"Don’t Write Off the Liberals" by Melinda Jelliby

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the White nationalist journal American Renaissance eight years ago. I’m not a White nationalist, and in fact as an anti-racist, I am dead set against them, but nevertheless, there are many truisms here. First is that real liberalism only works among Whites. This may indeed be the case, though the verdict is still out on East Asians.
Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. That is, everything we hold dear. Probably only Whites are civilized enough to break up a country without massacring each other in a manner that should shame the basest of lower animals in the process. Hopefully, a post on this in the future.
This is why the White Nationalist movement always seemed to be so strange to me in its hatred for liberalism, but this article sheds some light on the reasons for that.
One of the things that I think is so great about White people is how liberal we are, how we founded and led all of the major liberal movements all over the world, and how we are presently probably the most tolerant and altruistic ethnic group on Earth. Sure this is a recent development, but so what?
White-created liberalism has been exported to much of the rest of the world, where in general it has found little favor, though things are improving somewhat.
White men treat women better than any other ethnic group on Earth, and what do we get for it but flying crockery and kicks to the balls.
Whites treat gays better than any society on Earth, but the gay rights movement is part of the White-hating Left.
Nowhere on Earth is the environmental movement more cultivated and altruistic than among Whites. What other ethnic group on Earth would deign to save bugs, beetles, weeds, minnows, field mice and flowers? There is not one.
The PC Movement, horrible as it is, has some positive aspects. For one, it is incredibly altruistic. PC must be one of the most altruistic movements on Earth. It is so altruistic that is nearly insane, and this is why it arouses such contempt among sane people.
Like Christianity, it asks us to be better than most of us are capable of being. Like Christianity, it arouses the rage of those of us who cannot be as good as these ideologies demand of us. Our moral failings shame us, and in rage we lash out at the ideology that demanded of us such rectitude.
The article is also correct that welfare probably only works in a racially homogeneous society, otherwise it turns into ethnic warfare and/or a spoils system.
That many liberals, socialists, Communists, etc. of the past were also White racists is little known. This is more to be mourned than to be lauded.
Anyway, check it out, interesting read.

Don’t Write Off the Liberals

A real racial movement
cannot be exclusively conservative.

by Melinda Jelliby

I am a liberal. I am also a white woman committed to my race and civilization. I am in favor of much of what is called “big government,” I think the Second Amendment is an anachronism, and I have been reading American Renaissance for more than five years. This may appear to be a shocking contradiction but, as I will show, it is not. Nor am I alone in my views.
Admittedly, there are not very many of us liberals-cum-racial nationalists, but I predict there will be more. The white consciousness movement needs friends — from across the political spectrum — if it is to succeed, and it should not structure itself in a way that discourages potential allies needlessly.
To read American Renaissance (AR) is to get the impression that racial consciousness is a package deal based mostly on opposition; opposition to welfare, gun control, big government, women’s liberation, homosexuals, the United Nations, free trade, and maybe even public schools and social security.
There is no logical reason racial consciousness has to be tied to these things, and to do so as explicitly as AR does risks failing to be — dare I say it? — inclusive. It is true that a clear understanding of race is today more likely to be found among people who also take certain positions generally called “conservative,” but there is nothing inherent or inevitable about this.

The Historical Perspective

As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually every aspect of what is today called “racism” was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be necessary to note that that fabric has always been made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were “liberal” by today’s standards. “Liberalism,” in that sense, was perfectly compatible with a healthy understanding of the meaning of race.
Although it probably saddens the hearts of most AR readers, it is possible to view American history as the steady triumph of “liberalism,” defined as the steady dismantling of tradition, hierarchy, and inequality in the search for equality.
The very establishment of the country as a republic rather than a monarchy was in this sense liberal, as were a long list of Constitutional and legal changes: abolition of the property qualification for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, compulsory education, the income tax, social security, organized labor, inheritance taxes, etc., etc., all the way up to the Americans With Disabilities Act and homosexual marriage.
It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing.
Whether one sees this as the march of progress or the march of folly, my point is that however bitter the debates may have been over these policies, up until just a few decades ago neither side doubted that America was a European nation that could not survive if it ceased to be European.
The suffragettes, for example, wanted votes for women — a radical idea at the time — but they were not “liberal” about race. And of course, many abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to free the slaves and then expel them from the country.
In that sense, he was more “conservative” on race than the supporters of slavery; he didn’t want blacks in the country under any circumstances. My point is that ever since the founding of this country, it has been possible to work for far-reaching, even revolutionary change without upsetting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.
It is easy to find “liberals” from America’s past who were also “racists.” Take William Jennings Bryan (1860 — 1925), certainly no reactionary. He thought blacks should be prevented from voting “on the ground that civilization has a right to preserve itself.” At the 1924 Democratic convention he spoke strongly against a motion to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, and helped defeat it.
His Populist Party running mate in 1886, Tom Watson (1856 — 1924), went even further, calling blacks a “hideous, ominous, national menace.” In 1908 Watson ran for public office “standing squarely for white supremacy.” “Lynch law is a good sign,” he wrote. “It shows that a sense of justice yet lives among the people.”
When he died, the leader of the American Socialist Party Eugene Debs (1855 — 1926) — certainly no conservative — wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic soul who fought for power over evil his whole life long in the interest of the common people, and they loved and honored him.”
The common people, certainly as represented by the Socialist Party, were not liberal on race. The socialists reached the height of their power during the early part of this century and at one time could claim 2,000 elected officials. They were split on the Negro question, but the anti-black faction was probably the stronger.
The party organ, Social Democratic Herald, argued on Sept. 14, 1901 that blacks were inferior, depraved degenerates who went “around raping women and children.” The socialist press dismissed any white woman who consorted with blacks as “depraved.”
In 1903, the Second International criticized American socialists for not speaking out against lynching and other violence against blacks. The Socialist National Quorum explained that Americans were silent on the subject because only the abolition of capitalism and the triumph of socialism could prevent the further procreation of black “lynchable human degenerates.”
At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough dealing with Negroes. There was a strong view within the party that it was capitalism that forced the races to live and work together, and that under Socialism the race problem would be solved for good by complete segregation.
In their racial views, American socialists were in complete agreement with Karl Marx. He and Friedrich Engels both despised blacks and used the English word “nigger” in private correspondence even though they wrote in German. Marx called his rival for leadership of the German socialism movement, Ferdinand Lassalle, “the Jewish nigger,” and described him thus, in a letter to Engels:

It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

Samuel Gompers: “American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism”

Samuel Gompers (1850 — 1924) epitomizes old-school American liberalism. He was a Jewish immigrant who found-ed the American Federation of Labor and worked constantly for “progressive” causes, but when it came to race, he was firmly in the white man’s corner.
In a 1921 letter to the president of Haverford College explaining the AFL’s position on immigration, he wrote: “Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil.”
In an AFL monograph entitled Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism , he wrote, “It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”
The author Jack London (1876 — 1916) was, in his day, the best known, most highly paid, and popular author in the world. He was a committed socialist but also a white supremacist. He wrote that socialism was “devised for the happiness of certain kindred races. It is devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.”
There were, however, some races that were not going to go quietly extinct but would have to be taken firmly in hand. In a little essay called “The Yellow Peril,” London worried about what would happen if the 400 million Chinese were ever taken in hand by the 45 million Japanese and led on a crusade against the white man:

Four hundred million indefatigable workers (deft, intelligent, and unafraid to die), aroused and rejuvenescent, managed and guided by forty-five million additional human beings who are splendid fighting animals, scientific and modern, constitute that menace to the Western world which has been well named the ‘Yellow Peril.’

The English philosopher Bertrand Russell, (1872–1970) was another well-known socialist free-thinker, and eternal gadfly to all things conservatives hold dear — well, almost all things. On the race question he was entirely on Jack London’s side. In a 1923 book called Prospects of Industrial Civilization he wrote:

[The] white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…
Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.

These people were socialists, but that did not blind them to race. They were for socialism and progress but whites came first.
It is also worth noting that a certain central European politician who had considerable influence on mid-century events was a National Socialist. The most famous racist in world history was no libertarian friend of big business. He was a typical rabble-rousing lefty who got his start in beerhalls, not in boardrooms.

Woodrow Wilson … League of Nations and Segregation, Too.

Woodrow Wilson is on the enemies list of many conservatives who see his love affair with the League of Nations as a precursor to national capitulation and One World Government.
But he, too, was a committed racialist who kept Princeton University all white when he was in charge, and made sure, as President, that white bureaucrats did not have to sit next to blacks. After a private showing of D.W. Griffith’s movie, Birth of a Nation, attended by selected senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court chief justice Edward White, he remarked admiringly that the film wrote “history with lightening.”
Not even feminism, which is today closely associated with anti-racism, had origins of which it can today be entirely proud. Margaret Sanger (1883 — 1966) was an early advocate of women’s liberation and was the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood.
She was a militant advocate for female suffrage, published articles on sexuality in a socialist magazine named The Call, and in 1914 founded her own feminist journal, The Woman Rebel. Sanger was a revolutionary — but not when it came to race. She liked the racial hierarchy exactly as it was, and was friends with Lothrop Stoddard, who contributed to her publication.
There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about any of these examples of liberal “racism.” The natural human perspective is that of the tribe. Within the tribe there can be libertarians, socialists, Christians, atheists, and any number of antagonists who are nevertheless loyal tribesmen.
Politics is supposed to end at the water’s edge, meaning that whatever differences Americans have among ourselves are set aside when we face the outside world. Although it never became a catch-phrase, it used to be that politics ended at the race’s edge too.
There is no reason why it should not continue to do so. There is no contradiction between virtually every traditionally liberal position and racial consciousness. In fact, many liberal policies require an understanding of racial differences. For example, I think government has an important role in helping look after people who cannot look after themselves.
But I also think people support welfare programs only when there is a shared feeling of social obligation, which cannot be felt across racial lines. Just as Americans resent it when aliens go on welfare, they resent it when people who are visibly not their kin — but happen to be citizens — take public charity.
As well they should. And no one should pretend that it is only whites who feel this way. If it turned out that whites were getting scholarships from the United Negro College Fund the black outcry would be deafening — even though most of the funding comes from whites.
I think welfare benefits at a certain level are a natural reflection of the way whites build societies. Every white nation, without exception, has moved in this direction. If the nanny state goes too far, as it did in Scandinavia, voters will rein it in, but the record suggests that welfare programs are inherent to white societies.
It is only when non-whites who do not feel the same reciprocal web of obligations to society are included in welfare that we get abuse and degeneracy so flagrant that we are tempted to throw out the whole system. But it is silly to think that just because blacks and Hispanics make a mess of welfare that welfare itself is wrong.
The emancipation of women and the loosening of sexual restraints must also be understood in a racial context. It has opened up opportunities for many white women but has condemned huge numbers of black and Hispanic women to wretched single-motherhood.
Here again we see racial traits that do — or do not — make “liberalism” possible, and it would be a mistake to condemn liberalism itself because of the havoc it has wrought on certain groups.
It is true that in Scandinavian countries illegitimacy rates are high — 65 percent in Iceland, 49 percent in Norway, and 54 percent in Sweden — but this does not mean for the Nordics what it means for Harlem.
Swedes may not be marrying but they are cohabiting in exactly the kind of stable relationship that is necessary for children and which marriage is designed to ensure. High rates of black bastardy and its attendant horrors are the price Americans pay for “liberalism,” but in Sweden high rates of bastardy are essentially benign.
There are many “liberal” movements — animal rights, environmentalism, ecumenicism, homosexual rights — that have virtually no following among non-whites, and that unmask liberalism’s best-kept and most embarrassing little secret: only whites can really be liberals (the verdict is still out on north Asians).
Try explaining women’s liberation to Africans, or telling Honduran millionaires there should be income redistribution, or arguing for religious freedom with Muslims, or telling Japanese to be nice to homosexuals, or even asking American blacks to recycle beer cans.
To repeat: A far-reaching liberalism involving redistribution of wealth requires, first of all, a homogeneous society in which people think of their nation as an extended family. Those feelings do not easily cross the racial divide.
Second, liberalism succeeds only with whites. Although they refuse to admit it, the frustration of so many of today’s liberals comes from trying to make their policies work in a multiracial society like our own and from trying to export them to places like Haiti.
Liberalism is no different from so many other practices and institutions that sprang up among whites and are not appropriate for others. Our country keeps mindlessly trying to push democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press, etc. onto people for whom these things are meaningless. But it would be a mistake to note the racial aspect of the mismatch only when a “conservative” idea or institution fails to take root among non-whites. Liberalism deserves the same analysis.
Let me explain. It seems to me that AR has come very close to suggesting that private ownership of firearms is appropriate for whites but not for blacks. In effect it is saying it is superficial to conclude, as liberals do, that guns are to blame for our rates of violence.
AR loves to go the NRA one better and argue that not only do people rather than guns kill people, it is certain people who kill people. Don’t throw out the Second Amendment, says AR; wake up to race.
Likewise, in the November 1999, issue there is an O Tempora item about the disproportionate number of non-whites who fall afoul of the University of Virginia honor code.
AR writes that if non-whites succeed in junking the honor code, “one more institution built by whites for whites will have been set aside because non-whites could not meet its demands.” Once again, the AR argument is that we must not consider institutions or ideologies to be failures just because non-whites wreck them.
AR should judge liberalism by the same standards. It should be open to the argument that, like private ownership of weapons and the UVA honor code, liberalism is perfectly sound when practiced by the people among whom it originated and for which it was designed.
To expand distinctively white institutions to include others is like putting a saddle on a cow. Do not be unfairly selective in this insight and apply it only when non-whites destroy “conservative” ideals. They destroy “liberal” ideals, too.
A dedicated liberal with any sense of the practical should be a dedicated separatist.
It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing. You may disagree all you like with Margaret Sanger, Jack London, Tom Watson, and the turn-of-the-century socialists, but they had no illusions about race.
The fatal mistake was when liberalism jumped the tracks and went soft-headed about blacks. Two very important things happened as a result. First, liberalism became hated as never before. To be sure, there were fights over women’s suffrage, the League of Nations, the New Deal, and all the rest, but only in recent times have large numbers of Americans thought of something called “liberalism” as pure poison.
They hate liberalism because of its association with affirmative action and non-white immigration but also because of liberalism’s very evident failure when applied to non-whites, particularly blacks. Liberalism became associated — unnecessarily and illogically in my view — with racial idiocy, and at the same time, because its programs were being applied to non-whites for whom they could not possibly work, liberalism appeared to be inherently defective.
People also hate liberalism because it was only when racial equality became one of its central goals that liberalism grew spiteful and incapable of gentlemanly disagreement. It was only when anti-racism became its central project that liberalism started using police-state psychology and began to excommunicate opponents.
There were no jokes about the tyranny of “political correctness” until liberalism was poisoned by racial idiocy and became snarling and sanctimonious. It should be possible to mount a reasoned, libertarian attack on the welfare state without being called a Nazi and driven from respectable society.
One should be able to argue for indirect election of senators, raising the voting age, restoring the property qualification for voters, or even establishing a monarchy without being considered much more than an eccentric. However, as soon as any of these ideas can be seen as hurting non-whites today’s liberalism requires that their advocates be banished to outer darkness.
Racial foolishness has made liberalism so small-minded and intolerant that it can no longer muster wide support for the genuine benefits it has to offer.

