

As author Lionel Shiver voiced controversial support of cultural appropriation, with some listeners walking out on her speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival on 8 September,  she seemed to miss an important point by looking backwards on outdated laws and cultural mores.

The advent of online self-publishing caused an explosion in uncensored writing on matters of society, politics and culture, thanks to self-publishing platforms and social media. It removed the print publisher, an historic force censoring authors and a flunkie for authority.  Self-publishing pushed us into a bold new world with potential for democratic and cultural evolution.

In response many did post views that were very unpopular, and seeing this, a huge multinational movement of armchair activists in vulnerable groups started advocating self-censorship, which was of course confusing to everybody because there was nothing in law to enshrine such censorship.

But culture races forward. People in great numbers numbers are voting with their petitions to remove offensive content. Partly as a result, companies like Facebook and Twitter, which are acting to protect commercial profits, practice censorship extra-judically. This all goes to show that companies – and perhaps an element of  conscience in society – have replaced the legal system and publisher on media law matters.

In fact, US laws enshrine freedom of expression for any side  a debate, so long as it doesn’t threaten violence. Also, libel and hate speech are punishable, but rarely are punished in practice.

The problem is all these publishing and media laws look outdated to vulnerable groups, who observe the internet allowing a rise in dangerous hate speech.

It used to be that, referencing the outdated media law and first Amendment protection, you could end the debate just by saying,  “You see it this incredibly complex, multifaceted and nuanced topic of how we should express ourselves through dress, speech and creative words in one way and I see it in another way. The laws support us in saying whatever we want and wearing what we like. It’s unlikely that I’ll get published anyway.”

This reflects back on the idea conveyed by the constitution’s writers: that free expression and speech was not considered a threat to Democracy when the first Amendment was written. Clearly, lawmakers trusted people’s words to  cause neither riots nor revolutions, but who knows what they’d have done had more people been literate. Despite high literacy rates among white nothern males it must be said most black people were illiterate.

Extremist views were seen as unlikely to even enter the consciousness of many people.

You have only to look at the campaigns of Donald  Trumps and Bernie Sanders to concede the point that the popularity of extreme views is on the rise.

On the other hand, it may be argued, you have only to look to Saudi Arabia or China, to see that censorship is the sure way to create an intolerant society ignorant of much more than the opinions it is refusing expression.

Given the wholly new circumstances politically and within the media, perhaps it is necessary to write new laws or simply evolve as a culture, in which the common practice is to shun (but not censor) those who don’t express themselves respectfully, with nuance, and with reference to how the execution of their ideas would impact a free and egalitarian democracy.

Now it may be sensible to make it common practice to simply say, “You see this incredibly complex, multifaceted and nuanced topic of how we should express ourselves through dress, speech and creative words one way, I see it in another way, and the law accords us both a right to express our non-hate speech opinions, which I acknowledge is a cornerstone of democracy, but please do also consider my own feelings, and the rise of tolerated hate speech in the West that is having a real impact on culture and potentially on democracy itself.”

Women should claim their right to kill when convenient, like men do

Being biologically female and doing something you want with your own reproductive organs that a politician hasn’t explicitly allowed can be risky for women.

In fact, many kinds of female reproductive activity are criminalised in the the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, plus all the other places that don’t allow prostitution. 

Even in the US, the introduction of “feticide laws” imprisions women for being unhealthy, sucidal, or drug addicted while pregnant.

Here is a video describing this wholesale rollback on women’s reproductive rights, and a petition to stop it.

Whether it’s a law against premarital or extramarital sex, exonerating rape, child, or forced marriage (aka rape), transferring property ownership to husbands (forced prostitution), barring breastfeeding in public, penalising female decisions to give birth or not give birth, women are required to donate their internal organs to public laws.

It’s a crime in the US to kill a fetus, a sign of the times affected by increasing poverty and political division.  Why don’t women have a ‘FTW I’ll do what I want and kill whomever’ bandwagon like pro-war, pro-gun and IS fanatics?

In cases our own government considers a situation  life-threatening, or a licence to kill has been issued, it rather frequently exonerates murderers within its ranks.

 If you can rationalise executions for example within the realm of self-defense, targeted killing by drones, policing, preventative war, revolution, or euthanasia, and you can allow IVF and surrogacy which kills foetuses, and especially capital punishment, then human life has a definitive price, and that is the convenience of a capitalist society.

According to the laws of capitalism, women should miscarry if they think it’s the easiest, most moral, cheapest or most fun thing. There is no moral absolute.

Women just haven’t the guts to take a voice and stance equivalent to the raging insanity of men who openly lobby for policies permissive of types of murder everywhere – and get their way.