Possible Future Allies?

The second thing that happened was that when liberalism and then the country lost its nerve on race and set in motion trends that could reduce whites to a minority, it meant that liberals had written their own death sentence. If the country really does become an Afro-Caribbean-Hispanic mish-mash it is not going to meet either the racial or economic requirements for liberalism.
You cannot have European-style welfare in a country with a Third-World population or a Third-World economy. It is all very well to pass laws that guarantee universal medical care, but if large parts of the economy are off the books, everyone cheats on taxes, and the doctors are on the take, you end up with private medicine anyway.
In its new, anti-white incarnation, liberalism will destroy liberalism. In order to survive, liberalism must reverse course on race. Believe it or not, some of us liberals understand this.

Was Anti-Racism Inevitable?

In objection to everything I have written so far, some would argue that “anti-racism” is inherent to liberalism, that it was only a matter of time before the leveling impulse that characterizes so much of liberalism would eventually get around to race. This may sound plausible but it is wrong.
Turn once again to the historical record. Marx, Engels, and the rest of the most determined levelers drew the line at race, as did virtually every historical figure who was “liberal” by today’s standards. They were not cleverly hiding an anti-racist agenda; like everyone else, they knew that politics stops at the race’s edge.
What’s more, liberalism always draws lines and will always be beaten back when it fails to draw lines. The greatest defeat of the leveling impulse was, of course, the collapse of Communism, but there have been other defeats: The states refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The hippie movement, communes, and Israeli kibbutzes have come and gone.
Everyone now recognizes that capitalism creates wealth and competition stimulates efficiency. No one thinks foreign aid will cure the world’s problems.
But perhaps the most powerful argument against the view that anti-racism is inherent to liberalism is that not even passionate liberals are true anti-racists. There is no end to liberal hypocrisy about race. The judge who orders school busing but sends his children to private school, the “diversity” advocate who lives in a white neighborhood — these are now stock figures in the American comedy.
Not one college official or corporate executive has ever offered his own job to an underqualified non-white in the name of “diversity.” And this, of course, is why two aspects of the anti-racist movement — affirmative action and school busing — are on the ropes. Not even liberals are willing to send their children to school with blacks or be elbowed out of jobs.
I would add that it is only on race that liberalism is so offensively hypocritical. The people who want stronger gun laws, no tariff barriers, world government, high taxes, and more government look forward to living in the world they wish to legislate into existence. They genuinely don’t want gun laws for everyone else but concealed carry for themselves. There can still be honest, sincere liberalism — except when it comes to race.
I wish I could say that liberals were soon going to wake up from this anti-racist nightmare, and that Democrats will eventually become so ashamed of saying one thing and doing another that they will stop saying anything at all about race. Alas, not so. At one level my liberal friends know that they and their associates are hypocrites, but this doesn’t bother them.
They are like Christians who thrill to the gospel of charity and humility but ignore it in their daily lives — and who still consider themselves strong Christians. When everyone is a hypocrite there are no penalties for hypocrisy, and when there are no penalties there is no pressure to change.
At the same time, most liberals make the same mistake about race that AR does: They think anti-racism is inseparable from liberalism. Their commitment to “social justice” (within the tribe) is far stronger than their commitment to non-whites, but they think they must give up the former if they abandon the latter.
Finally, liberals have so great an investment in anti-racism they cannot possibly write it off now. It is hard enough to change intellectual course in middle age; for most people it is impossible if it means conceding that people they hate were right after all.
Can you imagine a Kennedy or a Clinton making even the slightest concession if it meant he agreed — if only in part — with David Duke? Not even the most overwhelming proof can drive men to that kind of humiliation. The battles over race have been too vicious for liberals to admit gracefully that they were wrong.
So what are we to do? First of all, it can be useful simply to understand that liberalism and anti-racism are not permanently linked, and to bear in mind which is the real enemy. Just because you meet someone who is “liberal” on some issue, do not assume he could never be an ally. If we are trying to build a movement for our people, it is counterproductive and wrong to think it must be exclusively conservative.
If this is to be a larger movement, we should not tie racial consciousness to any political positions. We need all the friends and help we can get, and dear though they may be to the hearts of conservatives, the Second Amendment, outlawing abortion, and prayer in the schools count for nothing compared to a common position on race.
For the time being, it is undoubtedly true that our allies are more likely to read National Review than Nation or New Republic, but there is no logical reason why race cannot eventually become like the war in Kosovo, opinions on which cut across the usual divide.
I predict that some day this will happen, and AR and other “conservative” whites should not prevent or delay this. In order for racial consciousness to reach anything like the critical mass necessary for us to change this country we need a lot more people who are willing to take a stand as whites.
The people who make that happen are not all going to be gun-toting government-haters. They are not all going to be members of the Council of Conservative Citizens. They are going to be proud, healthy-minded white people who disagree on a lot of things, but who see eye to eye on the only thing that really matters now, and that is race.

Ralph Peters Advocates Killing War Journalists

He is affiliated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs). This is definitely one of the most evil organizations on Earth. If you want to know who drummed up the Iraq War, look no further than to these maniacs. This place is Neoconservative Central. These are basically rightwing super-Zionist and Cold Warrior Jews with lots of Gentiles, especially former and current US military, sprinkled among them. For instance, Dick Cheney is a member.
They have a very subversive program that sends US military officers to Israel in order to more or less tie the US and Israeli militaries together by an umbilical cord. After the tours, the officers usually become strong supporters of the Israelis.
One of their journals is called the Journal of International Security Affairs. This where Peters’ screed appeared. Peters has said many a crazy thing in recent years, and he was recently behind a neocon “thought experiment” in which the regime change was accomplished in many Middle Eastern states and states seen as hostile to US and Israeli interests were chopped up into bite-sized chunks.

The borders of the Middle East redrawn by neocon maniac Ralph Peters.
The borders of the Middle East redrawn by neocon maniac Ralph Peters.

The map is a bit difficult to follow. Basically, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, and Pakistan have all gotten chopped up to one degree or another. A hatchet especially has been taken to supposed US ally Saudi Arabia. Iran has been lopped up good and Pakistan doesn’t have a lot left of it. This map is indicate of the fears of the Pakistani, Syrian, Iranian, Saudi and Turkish states and it shows why they won’t acquiese to separatist movements in their borders.
The map actually makes sense in a way, but since it is being drawn up by US imperialism and International Zionism, no country in the region should go along with it. If the place ever settles down, maybe it might make sense. A big problem here is that Saudi Arabia and Iran lost most of their oil and gas fields to something called the Arab Shia State. It will be a cold day in Hell when either country lops off their prime natural resources that their whole economy is based on.
Jordan and Yemen gain territory at the expense of the Saudis. New states called Free Baluchistan and Free Kurdistan impinge on Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Azerbaijan grows and takes a bite out of Iran. Gaza is donated to Egypt, who doesn’t want anything to do with it. A Sunni Iraqi state is lopped off, seen as a terrorist entity, and hence denied any real resource base in oil and gas, all of that going either to Free Kurdistan or the Arab Shia State.
It’s funny how US imperialism opposes all separatism except when it involves enemies of the US. Then we become separatist advocates. Realpolitik was always the most cynical and disgusting kind of game, with no morals anywhere in sight. Figures Kissinger thought it up. The guy is basically a functioning psychopath. Sublimination is nothing new. Winston Churchill could have been Charles Manson, but for some self-controls.
Peters is a former US ,military intelligence officer who served for many years, but he never saw any combat. That doesn’t stop him from calling real vets serving in office “war virgins” for not attacking whoever he thinks they ought to attack today.

Final Katrina Death Toll at 4,081

Repost from the old blog. I received a lot of criticism for this, but this is still probably the best death toll for direct and indirect deaths for Hurricane Katrina out there.
I used my own total of 1,723 direct deaths combined with testimony about a study done after the hurricane that showed a huge increase in excess deaths in the period after the hurricane was over. The resulting total of 4,081 is probably the most accurate total out there for direct and indirect deaths from the storm so far, unless someone has added in some more indirect deaths. This figure came under some criticism, but it is based on the solid epidemiological theory of excess mortality.
My official death toll of 1,723, representing deaths due to immediate and direct effects of the storm, has not changed since August 22, 2006. However, we now have a fascinating document that comes from testimony delivered to Congress, which has caused me to raise the total deaths from Katrina due to direct and immediate plus delayed effects to 4,081.
For those who are interested, a list of 1,195 people who were killed in the hurricane is available here.
The testimony was part of a hearing titled Post Katrina Health Care: Continuing Concerns and Immediate Needs in the New Orleans Region given before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on March 13, 2007.
The list of speakers is here. Of particular interest in terms of the Katrina death toll was the testimony given by a physician, Dr. Kevin Stephens, Sr., Director pf the New Orleans Health Department.
In his testimony (pdf), Stephens points out that New Orleans already had serious public health problems before the hurricane, including large numbers of poor and uninsured people. The number of doctors has been reduced by 70% and the number of hospital beds in Orleans Parish has been reduced by 75%.
In some areas such as the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East in Orleans Parish and Chalmette and other places in St. Bernard Parish, residents have no access to health care whatsoever. Mental health is another serious problem: even last year, 20% of residents reported suffering from severe stress and depression.
Yet the number of mental health inpatient beds has been reduced by 83% and the number of psychiatrists has dropped by 90%. Residents reported observing a larger than usual number of death notices in the newspaper, even long after Katrina and into 2006. At the same time, even months after the storm, residents reported going to more funerals than they ever had.
These anecdotal reports caused Stephens and a team to undertake a study to count the number of death notices in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and compare it to a reference year which would serve as a baseline. 2003 was chosen as a reference year. The data can be seen on page nine of the testimony linked above.
In the first six months of 2003, 5,544 deaths were counted. In the first six months of 2006, 7,902 were counted, an increase of 2,358 deaths over baseline in the post-Katrina period. Based on this, we will assign 2,358 deaths as caused by the accelerated death rates that occurred in New Orleans even long after the storm.
Although the population of New Orleans is only 1/2 what it was prior to the storm, the obituaries covered not only New Orleans but also included many of the refugees tossed about to various parts of the country.
Based on this new information, we can add the previous toll of 1,723 to the new post-Katrina figure of 2,358 to posit a new unofficial death toll of 4,081. Possible causes of the excess deaths in 2006 include stress, suicide, pollution, contamination, impoverishment and the devastation of the heath sector after Katrina. For instance, the suicide rate tripled in the first 10 months after Katrina.
Thanks to Ezra Boyd of Louisiana State University for sending me this information.

Louisiana 20061: Tue., Mar. 13, 2007: 2,358
Louisiana:       Mon., Aug. 2, 2006:  1,464
Mississippi:     Tue., Jan. 24, 2006:   238
Florida:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:     14
Georgia:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:      2
Alabama:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:      2
Ohio2:           Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:     2
Kentucky3:       Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:     1
Total:                                4,081

Footnoted totals are controversial. Explanations for controversial totals follows:
1The explanation for the 2,358 excess deaths in the first six months of 2006 as compared to the baseline of the first six months of 2003, presumably due to various effects of Hurricane Katrina, is above. This total reflects deaths due to delayed effects, whereas the other figures all represent more immediate and direct effects of the storm.
2The two Ohio victims are Cassondra Ground, 19, of Monroeville, Ohio, and Thelma Niedzinski, 84, of Norwalk, Ohio. Both were killed in a car accident near Monroeville, Ohio on August 30, 2005. The Ohio State Highway Patrol felt that a wet road caused by Hurricane Katrina caused the car accident. See Ohioans Focus on Helping Katrina Victims, Jay Cohen, Associated Press, August 31, 2005.
3The Kentucky victim was Deanna Petsch, 10, of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. On August 29, 2005, she fell into a Hurricane Katrina-swollen ditch in Hopkinsville and drowned. See Storm Surge: State Gets Soaked, City Avoids Major Flooding, Homes, Life Lost in Hopkinsville, Sheldon S. Shafer and James Malone, The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal, August 31, 2005.
Update: This post has been linked on the always-excellent blog Majikthise and criticized in the comments there. The comments question how the 2,368 excess deaths after Katrina can possibly be attributed to Hurricane Katrina. Answer: They cannot.
But using that number is perfectly in accord with the Theory of Excess Mortality. That theory is widely used by epidemiologists, and was used by Les Roberts’ team to come up with the figure of 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the US invasion.
Dr. Gideon Polya has done a lot of work in the area of excess mortality and avoidable mortality, some of which has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Examples of his work are here, here and here.
Can we prove that anything in particular is causing excess mortality in any particular place, absent disaster or war? Nope. But something is killing people in various places at various times at an excessive rate. Anecdotal evidence indicated that many more people than normal were dying in New Orleans in the three to nine months post-Hurricane Katrina. Something was killing them.
They just didn’t up and decide that 2006 was a nice year for dying. Barring other reasonable factors, we may assume that Hurricane Katrina had something to do with the excess deaths in New Orleans. The theory and methodology used in my Katrina excess deaths post in no less rigorous than that used by Roberts, Polya and epidemiologists everywhere.
This comment in the same thread on Majikthise backs up my comments quite well.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Final Katrina Direct Death Toll At 1,723

Repost from the old blog. This is my tally of the final death toll from Hurricane Katrina from a number of sources. I am not sure if it differs a bit from the official toll, but if it does, I am confident that my total if the better one. It was quoted as the official toll on Wikipedia for a long time.
Update: The indirect Katrina death toll has risen from 1,723 to 4,098 as of March 13, 2007. See my post, Final Katrina Death Toll at 4,081 for details. A list of 1,195 people who were killed in Hurricane Katrina is available on this website here.
For what it’s worth, Seth Abramson, an attorney/poet blogger, has been hammering away at the discrepancies in Mississippi’s death toll for some time now, making various allegations that Haley Barbour is hiding the real death toll in Mississippi.
It is true that the suicide rate in New Orleans went up after Hurricane Katrina for a number of months, but the only figures available are per 1000,000 population figures, and until we can determine the population of New Orleans month by month post-Katrina, there is no way to figure out what that number is.
It is helpful to look at a couple of overviews of what Hurricane Katrina actually was. First, a timeline, and then a fact sheet (both the timeline and the fact sheet are from the producers of Surviving Katrina, a promising documentary directed by Phil Craig and produced by the Discovery Channel. This film will be showing on August 27 at 9 PM across the US:


Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Hurricane Katrina starts forming over the Bahamas and is identified by the National Hurricane Centre at 5 PM as Tropical Depression 12.
Wednesday, August 24
Tropical Depression 12 strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Katrina.
Thursday, August 25
Katrina strikes Florida as a Category 1 hurricane with winds of 80 MPH.
Long-range forecasting predicts Katrina will make landfall in the Florida Panhandle, well to the East of New Orleans. It is expected that Katrina will move immediately in a northward direction.
Friday, August 26
At 5 PM, Hurricane Katrina moves into the Gulf of Mexico and quickly grows into a category 2 hurricane with 100 MPH winds. As Hurricane Katrina enters the Gulf of Mexico conditions are perfect for a hurricane to rapidly intensify:
1) Warm ocean temperatures
2) Moist atmospheric conditions
3) A lack of wind sheer (winds that disrupt the motion of a storm)
High pressures over the Gulf drive Katrina further west. Katrina is moving in a westerly direction and the National Hurricane Center forecast track shifts towards New Orleans. The Florida Panhandle is no longer in Katrina’s sights and landfall is now expected somewhere in Mississippi or Louisiana.
Saturday, August 27
At 4 AM, Katrina is now a Category 3 storm and continues to move in a westerly direction. Katrina also continues to rapidly intensify due to the sustained conditions for hurricane growth in the Gulf of Mexico.
The hurricane forecast track has Katrina moving northwest over the next 24 hours towards New Orleans at a speed of 7 MPH. Katrina is roughly 435 miles south of the Mississippi River.
A Category 5 hurricane is a very rare occurrence; typically we only see one every two years in the Atlantic. Conditions in recent years, however, have been ideal for the fueling of massive Category 5 hurricanes.
Sunday, August 28
At 1 AM, Katrina is upgraded to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 145 MPH. Six hours later, Katrina is upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 MPH.
The National Weather Service issues this Advisory at 7 AM:

A Hurricane Warning is in effect for the north central gulf coast from Morgan City, Louisiana eastward to the Alabama/Florida border – including the City of New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain – preparations to protect life and property should be rushed to completion.

At 4 PM, the National Weather Service continues to update on the potential threat to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast from storm surge:

Coastal storm surge flooding of 18 to 22 feet above normal tide levels – locally as high as 28 feet – along with large and dangerous battering waves – can be expected near and to the east of where the center makes landfall. Some levees in New Orleans area could be overtopped. Significant storm surge will occur elsewhere along the central and northeastern Gulf of Mexico Coast.

Monday, August 29
In the early hours of Monday morning, Katrina begins to weaken and by 2 AM is already classed by the National Weather Service as a Category 4 storm.
At 5 AM, one hour before Katrina’s first landfall, Katrina’s associated storm surge begins to cross Lake Borgne from the Gulf of Mexico and starts to batter the eastern flood defenses of Greater New Orleans. The storm surge is also carried towards the city’s Industrial Canal and Lake Pontchartrain along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Storm surge heights at landfall peaked at around 25 feet as they came ashore – the largest recorded in U.S. history – breaking the previous record set by Hurricane Camille in 1969. Storm surges can be the most devastating part of a hurricane and in Katrina’s case, the storm surges proved much more destructive than the hurricane winds.
Hurricane Katrina makes landfall over the Mississippi Delta as a near Category 4 storm and then makes another landfall on the Mississippi-Louisiana border as a Category 3 hurricane. Hurricane Katrina’s core winds hit the Mississippi Coast and New Orleans experiences the weaker winds on the western side of Katrina.
These winds, moving from the North to the South, create a second storm surge on Lake Pontchartrain – about 11 feet high – which races towards the northern flood defenses of the city, ultimately leading to the breaches in the 17th Street and London Avenue drainage canals that flood Metropolitan New Orleans.
By 2 PM Katrina has weakened to a Category 2 storm as it continues to move inland. By Tuesday, Katrina weakens to a tropical depression.

Hurricane Katrina Fact Sheet

Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States, killing over 1,700 people.

  • The confirmed death toll (total of direct and indirect deaths) stood at 1,723, mainly from Louisiana (1,464) and Mississippi (238). However, 135 people remain categorized as missing in Louisiana, so this number is not final. Many of the deaths are indirect. It is almost impossible to determine the exact cause of some of the fatalities.
  • Katrina was the largest hurricane of its strength to approach the United States in recorded history; its sheer size caused devastation over 100 miles (160 km) from the center. The storm surge caused major or catastrophic damage along the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, including the cities of Mobile, Alabama, Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi, and Slidell, Louisiana.
  • Katrina was the eleventh named storm, the fifth hurricane, the third major hurricane, and the second category 5 hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. It was also the sixth strongest hurricane ever recorded, and the third strongest landfalling U.S. hurricane ever recorded.
  • New Orleans’ levee failures were found to be primarily the result of system design flaws, combined with the lack of adequate maintenance. According to an investigation by the National Science Foundation, those responsible for the conception, design, construction, and maintenance of the region’s flood-control system apparently failed to pay sufficient attention to public safety.
  • Hurricane Katrina was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, with estimated damages resulting in $75 billion (in 2005 US dollars).
  • > As of April 2006, the Bush Administration has sought $105 billion for repairs and reconstruction in the region. This does not account for damage to the economy caused by potential interruption of the oil supply and exports of commodities such as grain.
  • More than seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Kuwait made the largest single pledge, $500 million; other large donations were made by Qatar ($100 million), India, China (both $5 million), Pakistan ($1.5 million), and Bangladesh ($1 million).
  • The total shut-in oil production from the Gulf of Mexico in the six-month period following the hurricane was approximately 24% of the annual production and the shut-in gas production for the same period was about 18%.
  • The forestry industry in Mississippi was also affected, as 1.3 million acres of forest lands were destroyed. The total loss to the forestry industry due to Katrina is calculated to rise to about $5 billion.
  • Hundreds of thousands of local residents were left unemployed, which will have a trickle-down effect as lower taxes are paid to local governments. Before the hurricane, the region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, with 600,000 of them in New Orleans. It is estimated that the total economic impact in Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion.
  • The American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Common Ground Collective, Emergency Communities, and many other charitable organizations provided housing, food, and water to victims of the storm. These organizations also provided an infrastructure for shelters throughout Louisiana and other states that held thousands of refugees.
Louisiana:   Mon., Aug. 2, 2006:   1,464
Mississippi: Tue., Jan. 24, 2006:  238
Florida:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   14
Georgia:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   2
Alabama:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   2
Ohio1:       Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:  2
Kentucky2:   Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:  1
Total:                             1,723

Footnoted totals are controversial. Explanations for controversial totals follows:
1The two Ohio victims are Cassondra Ground, 19, of Monroeville, Ohio, and Thelma Niedzinski, 84, of Norwalk, Ohio. Both were killed in a car accident near Monroeville, Ohio on August 30, 2005. The Ohio State Highway Patrol felt that a wet road caused by Hurricane Katrina caused the car accident. See Ohioans Focus on Helping Katrina Victims, Jay Cohen, Associated Press, August 31, 2005.
2The Kentucky victim was Deanna Petsch, 10, of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. On August 29, 2005, she fell into a Hurricane Katrina-swollen ditch in Hopkinsville and drowned. See Storm Surge: State Gets Soaked, City Avoids Major Flooding, Homes, Life Lost in Hopkinsville, Sheldon S. Shafer and James Malone, The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal, August 31, 2005.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

List of Hurricane Katrina Victims

Repost from the old blog. This is to the best of my knowledge, the best and most up to date list of the victims of Hurricane Katrina that available. It was very hard to find, hidden in an obscure corner of the Net, and soon after I grabbed it, the professor who put it up there took it down. To my knowledge, he has not reposted it. If there is a better one out there, let me know.
Finally, at long last, we have an accessible list of victims of Hurricane Katrina. It’s not complete at all, as it only lists 1,195 victims, but it’s a start anyway. The Louisiana Health Department has released a list of 828 victims, but I don’t know where to find that list, and it’s incomplete anyway.
Listing of victims has been quite haphazard. Mississippi listed those directly killed by the storm, while Louisiana chose to list indirect deaths. John Mutter, a professor of geophysics at Colombia University’s Earth Institute, was frustrated by the seeming lack of an accurate death toll, so he decided to try to tally up his own.
Mutter wants a complete list of everyone killed by the storm, directly and indirectly. His list is now pretty much hidden and very hard to find, but in March 2007 I did manage to track it down to an obscure website on Mutter’s homepage. However, he has now removed the list and is not responding to emails about it. I have placed the file here.
The file is an Excel spreadsheet and you need to have a program capable of reading Excel spreadsheets in order to read the document.
I also have a large and detailed report in pdf that breaks the deaths down into all sorts of categories. It is available here.
The list has 1,195 victims listed on it, with a few facts about each victim included in their entry. Mutter’s list is dated October 26, 2006 and there does not seem to be a more updated list. Mutter’s list contains names that are not on the official state tallies. Here is the website for Mutter’s project at Colombia. You can also send him data on any hurricane deaths that may not appear on the list from a form on the site.
As this article makes clear, it seems there are storm victims who have not made it onto either list. Some are well-known, such as Sgt. Paul Accardo of the New Orleans Police Department, who committed suicide a mere six days after the storm.
Others include Jerome “Slim Rome” Spears and his fiance Rachel Harris. Spears shot Harris to death and then killed himself in a rental home in Atlanta, where they had moved as unemployed refugees after the storm.
Some are elderly, such as Dorothy and Sam Cerniglia and Yvonne Aubry. All three saw their health begin a rapid slide to death after the storm hit, dying of conditions that previously had been well-managed.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Maps of Afghan Provinces

Repost from the old site. These are some of the coolest and best maps of Afghanistan you can find anywhere on the Net. From the UN.
We are proud be able to offer a number of excellent Afghan provincial maps from the UN on this website. These maps are quite hard to find, and they are the best English-language Afghan maps I have ever found. I have used them a lot in my Afghanistan updates that I used to regularly publish on this blog.
I don’t have maps of all of the Afghan provinces, but I have maps of the most unstable provinces where most of the fighting is occurring these days. All maps require Adobe Reader.
List of maps:
Map of Badghis Province
Map of Baghlan Province
Map of Balkh Province
Map of Farah Province
Map of Faryab Province
Map of Ghazni Province
Map of Helmand Province
Map of Herat Province
Map of Kabul Province
Map of Kandahar Province
Map of Khost Province
Map of Kunar Province
Map of Kunduz Province
Map of Laghman Province
Map of Nangarhar Province
Map of Nuristan Province
Map of Paktia Province
Map of Paktika Province
Map of Parwan Province
Map of Samangan Province
Map of Uruzgan Province
Map of Zabul Province
Enjoy the maps! If you cannot find a particular town on a provincial map, you may wish to look at one of the district maps. We also have many excellent Afghanistan district maps available for download here.