On the flip side, if voluntary miscarriage is not to be legal, we should make ejaculating illegal because of all the unborn potential children in sperm.

Respect for women who want ‘casual sex’

If you’re a man who seeks out people just for sex, you’re looked at as possibly having too much self confidence or being selfish.

On the other hand, if you’re a woman who does the exact same thing,  you are viewed as someone who has no self respect.

Why the difference?

Monogamy is deemed respectable in society as it is what is viewed as benefitting a stable system of governance by men, promoting stability and equity among men, first and foremost. Our perspective is that of male authority figures.

Told by government that society treats them all as equal, men decry  a man who monopolizes more than his fair share of women, or they may smugly congratulate him, if he is their friend and can share hordes of women.

Similarly, if you are a woman and you want to pursue and have indiscriminate sex with men, you are an even greater destabilising influence on equality between men. Not only will you disturb the equity among men in access to women by, if there are a group of you, gravitating towards the most attractive men, but even the most attractive man will loose some of the control they have over you as a woman, as he can look forward to the possibility of ‘sharing’.

This is because if sexual satisfaction is a woman’s aim rather than monogamy, circumstances may arise where more women will openly chase after fewer men, a prospect many men secretly fear.  Women who are not monogamous and do not reproduce might act like men: uncontrollable and competitive in the realm of sex. These man-like women may behave differently towards men, may in fact be asexual, or they could be nymphomaniacs, as they won’t be weaned on a lifestyle of being pleasing for men like girls and women today. Many of the most young and fertile women will be shrewd and out of reach. They might choose to be ugly, successful in business, so they can be rich and buy male prostitutes.

In any case the entire ritual of sex risks becoming one in which women have a lot more control, and that could lead to other types of control.

This is why, in our narratives of fiction and policy, largely controlled by men, women practicing ‘casual sex’ lose respectable status, especially in the eyes of men.

There are harsh consequences of laws touching women especially who have casual sex for example,  children may be not provided health, care or education by the state placing an undue burden on single parents, women’s sexual health care is accessible, not paid for or is poorly distributed. At worst women are not allowed access to abortions, not allowed birth control, or whatever other pains men in government can inflict upon this offensively destabilising female sexual freedom.

Socialisation in early life

Most women are taught not be be sexually assertive. In early life, girls find their chastity and beauty are idealised. Female privilege goes along with that, wrapped in promises of happy marriage, gifts, leisure, self-indulgence, work-free lifestyle and other forms of sexual entitlement that females are bought with. Chastity is part of the price of that gift, and women sacrifice their sexual assertiveness.  Women who ‘sleep around’ may think they have forfeited all that female privilege, that they are ‘loose women’ who ‘have no self respect.’

The ingrained psychology of shame may haunt women who ‘sleep around’ despite the newfound anonymity of the internet. It is now easier than ever for women to escape a loss of social status among her peers when seeking casual sex.

Sexual assertiveness in women is something that can be very rewarding, as women often learn in later in life.  One day the sense of shame may vanish and women will wonder why they were ever tricked into thinking casual sex would degrade them to society.

Men and women also have other very valid reasons to be monogamous apart from social status:  health, children or a preference for work or other activities. But hopefully this is a helpful explanation of why dating is different for men and women.


Stop the UK’s illegal airstrikes in Syria

Amid the crickets from UK media on what is shaping up, just in the two weeks since the #parisattacks, to be another epic illegal war, this time in Syria not  Iraq, waged by our elected representatives with our tax money…

Premier David Cameron has proposed arms funding of £12 billion  to be used to fight ISIS.

Russian Media, RT comes out with this gem explaining how this is all very illegal, on top of the other practical reasons not to get involved in a war that really does not have anything to do with your immediate security:

Syria’s Government in September said essentially “Don’t bomb us or terrorists on our territory, it’s illegal” in two letters to the UN.

Illegal airstrikes in Syria are nevertheless ongoing from Russia, France and the US.

UN resolution last Friday used fuzzy language authorising countries to use “all necessary actions” to stop IS but didn’t make it legal (still) to bomb Syria, according to an article on European Journal of International Law (EJIL).
Last Wednesday, UK government pulled UK tax billions into the trigger happy mayhem.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but this looks like bit like the start of WWI to me, a terrorist event (French theatregoers vs. Arch Duke Ferdinand) resulted in proxy war and then all out war between superpowers in a divided Europe. Which was, by the way, a very nasty war.

We should avoid entering a war between superpowers if possible, no amount of tax money will repay for the lives lost.

Airstrikes require deaths that are certainty, rather than a possibility, such as they are in the world tolerating the existence of ISIS.

Wind power is not a commie scam

So, is it really true that wind power is “not fuel efficient”,  cause more emisisons than they create could not survive without commie “green” subsides and taxes to prop them up?