Update on Conditions in Nepal

This is an excellent piece on the events in Nepal. I am not sure how much you all know about what is going on in Nepal. A Maoist party led a revolution for 11 years that killed about 13,000 people.
The upshot was the end of the Nepalese monarchy (the only officially Hindu state and the only Hindu monarchy on Earth) and laying the groundwork for a true parliamentary and democratic system. Elections were held, and the Maoists won a plurality of 40%. They formed a government with themselves at the head. As part of peace accords, the Maoist army and the Royalist army were supposed to be integrated.
The decision to end armed struggle was not taken lightly. The leadership, centered around a man named Prachandra, decided pragmatically to give it up and try for power in democratic elections. This caused a huge uproar in Maoist circles worldwide, as they were accused of selling out and parliamentary cretinism.
The hardliners advocated that the Maoists should continue armed struggle until they seized state power and then install a dictatorship of the proletariat. Prachandra has made many eclectic statements, rejecting much of Communist history as old hat and not relevant to today’s conditions in which the USSR is gone, China hardly supports revolution and imperialism controls the globe.
He has said that the party is committed to democracy and that if they help the people as much as they hope to, they should be re-elected over and over. This is step in the right direction. The dictaproles have committed lots of crimes and killed, tortured and imprisoned so many people, one wonders why people still support such a formation.
My own party, the CPUSA, in its theoretical journal, says that it now believes that socialism requires “complete democracy.”
For the US, the CPUSA has always advocated what Gus Hall called “Bill of Rights Socialism.” That is, if they were in power, we would have complete civil rights as we do now and the party would have to stand for election regularly. As high-ranking party member told me that the reason for that was because Americans are used to civil liberties and no Communist party could succeed in the US without acknowledging that.
My party also supports the Chinese Communist Party, which is using lots of capitalism. There is just a whole lot of rethinking going on in Left circles these days.
One of the parties behind the furor over the Nepalese Maoists is a US Maoist party called the RCP-USA, the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is a small party that has never been able to do much of anything in the US.
They have been issuing ferocious denunciations of the Nepalese Maoists for “selling out.” I and many others think this is ridiculous. The Nepalese party has actually fought a successful revolution and is in power in the government. The RCP has never been able to accomplish anything. Who are they to tell the Nepalese what to do?
The rest of the piece should be pretty self-explanatory. It looks like much of the non-Maoist 60% of the government cobbled together some sort of a government and took out the Maoists. Perfectly legal I guess.
What’s particularly disgusting is the behavior of other Nepalese Communist parties, who have refused to work with the Maoists and have lined up behind feudalism, the monarchists and reaction. These parties were in parliament for over a decade during the 1990’s and were never able to accomplish a damned thing. Talk about useless.
The Madhesis are an indigenous group in the South down by the Indian border. The Terai are another indigenous ethnic group in the same region. They are analogous to the scheduled tribes of India and are at the bottom of the totem pole. The whole matter of the Madhesis and Terai is very confusing – a partial overview is here.
The Madhesis formerly resided in India, but the border moved when King Shah of Nepal conquered the southern border region 250 years ago from an Indian princely state. The Madhesis are so named because this region is both where the Buddha, revered by Buddhism, was born, and were the Hindu religion says Lord Sita, heroine of the Ramayan Epic, was born. The Madhesis have been living in that region for possibly thousands of years. See the comments at the end of the site for more.

Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) or CPN (UML) is the name of one of the sellout Communist parties.
Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or UCPN (M) is the Maoist party.
Nepali Congress (NC) is a useless middle of the road party modeled after India’s Congress Party. It either supports monarchism and feudalism or it won’t fight them.
Right now, the Maoists are out of power and are saying that they will not cooperate with the new government.

Nepal’s Revolution At Crossroads

By Walter Smolarek

26 May, 2009

Nestled in the Himalayas, the little-known nation of Nepal has been set ablaze. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and the possibility of armed struggle characterize the tremendous upheaval that has come about in the world’s newest republic. The peasants, the workers, the slum dwellers, and all other oppressed people are standing up in an effort to finish off what remains of the feudal system that has exploited them for so long.
The past month has been a decisive period in Nepal’s revolution, and it’s important to cut through the ruling class distortions and understand what really went on. Before reading this, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the general situation by reading my last article on the subject as this analysis does not include any background information.

UCPN (M)’s Time in Government

When Prachanda became Prime Minister of Nepal, many thought that the liberation they had struggled for had finally come. The Maoists’ vision for New Nepal was crystallized in their budget, presented in late 2008.
It included provisions for a literacy program, women’s empowerment, building vital infrastructure, redistributing land to the peasantry, and eliminating poverty (1). In addition, one of UCPN (M)’s major goals was to integrate their People’s Liberation Army into the Nepalese Army, in order to complete the peace process and neutralize the threat posed by this traditionally royalist force.
However, what transpired in the following months was, despite some significant positive steps, a disappointment for many. The blame for the government’s inability to carry out their programs rests, however, not with the Maoists, but with the reactionary opposition and their weak-willed “ally”, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist).
The Nepali Congress, representing the views of the Nepalese capitalists who began moving closer and closer to the feudalists (with the support of Indian expansionism and US imperialism), obstructed the day-to-day activities of the new Republican government. The Maoists should have been able to overcome this impediment, but they relied on CPN (UML) for a majority in the Constituent Assembly.
This vital partner, as the months went by, became more and more counter-revolutionary as the aggressively anti-Maoist K.P. Oli rose to a position of great influence within the party.
As the seemingly endless political deadlock ran on, many began to wonder if this frustrating period had eroded some of the mass support for UCPN (M). A definitive answer was given after the April 10th by-election held in six districts in Nepal. It turned out that confidence in Prachanda’s government had increased rather than decreased.
The Maoists previously held two of the six vacated seats and won three by prevailing in what used to be a Nepali Congress stronghold (2). With this renewed mandate, the revolutionary government went about tackling the issue of army integration, which had been delayed due to resistance by the right-wing leadership of the Nepalese Army.

The Soft Coup

Fed up with the Army’s flagrant disregard for the constitution and commands from the Ministry of Defense, the Maoist government requested that Chief of Army Staff (the highest ranking officer in the armed forces) Rookmangud Katawal submit a written clarification explaining why he had disobeyed direct orders.
In the most arrogant way, Katawal dragged his feet and gathered political support from right-wing political parties like the Nepali Congress and the Oli faction of the CPN (UML) as well as foreign powers, especially India. The capitalists, the feudalists, the military, and the imperialists began to unite to preserve the status-quo; the elites were closing ranks. In response to these outrageous political moves, Prachanda fired the insubordinate Katawal on May third.
The next day, the will of the democratically elected government was overturned in what many are calling a “soft” coup. President Yadav of the Nepali Congress, who occupies a largely ceremonial role that his party managed to acquire due to disunity between the two major communist parties, grossly overstepped his authority and instructed Katawal to continue as head of the Nepali Army.
Stripped of the power vested in him by the people of Nepal, Prachanda resigned from his post and vowed to intensify the struggle against anti-change elements.
This was carried out, and is being carried out, simultaneously in both the Supreme Court and in the streets. The former is somewhat of a formality done in order to emphasize the anti-democratic nature of the Maoists’ opponents.
The demonstrations, however, are highly successful, with thousands of people turning out daily all over the nation and especially in the capital, Kathmandu. Participating are not only affiliates of UCPN (M) but workers and students of all stripes. In addition, the Maoist legislators held demonstrations in the Constituent Assembly itself, making it impossible for the state to function during this crisis. This set the backdrop for the political wrangling that ensued following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

Forming a New Government

As high-level talks went on between the parties, three proposals emerged. First, there was the possibility of another Maoist-led government. Those backing this solution included (obviously) UCPN (M), the faction of the MJF loyal to party Chairman Upendra Yadav, and several small left-wing parties. The large and militant mobilizations also aided the drive for Maoist leadership.
The other main option was a CPN (UML) led government, a notion supported strongly and immediately by the Nepali Congress. Proponents persuaded the TMLP and Sadbhavana Party (two of the less progressive Terai-based parties) early on and began working on the MJF.
It managed to split the party between those that supported Yadav and those that supported the pro-UML parliamentary leader Bijay Kumar Gachchhedar as well as ascertain the support of a few left-wing groups with grudges against the Maoists.
Finally, there had been talk of forming a national unity government including the UML, NC, UCPN (M), and the Madhesi parties. While this idea was supported tacitly by the faction of the UML aligned with the party’s leader Jhalanath Khanal against Oli, it was largely the product of frustration at the political deadlock and panic at the outpouring of support for the Maoists.
After three weeks of negotiations and demonstrations, the political elite had managed to impose the second option, a UML-led government, on the nation. Having cajoled enough of the smaller parties into supporting their agenda and having been able to bypass the Maoist demonstrations within the Constituent Assembly, Madhav Kumar Nepal (an ally of K.P. Oli) was sworn in as the new Prime Minister on May 25th after a vote boycotted by UCPN (M) the previous day.

What Lies Ahead

And so the revolution is at a crossroads. The collapse, or more accurately the overthrow, of Prachanda’s government is certainly a setback. On the one hand, there lies the path to demoralization and defeat, but along the other path is opportunity. The supporters of the new government are eclectic to an extreme, with very little ideological common ground.
When taking the oath of office during the days of the monarchy, the Prime Minister would do so “in the name of God”. When Prachanda took office, he took the oath “in the name of the people”. M.K. Nepal skipped this section entirely, taking the oath in the name of nobody (3). Hardly anything is more emblematic of his government’s politically destitute nature, held together by nothing more than an opportunist desire to derail the process of change.
Provided that the Maoists maintain their pledge to not cooperate with this puppet regime, the UML administration will, in all likelihood, prove to be ineffectual and serve as a catalyst for an intensified struggle on the streets. The events of the last month have laid bare the dictatorial character of both the feudalists and the proponents of traditional parliamentarianism.
It has become even clearer that if the impoverished and exploited majorities are to live a life with dignity, a fundamentally different society under a fundamentally different system is required. This society is called New Nepal; this system is called socialism.


Maoist’s New Nepal: Industrial Capitalism in the Name of Socialism
Maoist Candidate Santosh Budhamagar Elected CA Member From Rolpa
PM Nepal Sworn in, Inducts Two UML leaders in Cabinet

Photos of Smithfield Foods' Granjas Carrol Site in La Gloria, Mexico

Dead pigs left out in the heat to rot. Scavengers have been feeding on these pigs.
Dead pigs left out in the heat to rot. Scavengers have been feeding on these pigs.

Dead pigs in a cart left out in the heat. It's not known if these pigs are supposed to be disposed of or made into food.
Dead pigs in a cart left out in the heat. It's not known if these pigs are supposed to be disposed of or made into food.

Dead pigs rotting away in the pig waste lagoon. The lagoon is filled with pig shit, pig piss, dead pigs, pig afterbirths, dead piglets stomped to death by their parents, on and on.
Dead pigs rotting away in the pig waste lagoon. The lagoon is filled with pig shit, pig piss, dead pigs, pig afterbirths, dead piglets stomped to death by their parents, on and on.

The famous pig shit lakes that bred the Swine Flu. The lakes are full of pig blood, pig shit, rotting dead pigs and other charming and delectable items. Note broken pipe. The smell from these lakes is so horrible that workers are sometimes overcome, pass out, and fall into the pig shit lake. Those who dive in to save them almost always die too. It sometimes takes weeks to fish the bodies out.
The famous pig shit lakes that bred the Swine Flu. The lakes are full of pig blood, pig shit, rotting dead pigs and other charming and delectable items. Note broken pipe. The smell from these lakes is so horrible that workers are sometimes overcome, pass out, and fall into the pig shit lake. Those who dive in to save them almost always die too. It sometimes takes weeks to fish the bodies out.

Aren’t these pig shit lakes just wonderful? Go capitalism go! Hat tip Cogitamus. From the Veracruz investigative reporting paper Enlace Veracruz 212.
Of course, as is always the case in corrupt Third World capitalist hellholes, many of the people who complained about this mess have been harassed, detained, arrested, threatened, etc. by government officials whored out to the multinational. There doesn’t seem to be any getting away from this. All 3rd World capitalist states do this and there is no avoiding it. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
It looks increasingly like this facility is where the Swine Flu was birthed. It’s not true that the company cleared its operation of guilt; this is just a corporate lie being shopped around by the whored out corporate media.
Whored out medias in bed with monopoly capital are quite common in most capitalist states, and the US is no exception. There doesn’t seem to be any getting away from away from it. The papers are always run by corporations themselves, and they usually back up their corporate brethren. Once again, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and it’s unavoidable under capitalism.
Much is being made of the fact that the Swine Flu turned out to be a fake scare, but it’s strange that it did kill many very healthy people, over 200 at last count. This is unusual for the flu, which usually kills the very sick and elderly, and it makes this flu all the more tragic.

Anti-Zionist Site Posts Nazi Propaganda

This is the usual “Judeo-Bolshevik”, Jews caused the Holocaust, variety. What’s next? Holocaust Denial?
From Palestinestinktank, run by anti-Zionist Jews Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo, with a lot of help from Jordanian Haitham Sabbah.
This site is just getting worse and worse and more and more into rank, raw anti-Semitism. Way to go guys!
Sooner or later, a vast number of anti-Zionists fall into this stinky anti-Semitic mud puddle. Why, I’m not sure. The behavior of Zionists in Palestine is pretty terrible and their buddies in the West control a lot of the media and a few of the governments.
To be an anti-Zionist is to feel very helpless. It’s like you’re fighting a war against space aliens or something. The Palestinians don’t seem to have a chance, and the Zionists hold all the cards. It’s a very frustrating and enraging experience, and I guess the end result for a lot of folks experiencing this kind of frustrated rage is just to go anti-Semite. I can understand it, but adults ought to have more self-control.
As for an analysis of the article itself. The article in question is quite good, and in general is not anti-Semitic, except where it echoes the Judeo-Bolshevik, Jews caused WW2, Jews caused the Holocaust crap.
That article even outrageously implies that Jews gave Nazis the idea for the Holocaust! The poor innocent Nazis! They never wanted to kill all those people. But they developed their evil Nazi ideology from those wicked Jews! Poor Germans! Poor Hitler!
My God.
The main premise of the article is simply false. The premise is the typical Nazi and fascist accusation called Judeo-Bolshevism.
Hitler set off the Holocaust in the name of this phantom. That is why Hitler tried to kill every single Jew on Earth – because Jews were Communists, and Communism was Jewish. The headquarters of World Communism was in Moscow in the USSR.When you run propaganda echoing the Judeo-Bolshevik line, you wittingly or not serve the interests of Nazi propaganda.
I do not know if you know this. I have a policy on my blog that I do not run anti-Semitism. Also, my blog is officially pro-Jewish.
I would like to point out that in addition to the Judeo-Bolshevik crap, that article also says Jews caused the  Holodomor. A Holodomor which never even happened. There was no Holodomor. There was no deliberate famine. Almost all scholars now agree on this. Even Robert Conquest, who singlehandedly did more than anyone else to promote the Holodomor lie, now agrees.
The article also flirts with another lie. That the JewSSR (this is the lie that the article promotes – a lie called the JewSSR) killed tens of millions of Russian Christians. It is true that Communists killed 1.6 million people in the USSR, if we do not include the war. The overwhelming majority of Russians were Christians. In killing 1.6 million Soviets for whatever reason, it is clear that the overwhelming majority would be Christians.
This is like accusing Mao of being a Buddhist-hater or Confucionist-hater for the deaths of millions in China. That the millions killed were Buddhists or  Confucionists is mere historical accident.
Communists presided over the famine. Communists caused the deaths of 1.6 million people during peacetime over 32 years. Not Jews. Communists.
The Jewish era in the USSR, such that it even existed, was over by 1927. Super-Jews even accuse Stalin of being an anti-Semite. Stalin was a reaction against the Jewish era in the USSR and he instituted a kind of Orthodox Christian very conservative Great Russianism.
During the 1930’s, these evil Christian-hating and Christian-murdering Jews killed a very large number of the top Jews in the USSR. Funny how evil Jews even kill their own kind. Surely there was some evil Gentile-hating and Christian-hating conspiracy behind the self-immolation of those Judeo-Bolsheviks in 1937!
This is a classic degeneration. Almost all anti-Zionists degenerate into this gutter European anti-Semitism at some point or another. Almost all of them either start echoing Nazi propaganda, or defend Nazis, or blame Jews for starting the war or setting off the Judeocide against themselves. Almost all of them at some point start flirting with some species of Holocaust Denial.
Gilad Atzmon is an intellectual anti-Semite, and he and Mary have been flirting with anti-Semitism and fascist terminology, apparently ignorantly or unwittingly, for some time now. I do not know why they are doing this. Atzmon’s anti-Semitism gets worse by the year.
Gilad is not a Nazi. Certainly Mary is not. I guess Haitham is not. But the whole Judeo-Bolshevik line, which this piece promotes, is anti-Semitic, and it does echo Nazi propaganda, whether they want to believe it or not.
These people are just foolish. They are running anti-Semitism, promoting the most rank kind of anti-Semitism and in fact knowingly or not, fascist and even Nazi propaganda. I realize that they do not know what they are doing, but it’s still just wrong.
These people are just idiots. Irresponsible idiots. What do they think they are doing?

Some Scientific Intelligibility Studies

I put separate language <90% intelligibility. <90% we have proven that it gets hard to talk about complex and more educated matters. Of course you can discuss the weather. <80% throws a substantial crimp into communication and significantly impairs it.

Iberian - Oral
Asturian - Spanish:              80%
Spanish - Portuguese:            54%
Galician - Portuguese:           85%
Italian - Oral
Venetian - Venetian*:            92%

German - Oral
German - Texas German            95%
German - Swabian:                40%
German - Badish:                 40%
German - Kolsch (Ripaurian):     40%
German - Bavarian:               40%
German - Moselle Franconian:     40%
German - Upper Saxon:            40%
German - Luxembourgish:          40%
German - Hessian:                40%
German - Low German:             40%
German - Alsatian:               40%
Pennsylvania German - Hutterite: 70%
Mennonite - Hutterite:           50%
Bavarian -  Bavarian***:         50%
Kirchröadsj -  Hommersch**       20%
Dutch - Oral
Dutch - Groningen:               90.5%

English - Oral
US English - Glascow Scots:      53%
US English - Edinburgh Scots:    32%
US English - Scots (average):    42.5%
Scandinavian - Oral
Norwegian - Danish:              71%
Norwegian - Swedish:             68%
Swedish - Danish:                33%
Scandinavian - Written
Norwegian - Danish:              91.5%
Norwegian - Swedish:             87.5%
Swedish - Danish:                69%

*Maximum distance between any two Venetian dialects.
**Ripaurian lects at opposite ends of the Ripaurian dialect chain.
** Central Austrian Bavarian vs. Viennese Bavarian.
Commentary: Clearly, Asturian and Spanish are separate languages, and so are Galician and Portuguese. These two are rather controversial, with Spanish speakers claiming Asturian as a Spanish dialect and Portuguese speakers claiming Galician as a Portuguese dialect. The much-vaunted mutual intelligibility between Spanish and Portuguese leaves much to be desired.
Spanish speakers say that Italian is much lower than Portuguese. I figure 20-30% for Italian – Spanish.
Venetian is clearly a single language.
All of the German lects listed above are separate languages except for Texas German, which is just a dialect of German.
Groningen is just barely a dialect of Dutch, but Groningen speakers want to see themselves as speakers of a separate language, so the world is going alone. Here, sociolinguistics trumps intelligibility testing.
Scots is clearly a separate language from English. There is  no debate about that anymore from a scientific point of view. It’s simply not intelligible with US English, period.
The much-discussed mutual intelligibility between the Scandinavian languages leaves much to be desired, though between Norwegian and the rest, it is higher than, say, Portuguese and Spanish. Between Danish and the rest and Swedish and the rest, it is lower than between Spanish and Portuguese. Intelligibility between Swedish and Danish is ridiculously low. It’s incredible that people discuss the mutual intelligibility of these two languages.
Swedish and Norwegian speakers get subtitles on Danish TV. If they are so intelligible, what’s with the subtitles? Scandinavian speakers often resort to English to speak to each other. If they are so intelligible, why resort to English?
Based on the data, it is completely untrue to say that Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible, though Norwegians can generally easily understand the other Scandinavian languages if they are written.


Fig. A. An understanding of the spoken languageNorwegians understand 88% of the spoken Swedish language and understand 73% of the spoken Danish language.Swedes understand 48% of the spoken Norwegian language and understand 23% of the spoken Danish language.
Danes understand 69% of the spoken Norwegian language and understand 43% of the spoken Swedish language.
Norwegian and Swedish have 68% oral intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 71% oral intelligibility.
Norwegian has combined 69% oral intelligibility of Swedish and Danish.
Swedish and Norwegian have 68% oral intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 33% oral intelligibility.
Swedish has 48% combined oral intelligibility of Danish and Norwegian, less than for Spanish and Portuguese.
Danish has 33% oral intelligibility of Swedish.
Danish has 68% oral intelligibility of Norwegian.
Danish has 50% combined oral intelligibility of Swedish and Norwegian, less than for Spanish and Portuguese.
Fig. B. An understanding of the written language
Norwegians understand 89% of the written Swedish language and 93% of the written Danish language.
Swedes understand 86% of the written Norwegian language and 69% of the written Danish language.
Danes understand 89% of the written Norwegian language and 69% of the written Swedish language.
Norwegian and Swedish have 87.5% written intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 91.5% written intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 69% written intelligibility.
Norwegian and Swedish have 89% written intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 93% written intelligibility.
Norwegian has combined 91.5% written intelligibility of Swedish and Danish.
Swedish and Norwegian have 86% written intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 69% written intelligibility.
Swedish has 77.5% combined intelligibility of written Danish and Norwegian.
Danish has 69% written intelligibility of Swedish.
Danish has 89% written intelligibility of Norwegian.
Danish has 79% combined written intelligibility of Swedish and Norwegian.


Kilborn, Emily SJE. The Politics of Language in Europe. Case Studies in Scots, Occitan, Moldovan, & Verbose‐Croatian. European Studies. Middlebury College.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Part 1


In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.
Christopher Handley, described by his lawyer as a “prolific collector” of manga, pleaded guilty last week to mailing obscene matter, and to “possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Three other counts were dropped in a plea deal with prosecutors.

Those are pictures, for Chrissake. I wonder what they look like? There’s all kinds manga porn on the Internet with young-looking girls and girls having sex with creatures like octopi and whatnot. I’ve seen tons of that stuff, though it is not my thing.
I always thought that was legal. What’s next? Pedo stories? There are pedo stories all over the Internet. They’ve been legal up til now? How long will that last? I have no interest in this stuff, but this is going too far.
By the way, this stuff is everywhere in Japan. It’s not like like there’s a pedophilia epidemic there.
If you want to see what Japanese “lolicon” manga looks like, click here (Adults only! I guess…But I’m not even sure if it’s legal for them either. I just looked at it and I’m not worried about cops coming over here.). I’m not into this stuff, and I find it disturbing and upsetting. There is something about it that is just wrong. But you can see for yourself. I don’t know if it’s legal or not. It’s just drawings anyway.

Clarification on Modern White Separatism

There has been a lot of confusion about what these White separatist folks really want. There are of course crazies who want forcible separation. But what the more moderate White separatists are proposing is a more voluntary model.
In the formations of the saner ones, some areas of the US will be set aside for Whites. It’s all voluntary. If you’re White and you want to give live there, go for it.
Some proposals also carve out areas for Blacks and Hispanics. Incredibly, these are actually pitched by the Far Left, typically Maoists. Some Black Supremacists also want a Black homeland in the US South.
The rest of the country, I think, would just be mixed race and any White who didn’t want to go to Whiteland, any Black who didn’t want to go to Blackland, or any Hispanic who did not want go to Aztlan could just go live in Mixtopia.
Neverthelesss, I think the whole idea sucks, and it is segregation in a sense, let’s face it. Some of the Whites would just be segregating themselves, just like they used to.
Supposedly any White enclave that tried to do this would be declared illegal by the US government for some reason, and I believe it would be illegal.
Violation of the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, among other things, come to mind. I believe that “housing covenants” were ruled illegal after the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
There are still some towns in the US South that are effectively Sundown towns for Blacks and few if any Blacks live there. No one seems to be doing anything about it.