Research like this gets loads of press:  http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html

And it manages to confuse people.

One point to be made, when discussing subsidies, is fossil fuel infrastructure is already built and already has an access to an existing private finance regime, so of course it’s going to be cheaper.

A better way of thinking about the “is wind power expensive” question, and one which better reflects a non-too-distant future when renewables have access to more private captial and infrastructure,  is in terms of capital or investment costs per MW.

Those capital costs are either paid by the public through energy bills as profits ( in the case of fossil fuels) or through subsides ( in the case of renewables). The difference is that fossil fuel companies take the equity and the finanicial risk of building new things and that comes out of our bills as profit not subsidy. Take a look, they’re close to equal in places like India (except for Solar PV):



So is  wind power expensive? Yes, it appears to be marginally more expensive according to some estimates, and marginally less expensive according to other estimates.

This report, Samuela Bassi, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser, “The case for and against onshore wind energy in the UK” explains why it is so hard to make this case solidly as one research paper on one energy system and economy is not applicable to every energy system and every economy in the world. Costs for things like energy, fuel and taxes vary worldwide:


Estimates vary because different assumptions can be made about uncertain parameters, such as the discount rate (i.e. the cost of capital through time), the effect of the exchange rate, commodity prices (e.g. for steel) and the cost of complying with national legislation. But, despite some differences due to these assumptions, costs tend to be of the same order of magnitude. Overall, onshore wind appears likely to be one of the cheapest energy technologies available in 2030.” 

Let us suppose that the naysayers are right and wind power is  marginally more expensive, but if  you’re contemplating building renewables its because you’ve recognized that something is awry with your fossil fuel system, be it the fuel costs, the transmission, the eventual depletion of fossil fuels, or  the availability.

For example, Solar PV, while expensive in India in terms bang-per-buck (excuse the americanism), has the hidden bonus of not requiring ANY transmisison costs if it is on you rooftop, plus other benefits, such as the factyou can use it in a natural catastrophie. It also gets around the hurdle of not having consistent access to natural gas in India, a poorer coutnry prone to  fuel shortages.


Wind turbines don’t pollute

The other counterpoint to wind power, often made by misguided renewable energy advocates, is to say wind power consumes fuel emissions nearly as much as fossil fuels power does.

That argument goes like this: The machines that manufacture turbines and cars they are trucked to the run on fossil fuels. Wind turbines also consume small amounts of fossil fuel electricity when they are not running.

The above-mentioned report also explains why the emissions/damage to environment required by  wind turbines is just very tiny in comparison to fossil fuel power:

“Unlike other generation sources, wind does not require significant amounts of water, produces little waste and requires no mining or drilling to obtain fuel (IPCC, 2011). It is true that, from a life-cycle perspective, wind energy is not entirely a zero-carbon technology, as some greenhouse gas emissions are generated during the manufacturing, transport, installation, operation and decommissioning of turbines. These, however, are considered to be very limited. Global estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2011) indicate that these are of the order of 8 to 20 gCO2/kWh. By comparison, the average emissions from power generation in the UK were around 540 gCO2/kWh in 2008 (CCC, 2010). In accordance with current accounting conventions, these emissions are measured and assigned to the activities where they occur (such as transport or steel production).”


Take a look at “lifecycle emissions’ per unit of energy for each technology, which is lowest of all for Offshore Wind and Hydro:

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 13.26.22


Again, to say that wind turbines must necessarily consume fossil fuels is deceptive because the argument is based on a specific type of existing energy system: it’s all relative to where you are and what they use as an energy source there.

The typical assumption is that all other sources of electricity are fossil fuels  —-  and does not take into  account a future where all of that that power comes from another renewable source, making your turbine carbon-neutral.

It is not far fetched to assume that all cars will one day be electric and not fossil fuel powered. So arguments that say wind turbines require polluting are really misleading.

Producing energy from fossil fuels requires releasing 98% more emissions than wind energy does as fossil fuel energy continuously requires fuel… some even say wind power nearly carbon neutral.

Inefficient wind power: what does that even mean?

As far as efficiency goes, if you mean efficiency in respect to operating time for wind turbines in varied wind conditions, generally about 30% you’d be interested to know that in Europe utilisation rates/operating time per annum for gas fired power plants dropped to 37% in 2013 according to law firm Linklaters. They’re shutting down due to competition with renewables. European taxpayers still subsidise the shut-down gas fired plants with capacity mechanisms.

2012’s hands-down winner of commie subsidies handouts is fossil fuels, which governments need to keep people warm and cozy and prevent revolutions, also require subsidies, which are reportedly growing worldwide.