The Anchor Baby Madness and a Possible Way Out

They are everywhere in my town. Who? The anchor babies. Though it is difficult to generalize, typically when you see an Hispanic parent who cannot speak English with young children in tow who speak excellent English, as a good rule, you are dealing with an illegal alien parent and anchor baby kids.
The anchor babies idiotically get US citizenship, even though their parents stay illegal, due to what I feel is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment passed in 1868 meant to give citizenship to freed slaves. To freed slaves, not to illegal aliens! Unfortunately, the US public is divided on this, with about 51% supporting anchor baby citizenship and 47% opposing it. Nevertheless, support for it is probably pretty weak among most folks.
The anchor baby mess has created the whole “Don’t break up the families!” game among the traitor illegal alien supporters. It’s true that it can break up a family, but only because the kids are legal while the parents are illegal. If we got rid of anchor baby insanity, all of the lot would be illegal and they could all go back to wherever.
It would not be so tragic because all Hispanic anchor baby kids speak excellent Spanish in addition to perfect English. They are very competent bilinguals.
The anchor baby idiocy has gotten so crazy that pregnant Mexican women deliberately cross the border as tourists late in their pregnancy to give birth in a US hospital to get US citizenship for the kid. US border hospitals do a brisk business in this sort of thing.
There are many flights out of Korea in which female Korean citizens, late in their pregnancies, fly to Guam or the US to give birth to their kid so he can have Korean-US dual citizenship.
This blatant abuse of the system is offensive and insane and any sane society would have put an end to it long ago.
That we have not just means that we are no longer a mentally healthy society – we are a crazy society.
From a website, an analysis of the possible shaky grounds for the anchor babies lunacy, and the possibilities that it can be quickly overturned by the courts as a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. There has already been a pretty solid wall of case law built that would seem to build a foundation for overturning anchor baby stupidity.

(The 14 Amendment) grants citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American jurisdiction. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location.
If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.
The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes
in usage.
Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:
Case law building a foundation to overturn the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment:
The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))
The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here.
The facts are the facts. Congress needs to fix this mess that they created, the sooner the better for our country.”

"You're On Your Own," by Alpha Unit

Another great post by Alpha Unit. This post touches on White nationalism, White separatism and the notion that the White race is an endangered species similar to lower animals that needs to be preserved like environmentalists preserve plants and lower animals.
I’ve shopped this idea around to the Whites that I know too. I told them that White nationalists are worried about Whites going extinct and that this is one of their driving forces.
One person, a Communist believe it or not, actually agreed that this was a serious problem. On the other hand, this guy, like many White Californians, has friends of all races and has dated women who are part-Japanese and American Indian.
Interracial dating is epidemic here in California, especially since so many Californians are not so much non-Whites as mixed races. I grew up with, was friends and best friends with, and dated 1/2 Mexicans, Mexicans, 1/2 Cubans, 1/2 Navajo Indians, 1/4 Mexicans, 1/4 Chinese, Puerto Ricans, 1/2 Blacks, 1/4 Cherokees, 1/2 Panamanians, Japanese, 1/2 Japanese, Filipinos, Chinese, Blacks, all Californians.
Back in those days, all these people pretty much acted White, that is they assimilated to the dominant White culture, so their race was pretty much irrelevant unless you were a racist dick.
The other people who I tell that too act like it’s a semi-disturbing idea and typically start shaking their heads and laughing. Ideas about White preservation just do not go over here.

You’re On Your Own

by Alpha Unit

I believe the natural impulses of human beings reveal who they really are.  They tell me how the natural world really is beneath the cloak of civilization.
As far as Nature itself is concerned, a human individual is an insignificant speck.  And “race” is meaningless against the backdrop of Nature, which couldn’t care less if there were a White race.
Human beings have an innate drive toward species preservation, and species preservation trumps “race” preservation, which will get no assistance from Nature whatsoever.  Genetically, “Whiteness” is easily subsumed by “Darkness,” so evidently Nature doesn’t put too high a premium on it.
Some Whites may think they’re the shit, but Nature doesn’t, and neither do many non-Whites.  Non-Whites have gotten to know the good, the bad, and the ugly of interacting with Whites, and even a non-White with a blonde dye job and blue contacts has no difficulty denouncing Whites for the sins of the past.
In the past, Whites have been able to use force to “preserve” themselves, but are non-Whites going to quietly get with any program for White self-preservation now or in the future?  I doubt it–not if these non-Whites think it’s going to happen at their expense.
Nature has also given each individual a will.  People are not going to be herded like animals into special racial “preserves” without some serious incentives for doing so–and for toeing the line once they’re in.  The idea of any kind of separatist state has deeply totalitarian implications, and I wonder if those who push such ideas are willing to be upfront about it.

Schipper on the “Black Hunter’s Mentality Against Whites”

La Griffe Du Lion, otherwise known as Robert Gordon (I know it’s controversial that’s that’s who La Griffe is, but that’s who I say he is, after lots of investigation), claims, after crunching lots of figures, that Black killers or violent criminals seek out White victims “with a hunter’s mentality.” Gordon is worse than an academic racist; he is actually a White Supremacist to boot. Most of the others are not really White Supremacists because they often say that NE Asians are superior to Whites.

There has been endless debate about Gordon’s number-crunching, and it does seem to have lots of problems. I have always thought that this theory was preposterous, but evidence seems to be mounting. Super-commenter James Schipper throws in his two cents, and I think he makes a good point:

Blacks commit about half the murders in the US. If all murderers in the US selected their victims randomly, then 50% of murder victims of all races would have been killed by a black. Since more than 50% of black murder victims have been killed by blacks and fewer than 50% of white murder victims have been killed by blacks, the notion that black murderers seek out white victims is decisively refuted.

What he means is that 94% of Blacks are killed by Blacks. If Blacks selected Blacks randomly or deselected them as we might expect Gordon’s preferential hunters to do, Blacks would be killed by Blacks 53% of the time. Instead, Blacks are killed by Blacks 94% of the time. Blacks massively overselect their own race as murder victims based on their percentage in the population for some reason. 10-14% of the killers of Whites are Blacks. Yet Blacks commit 53% of all homicides. If Black killers even selected White victims with no bias at all, 53% of Whites would be killed by Blacks. So clearly Black killers massively deselect White victims based on their presence in the population.

I have tossed this argument out to a few White people (that Black criminals prey on Whites with a hunter’s mindset), and they usually look puzzled, think for a while, and they say, “No, that’s not right, but it’s an interesting question.” Obviously there is little support for this notion among ordinary Whites. Another argument is that Blacks commit 57% of their violent crimes against Whites. Since Whites are at least 66% of the US, it looks like once again Blacks are deselecting Whites based on their presence in the population. In this case, they deselect them 15% more than would be expected.

Dual Loyalty Mexicans Versus Dual Loyalty Jews

Granted, both are a problem, but to me, the dual loyalty Mexicans are vastly worse, by orders of magnitude. The brilliant, and Jewish, Steven Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies, lays it all out below. It’s incredible, but predictable, the way the mainstream Jewish community has turned on this poor guy.
The Jewish community has always been influenced by its radicals, as the brilliant Kevin McDonald has pointed out in his great essays, Understanding Jewish Power (available in three parts).
The radicals seize the moment and begin pushing a radical project. They quickly frame all Jews opposed to the project as “enemies of the Jews.” Jews are so hyperethnocentric and tribally loyal that such appeals to refuse treason to the tribe are very powerful. It really hurts even seriously deracinated Jews to be accused of tribal disloyalty. That’s one Hell of a sting.
But the radicals pound and pound away, accusing the sane Jews of being Jewish traitors. Gradually, the fear of being labelled a traitor and cast out of the tribe overweighs sanity, and more and more Jews start going over to the radicals’ wild positions. Soon the wild-eyed fringe opinions of the radicals are pretty much mainstream Jewish opinion.
It worked this way in 1800’s Galicia and it works this way now with neoconservative normalization of previously beyond the pale ideas to the point where they represent the Jewish mainstream.
So it is that the Jews are uncommonly subject to radicalism and extremism.
The mainstream Jews and SPLC hatchet men know full well that Steven Steinlight and his organization are not White nationalists and White Supremacists. The very notion is insane. Steinlight has impeccable liberal credentials as a long-time activist in the Civil Rights movement. But the SPLC liars know how a charge like that stings, especially with fellow Jews. White nationalist – White supremacist = Nazi. You do the math.
Listen to Steinlight make sense on Mexican illegals. He compares dual loyalty among US Jews with dual loyalty among US Mexicans and concludes that there is no comparison, Mexicans are way more treasonous than Jews:
The comparison alleged between the genuine dangers posed by mass Mexican immigration to US social cohesion and sovereignty and pernicious allegations of “Jewish dual loyalty” is wholly false. There is no parallel. First, one must consider the historically unprecedented scale of Mexican immigration, legal and illegal, which dwarfs all other immigration.
If we took the 10 next largest immigrant groups, their combined total would be less than that of Mexicans.  Mexico also shares a 2,000 mile border with the US, the longest on earth between a First World and a Third World economy.  The most worrying matter, irredentist sentiment, is a burning, powerful issue for Mexicans and totally inapplicable to Jews.  I was not aware that Jews harbor territorial claims against the US! The very idea is Monty Python-like.
But polling by Zogby International reveals some 62% of Mexicans believe the American southwest is Mexican, not American.
If the goals of “Progress by Pesach” were met and we amnestied 11.5 million illegal aliens, by far the greatest part Mexican, and passed “comprehensive immigration reform,” whose main goal is doubling legal immigration, not promoting amnesty (amnesty is what is known on Capitol Hill as a “weapon of mass distraction”), within a decade or so we’d see huge Mexican majorities in all the border states of the southwest, a majority that rejects American sovereignty there.
This is a recipe for social unrest, at the very least.  In addition, Mexican “immigrants” (I prefer the term “transnational population” because they are living in two societies simultaneously and haven’t decided to which they belong) have naturalized at a shockingly infinitesimal rate.  Under 20% of this huge demographic has bothered to become US citizens, suggesting their sense of national belonging to the US is extremely tenuous, to put it mildly.
On top of which, the last three Presidents of Mexico have pushed a program for a “Greater Mexico” and have asserted the claim that they “represent” Mexicans living in the US.  Indeed, President Vincente Fox went so far as to assert he speaks on behalf of all Hispanics/Latinos in the US, regardless of national origin.
The Mexican government has also stated it is the “protector” of Mexicans within the US. Mexicans in this country legally require no protection (they might well in the brutally corrupt oligarchy that is Mexico), and the US in not the dying Ottoman Empire: we don’t need to grant “concessions” to outside powers to safeguard minority populations.
Such arrogant, outrageous intervention in US internal affairs is reflected in the conduct of the vast Mexican consular system within the US engaged in massive violation of the Geneva Protocols regarding the activities of consulates: they have inserted themselves into our domestic affairs in the context of labor relations, health care provision, law enforement, etc.
When the largest immigrant group in America, one that will increase by some 66-100 million within 20 years if “comprehensive immigration reform were to pass, fails to naturalize, regards US territory in which they reside as belonging to their country of origin, and are encouraged by the government of Mexico to regard Mexico as their home — all Mexicans are dual citizens as a matter of Mexican law –we face a serious problem.
The American-Jewish community, on the other hand, represents perhaps the single most successful example of patriotic assimilation of any group in the history of American immigration.  Unlike other immigrant groups in their early days in the US, Jews brought no loyalty to their countries of origin because they had been persecuted there.
If Jews were to come today under the same conditions that brought them here during the “Great Waves” they would be called refugees, not immigrants. Jews were also the only immigrant group that migrated in one direction only.
They embraced Americanization fervently because it was the best thing that had ever happened to them.  They learned English within two years of arrival, not two generations (the norm for other groups), and because Jews were alone among immigrants in having virtually universal male literacy within only a year or two of arrival they were earning wages comparable to natives.
(Current immigrants make an astounding 23% less because of lack of education: some 60-63% of Mexican and Central American immigrants lack a high school diploma. Their poverty has nothing to do with legal status.)
The charge of “dual loyalty,” suggesting American Jews are torn between allegiance to the US and to Israel, is an anti-Semitic canard.  The very small number of Jews who see themselves primarily as Zionists make aliyah.  Undoubtedly a tiny fraction of Jews living in the US may feel authentically torn, but even they seek to square those loyalties by arguing that American interests and values are congruent with those of Israel.
The great majority of American Jews, however, hardly feel as if they are living in the Diaspora.  They are fully at home in America.
The great majority of American Jews are patriots (it’s a good way to define oneself when one lives in the freest society on earth: I’m appalled by those who see “patriotism” as somehow “fascist”) who have achieved the ideal balance between their particularistic identity (which appropriately involves deep concern about the security and well-being of Israel) with a much stronger sense of national belonging.
There is no “dual loyalty” within the American-Jewish community that is a cause of concern to any but paranoid anti-Semites.
On the other hand, the fact that the fastest growing demograhic in the nation regards a huge expanse of US territory as belonging to its country of origin (to which we are geographically contiguous), has in essence refused to join the polity by failing to naturalize, has resisted learning the language of the dominant culture, and is strongly influenced by an interventionist Mexican government are causes of deep, legitimate concern.

Evil Black Criminals Prey on Innocent Whites!

This is regarded as near Biblical truth by all White nationalists and even some paleocons like Lawrence Auster.

Dey niggaz be preyin on us po White folks!

The truth is that this is not the case at all. Black criminals prey on any human they can get their hands on, and there is no evidence at all that they preferentially select for White victims out of sheer racism, as the racist White nationalists always claim, projecting away their own super-racism in the process, of course.

Let’s look at some facts for once:

From 1976 to 2005:

86% of white victims were killed by whites.
94% of black victims were killed by blacks.

If you are White and you are going to be a homicide victim, your killer will be a White man. There is a 14% chance that he will be Black, but as Blacks are 13% of the population, Blacks are not killing Whites out of proportion to their % in the population. It also looks like Blacks are selecting Black victims out of their % in the population. In other words, Black killers are preferentially selecting other Blacks to kill and deselecting against Whites.

There are some caveats here.

Black criminals, like all criminals, prey on folks with money. Whites tend to have more money than Blacks. So there may be some preferential targeting merely on the basis of income. It’s known that Whites are wimpier and fight back less than Blacks. Considering the ferocious defensive reputation of Blacks and the wimpy reputation of Whites, it’s incredible that Black criminals continue to target dangerous Blacks as victims while leaving the White easy targets relatively alone. Yet this is what they do.

White nationalists love to rant about how oversexed Black men are committing a rape epidemic against unsullied (LOL!) White womanhood. According to my albeit crude calculations, Black females are 4-5 X more likely to be raped by these sexual psychopaths than White females are. Hell, White women get off easy in the Black rape epidemic. They should count their lucky stars.

A Cancer Called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

I go on a lot about the White nationalists on here, but the truth is that these racist characters are seriously irrelevant to US politics. Even most White racists in the US, I am certain, want nothing whatsoever to do with them.
From the veneration or apologia for Hitler, to rampant anti-Semitism, to insane proposals like deporting all non-Whites, setting up White separatist enclaves, states or whatever, to worship of Nordicism to the detriment of all the other Europeans, to opposition to miscegenation, friendship and dating with non-Whites, the movement has been a serious failure from Day One and will continue to be one, since its ultra-radical ideas simply do not resonate with most Whites in the US.
In fact, most US Whites are ethnocentric and do believe that US White culture is worth saving. A recent poll showed that 73% of US Whites broadly said they were proud to be White and that White culture was a value worth defending.
One would think that a pro-White movement would be so moderate as to represent the views of this 73%, most of whom are probably integrationists, support non-White immigration, oppose White separatism and eviction of non-Whites, are open to interracial friendship, dating and marriage if not in themselves and in others, and are broadly non-racist to anti-racist sorts of folks.
One would think a logical movement could appeal to this 73% of Whites, most of whom don’t like to see our race dragged through the mud with incessant hate speech and hate propaganda, nor do they appreciate the many hate crimes against our people and the great deal of discrimination that our people face.
Forget it.
No pro-White movement will ever be sane enough to appeal to these folks. The problem is not just the fact anyone in the US that stands up and says they are pro-White nowadays is probably a ferocious racist.
The problem also lies in maniacal organizations like the SPLC, named in the title.
Any expressions of White ethnocentrism are immediately pounded by SPLC attack dogs as White Supremacism. Not only that, but the SPLC hearts illegal aliens. Seriously, passionately. I think the leadership actually wants to invite the illegals under the sheets with them, such is their love for the criminal invaders, the dregs of Mesoamerica.
Every single organization that has tried to fight against illegal immigration has been slammed by the SPLC scum as “racist” and “White supremacist.” Their acolytes in the elite media echo along. Such that even reasonable Whites now think anti-illegal immigration means dangerous, wild-eyed nativist racism. Why do they think this? The elitists in the MSM told them so.
Check out this sorry story here. Your average US Jew is sane, and many of them are open to the sane notion that millions of illegal aliens in the US really sucks. The Jewish elite in the Organized Jewish Community won’t have any of that. The message is so popular with ordinary Jews that they are shutting it down.
The illegal immigration debate has always shown a vast elite – commoner disconnect in the US. Ordinary, working class and middle class Americans totally hate illegal immigration. Surveys show that adds up to 70-80% of the US. Yet a political – media – wealthy elite that runs our media and political parties has been lording it over us commoners and frankly the US proletariat. They can’t get enough illegals. As the elitists control the US, the opinions of 75% of Americans get tossed out with the trash.
The mainstream anti-illegal organizations go to extreme lengths to keep their noses clean. They try to ferret out all the racists in their organizations. On their websites, racist commentary is deleted and the commenters are banned. They try very hard to make this an anti-racist movement. Sure there are racists in the movement. Of course racists hate illegals just like anyone else. Who would have thought otherwise?
The truth is that while White nationalism is ludicrous joke in the US (Thank God!) the PC Nazis in the SPLC have essentially colonized American thought with their Cultural Marxist poison. It’s spread to the entire White West.
The SPLC’s line is that some ghost-like White racists threaten the US. That’s hilarious. The truth is that assholes like the SPLC and their Identity Politics buddies are more dangerous to, and have done more harm to, this nation that the White nationalists could in countless centuries.

Interview With a Bhutanese Maoist Leader

This is a reprint from another blog, an interview with a leader of the Bhutanese Maoists who are beginning an armed insurgency against the Bhutanese state.

A little background: Actually, in some ways, this is a racial conflict. About 100 years ago, many Nepalese moved into Southern Bhutan as immigrants. Apparently this immigration was completely legal, as in they were not illegal immigrants. The majority of the people in Bhutan were more Mongoloid Asian types, Buddhists who phenotypically resemble Tibetans and speak a Tibeto-Burman language. The Nepalese were Hindus speaking Nepali, an Indo-European language.

Phenotypically, Nepalese are very unusual. They are on the border between Caucasians and Asians. Some more resemble Caucasians and some more resemble Asians. Most of the ones who moved into Southern Bhutan were more Caucasian types. Anyway, at some point, they become 60% of the population of Bhutan! But the state continued to be ruled by the ethnic Bhutanese Tibetan-type Buddhists.

A few decades ago, for some unknown reason, the monarchy simply ethnically cleansed most of the Nepalese out of the country and so ended up with a more mono-ethnic and monocultural state. Furthermore, the Nepalese were forbidden from returning. They have been festering in refugee camps ever since, and have been growing more and more radical. Soon a Maoist party was born and it developed a huge following in the camps. Very huge! In the past few years, they have began an armed struggle inside Bhutan, but there have only been a few incidents. Apparently they are laying the groundwork for people’s war, which they claim they have not yet began.

Sushil claims that the Bhutanese state is feudal or semi-feudal, and I think he is probably correct. The entire region remains feudal to semi-feudal – India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and even Afghanistan. The feudalism tends to cut across ethnic and religious boundaries and seems to be a regionalism. Recall that Tibetan was actually feudal until the Maoists took over in 1949 and overthrew the feudal monarchy.

In this region, the feudal monarchs usually use religion, as such folks always do and have always done, to enforce feudalism. The Hindu monarchs in Nepal claimed tied closely into their Hindu Gods. More or less the same with the Dalai Lamas in Tibet, similar to the divinely appointed religous-political monarchs that ruled in Europe for so long.

I figure if you throw a bunch of humans on an island, after a while, the strongest will kill and or subject the weaker ones. Some total prick will rise up, call himself ruler – king – whatever, somehow gather up 90% of the wealth for him and his asshole buddies, found a fucking religion in which somehow he has an umbilical cord to God, and then use the Man-God game to enforce elite rule over his impoverished subjects. That’s the way humans operate.

This group has connections to Maoists in Nepal who now form a huge portion of the government (40%). They also have connections to Maoists in India who are increasingly tearing up the countryside. I do not think that this insurgency will be settling down anytime soon, but unless they make deep connections to the ethnic Tibeto-Burman types who are now the majority in the country, it’s never going to win.

An Interview with Comrade Sushil of the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist), the party which is waging armed struggle against the Monarchy in Bhutan. Talks about tactics, strategy and aims of the party.

———— ——— ——— ——— –

Saturday, May 23, 2009

The following Interview was conducted at some point in the previous few weeks. It occurred somewhere in the area of the Indian-Bhutan border.

Lal Salam Blog: Thank you very much for meeting with me. So are you from Bhutan?

Comrade Sushil: Yes, from Bhutan.

Lal Salam Blog: From the Bhutanese refugee camps?

Comrade Sushil: Uhh, actually people think that all our party are from the refugees, but i am from Bhutan. I have spent allot of time in India, working, but then also in Bhutan and then in Nepal working for the party as well.

Lal Salam Blog: So you are a cadre of the Communist Party Bhutan (Marxist Leninist Maoists)?

Comrade Sushil: Yes i am a member of the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist Leninist Maoist). I have been a member since 2003 and i have worked actively as a whole timer since the same year. I joined the party from within Bhutan.

Lal Salam Blog: What is the history of the Party?

Comrade Sushil: The CPB (MLM) was established on the 7th of November 2001, and the announcement of the Party was on the 22nd of April 2003. From this time the party has been working with the exploited people in Bhutan. The people are all exploited by the regime, so our party has been working with all the people, mainly in rural areas, but in urban areas also. Mostly we work with the people in the villages.

Lal Salam Blog: So what are the problems in Bhutan? What sort of oppressions are forced on the people of Bhutan?

Comrade Sushil: The biggest problem is the feudal monarchy. Because of this monarchy the problems are created. Peoples standard of living has been kept backwards because of the Monarchy. In a third world country like Bhutan, this is because of feudalism. This feudalism is the main problem of Bhutan. This is why the Communist Party, our glorious party, is working to overthrow the regime, and to overthrow feudalism.

Lal Salam Blog: So the goal of the Party for now is to throw out feudalism from Bhutan?

Comrade Sushil: Definitely. The main aim of our party is to overthrow feudalism and to establish the peoples rule in Bhutan.

Lal Salam Blog: So you would like to establish a People’s State in Bhutan? Is that what you would have replace the King?

Comrade Sushil: We should not understand like this. We should replace the king with a Proletarian Dictatorship. Our aim, our hope, no our dream is to establish a New Democratic Socialism. Only after that can we achieve our ultimate goal, which is to achieve communism. It is not only our goal to throw out the king and overthrow feudalism in Bhutan, but to establish a peaceful society that can achieve socialism and communism.

Lal Salam Blog: Last year your party started a Peoples War in Bhutan…

Comrade Sushil: No. We have not initiated a protracted peoples war in Bhutan. Since our parties establishment we have however had many rural peoples class struggles and these struggles have used different means. In different ways we have launched many struggles and programs, and we have the aim of reaching a level where we can launch a Protracted Peoples War.

Last year we did initiate some armed struggles, which is only a factor of the rural class struggle. Much of the media proclaimed this as the beginning of the Peoples War, but we are not at that phase. We are trying to reach the level of Peoples War, but we have not yet reached it, and are preparing for it. We do not know how long this will take, it will depend on many factors.

Lal Salam Blog: So there will be more attacks, more bombs and more armed actions in the future?

Comrade Sushil: Certainly. We are preparing for this. There will be more armed struggle. Without the armed struggle, we cannot change the situation in our country. We cannot change the state power. We will one day take the state power, but for now we are in preparation, making networks with the peasants and in the cities, training, preparing for the struggle.

Lal Salam Blog: Do you think Peoples War can be successful? Bhutan is already a very brutal state. As many as a sixth of the population lives in exile and the state has beaten, attacked, arrested and even raped and murdered those it perceives to be political activists?

Comrade Sushil: Our parties thought is that only by waging the armed struggle and the Peoples War can we win the liberation of our exploited people. I believe so. Thousands of people have been evicted from Bhutan, we are very aware of this. Why were they evicted? They were evicted after political activism and movements. They were evicted because the people in the southern belt had a high political consciousness. This is totally not a refugee problem, this is a political problem. It is a problem of a brutal monarchy and a restrictive feudal system. Without destroying these institutions we cannot solve these problems.

Our party is launching this armed struggle to liberate the exploited people and we know that one day we will be successful. This is a long term plan, it will take many preparations, and without this and without correct politics we cannot be successful. We have this ideology, the Marxist-Leninist- Maoist and this is a political weapon. With this weapon we believe that one day we will be successful.

Lal Salam Blog: So have you learnt much from the experiences of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and their experiences in Nepal? Are there close or special links between your parties?

Comrade Sushil: We do not have special or direct links with this party. But, and also like communists all around the world, in Peru, India or the Philippines we have ideological links. These places all have communist parties leading revolution through the armed struggle, and with all of them we have ideological links and an ideological relationship.

That means we support them ideologically and they support us ideologically. We have a relationship with the CP Nepal (Maoist) , but also with the CP India (Maoist) who are also waging an armed struggle. We don’t receive any physical support, or anything like that, but we should understand that we are all communists, and we are all internationalists, and we receive and give moral support.

Lal Salam Blog: What does your party think about Prachanda Path and the Nepali Maoists synthesis? It has been controversial to some international communists.

Comrade Sushil: About this Prachanda Path. It is something we should study. And also it is not only a thing to be studied, it has shown it has the ability to guide workers actions. I don’t want to comment more because the ideological things i have had not sufficiently studied, and till now our party has not discussed at length Prachanda Path.

Lal Salam Blog: The Maoists in Nepal have given up their Peoples War and taken a new tactic in pursuing the Constituent Assembly elections. Is this a correct tactic in your parties opinion?

Comrade Sushil: In regards to the UCPN (M) we do not think that they have given up their goals. We think they are pursuing another way, another tactic to establish a peoples state. We don’t think they have established the proletarian dictatorship. So we, our party, does not think that they have achieve state power. We too will go for a Constituent Assembly at first, and only after that can we step or jump or leap forward to a New Democratic revolution.

In the context of the Maoists we don’t think they have state power, and are still struggling for it. It is a fact that the future shows you which path you must take, you can only pick your path depending on the concrete situation you face. We will also move for a constituent assembly elections and a new state, but without establishing the proletarian people at the center of this new state then it cannot reach higher and improve the lives of the people. We think that the Maoists of Nepal face similar situations to us, and have similar actions, so we will continue to watch closely.

Lal Salam Blog: So a Constituent Assembly is a tactic that you are interested in for change in Bhutan?

Comrade Sushil: Actually it is the tactics and strategy of communist parties in the third world. Third world countries are semi-colonial and semi-feudal. So without a New Democratic Socialism stage we cannot reach socialism. So we are in this revolution, it is a peasant revolution we can say. So to reach our aims, to some extent we should aim for a Constituent Assembly, and this is our main slogan and the main aim of the present situation in our revolution.

That is not our only slogan, and out only goal, and it isn’t the only thing that we campaign around with the peasants and people of Bhutan. And we don’t want or aspire to another bourgeois constitution, but we need a constitution that is in favor of the oppressed and poor people of Bhutan.

Lal Salam Blog: Last year the government of Bhutan held elections, in a very restricted and controlled way, but the western media still presented this as a opening up and of “democracy”. If there was to be a more open electoral system, would the CPB (MLM) pursue peaceful politics through elections?

Comrade Sushil: WE think there is only one path to real democracy in Bhutan. We don’t believe in the current “democracy” this is well known. And we don’t think that this system can lead to real democracy. The international community has its formula and they see votes and call it democracy- but there is no such thing in Bhutan and it is not possible to impose a real democracy from the outside into Bhutan.

Any “democracy” that the regime brings into practice itself will be done in such a way so that real power continues to be restricted and kept in the hands of the old order, and not in the hands of the mass of exploited people, so that this “democracy” could not be used against the regime. Even if the regime cast out the king, it would not fundamentally change it. Our party will not make compromises with that order. We wont co-operate with their agenda, we have another agenda that is contradiction to theirs.

We are going to establish the rule of all the people while they just want to exploit them. There is this contradiction between the people and the regime. Our party struggles because of that. If they were to try and set up a “democracy” for then when we should not be a part of it. When i say this it does not mean that we are militarists. The people want peace, and don’t want to live in terror but this regime suppresses and exploits the people, they already live in terror. It is not a hobby to carry out armed struggle, it is our only option the liberation of our people.

Lal Salam Blog: Bhutan is such a tiny country, and it has very close relations, with India in particular. If you care to reach peoples war, do you think India would interfere to defend its interests?

Comrade Sushil: On this the whole party is very much conscious. But in the present situation India is not so dangerous to Bhutan. China is quite dangerous. 11,500 square kilometers of Bhutan’s lands have been occupied and taken by China. So we are surrounded by two very large and powerful countries, who are always looking to interfere into Bhutan. They have two ways of interfering. Political intervention and direct intervention. There are Indian Army camps established in Bhutan. There are several big barracks. We have known this but we don’t think they will intervene directly.

Maybe at some point in the future. There will be political intervention, and we can try to counter this with our allies by rousing grassroots support for our cause in India. We are already doing this. If they try to intervene militarily it will be a heavy cost for them, a bloody and long civil war. Also the regime and the fuedalists don’t want this. They want to defend their borders, protect his kingdom. We also want to establish the sovereignty of Bhutan, so we will always fight foreign influence, from India as well as China.

Lal Salam Blog: I understand that your party has allot of support amongst the refugees in Nepal.

Comrade Sushil: We are not just a party for the refugees. We have support where ever our people are.

Lal Salam Blog: So in India, Nepal and Bhutan?

Comrade Sushil: Yes.

Lal Salam Blog: And your party does work amongst all the communities of Bhutan and across the whole country, not just in the southern Belt that is largely Nepali speaking?

Comrade Sushil: The southern belt is not only Nepali speaking, but there are people from many communities there as well. Myself i haven’t been to the north as yet, our party does work there, but i have been working in the south and also in the east. In allot of people, and in the media there is allot of confusion. The CPB (MLM) is not just a party in the refugee camps, and not just Nepali speaking. We have cadres of many ethnic backgrounds, and our party works all over Bhutan.

Lal Salam Blog: For the refugees in Nepal is it true your party favors repatriation in Bhutan rather then resettlement in third countries?

Comrade Sushil: It is not that our party policy is just to return people to Bhutan. It is not a solution. Liberating the people of Bhutan is the only real and long term solution to this problem. We are not for resettlement, and we are not for repatriation in Bhutan without changing anything else. Moving people around like they are animals is not a solution. That is our position. There needs to be a political solution to this, and only then can the refugees get their rights.

Some people have said our party was created to agitate for the repatriation of refugees, this is not the case. Our party was established within Bhutan and amongst the people. We are in favour of all the oppressed people.Only understanding the problem of the refugees as a problem of the political structure of Bhutan that we can find a solution. Our party was not established for the refugees, but for all the Bhutanese.

A Quick Overview of Some Types of Internet Scams

I don’t talk about it much on here, but I had a Yahoo group with over 1,200 members to fight scammers out of Nigeria and West Africa. We focused on the love scammers. These are people, often males or gangs of males, who use fake pictures of men or women, often stolen from porn or model sites, to engage in fake Internet romances with Westerners, the purpose of which is to get money out of them. In many cases, the scam can go on for years or until all of the money is drained.

Nigeria is Ground Zero for romance scamming, and Ghana is second. Many Ghanaian scammers are Nigerians. It’s also spread to Benin. These are the same scumbags who started off with the famous 419 scams and now are branching out.

They are now into romance scams, fake renter scams, fake buyer scams, fake auction buyer scams, and fake seller scams (especially beetles from the Cameroon).

The fake renter scam works something like the guy is going to rent your place but somehow needs money fronted to him. He never shows up for the room, and you lose the money.

Fake buyer scams involve the use of stolen credit cards to buy stuff in the West and have it shipped to West Africa. Merchants report that out of every 10,000 credit card requests from West Africa, not even one will be legit. The culture of lying, stealing, and general scumminess is so pervasive in West Africa that most credit card companies have banned the whole area from getting any cards. Fake buyer scams also involve overpayment schemes.

They write you a $10,000 check.

But the item is only worth $4,000.

The check is no good. You deposit it and send the $4,000 back to the guy Western Union.

3 weeks later the check goes bad and you lose $4,000.

Similar schemes involving expertly forged money orders, especially US postal money orders, are common. You cash the money order, keep 20% for yourself, and send the rest WU to West Africa.

In 3 weeks it goes bad, and now you owe $5,000 or whatever.

And the banks do want to get paid. Banks will often just cash any shitty check for you without even checking to see if it’s any good. They have actually fought legislation to require them to figure out if the check is any good before they cash it. This would be time-consuming and harm their capitalist bottom line.

Auction buyer scams are similar to overpayment scams. I believe that they also set up fake seller schemes. You send the money and the stuff never shows up.

The beetle scams were interesting. There are actually lots of guys who are so weird that they actually collect beetles. They pin them to boards and whatnot. I guess it’s more honorable than politics or pitching prime loans. Anyway, Cameroon has an incredible amount of beetles, including some of the hugest and rarest beetles on Earth. The West Africans quickly infiltrated the beetle lists on the Net and offered to sell these rare beetles. Lots of folks shelled out $100’s for them, and of course they never showed up.

The West Africans have now fanned out all over the world and operate out of many places, doing their scams. The Nigerians are notorious and hated all over Africa by their fellow Blacks for being a nation of liars, thieves, crooks, and all around scumbuckets. There are now expat Nigerian gangs in Libya, Egypt, Spain, Netherlands, the UK, Switzerland, etc. Nigerians have swarmed in the Balearic Islands of Spain, where if you go into the cafes, it’s all Nigerians, and probably 90%+ of them are engaging in Internet crime. They are in the Gulf States, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, and now China. Everywhere they go, the Nigerians are head over heels in crime, usually confidence games and cons.

In Nigeria itself, in many of the cafes, many to all of the people in there are criminals sitting there all day and nite trying to rip off Westerners. One of our informants saw a famous local TV newscaster who had lost his job in the cafe trying to steal from Americans.

There is now a tremendous amount of romance scamming coming out of the Philippines. They scam in the open, use their real faces and real names, and shamelessly rip off every American guy they can find. These are usually young Filipinas promising love or marriage to American males. The law enforcement system in the Philippines is terminally broken, and LE does not even bother to arrest or prosecute the scammers. Philippines is starting to seem like as much of a failed state as an African nation.

There is also a lot of Internet crime coming out of Russia, including romance scamming. The romance scammers are the Russian Mafia operating out of Mari-El Republic. Dating sites are saturated with fake Russian chicks promising to marry you. They hire college students, male and female, to write letters to the Western male suckers and draw them in. Female coeds man the phones 24-7. When you call up your Russian lover girl, Natasha answers the phone and pretends to be whoever she needs to be. End of the scam is she needs airfare to come marry you. You fork it over and she never shows.

The Russians to their credit have busted some of the scammers. There have been several arrest roll-ups, and hundreds of crooks have been arrested, but the scamming goes on. With the return of capitalism, Russia has turned into one of the world’s most horrible epicenters of Organized Crime, Internet Crime, scams, and ripoffs.

There are also many scams, including romance, rental, and auction scams, coming out of Eastern Europe. The return of capitalism has also turned much of this area into crime-flooded pestholes, and Organized Crime practically runs the show in many places. Little is known about these criminals, but the auction scams are mostly run by “Romanians.” Investigation revealed that all or nearly all of these “Romanians” were actually Gypsies, possibly the most criminal ethnic group on the planet.

Life in Urban Southern Nigeria

As a followup to my post on Internet scams, let us take a look at urban Southern Nigeria, possibly the most crime-ridden place on the planet. We know a lot about the place because we have been fighting the scammers out of there for years.
Nigeria and related places are hellholes, they are extremely dangerous, and the few Westerners crazy enough to go there lived in armed compounds with barbed wire around them and almost never go outside. That’s what the oil company compounds look like.
The Secret Service was over there for a while working with the Nigerian government but they finally left. The government would not cooperate and the living conditions were so horrible that the agents could not stand it.
Probably 99% of the people in the Nigerian government in the South are nothing but filthy, dirty criminals. It’s probably the same down to the local level. A culture of lying, thieving, conning and just all around criminal behavior has taken over the urban areas of the South such that Nigerians hardly even trust anyone.
It is much different in the Muslim north and the rural areas of the South may be ok.
If you go to Lagos, as soon as you hit the airport, people will probably start trying to steal from you. Some of them will probably be workers at the airport. The first thing that hits you is the smell of garbage. The whole city smells like garbage, they just throw it everywhere. 1% of the population is hooked up to the sewer system so you just see people squatting everywhere in the streets.
The roads are lawless, the cops are mostly crooks, and there are armed robbers on all the highways. There are crashes all the time on the highways due to crazy driving and useless roads, and if you go driving you will probably see flaming wrecks with bodies still in them. It takes hours for an ambulance to show up. As soon as a crash happens, people swarm all over it and steal everything they can and drive away.

Ill Bethisad

What the Hell is this?

For over ten years, Ill Bethisad has been a collaborative effort in shared-universe building. Part alt-history, part conculture, Ill Bethisad is an alternate timeline created by a dedicated group of conculturists……This is the Ill Bethisad Wiki: it is a constantly growing, ever more detailed perspective of the alternate timeline Earth created by Andrew Smith.

What the Hell is it? What’s a conculture? What’s alternative universe building? Have they made up some alternate reality world with its own countries, history, wars, militaries, languages and whatnot?
That’s really weird, man.

ACLU Hearts Illegal Aliens

I used to be a card-carrying member of this organization but I don’t think I will ever join it again. Most of their litigation makes sense in a constitutional sort of way. But they are clearly on an ideological jihad for the illegal alien criminal invaders and against the enforcement of our immigration laws. Their arguments are weird, convoluted and don’t make sense.
There are abuses in the system, therefore we need to trash it. Wow. Innocent people get arrested all the time, so let’s do away with all of our laws! Innocent people regularly get arrested for murder, so let’s just make homicide legal and remedy the fucking injustice!
E-verify is flawed, so we can’t use it. What can we use? Nothing. Every program we come up with is going to be “flawed and error-ridden.” Well fuck me.
Their rationale for overturning local anti-illegal ordinances is on good Constitutional grounds. Apparently only the Feds can enforce immigration laws, and locals can only do it when they get a Fed waiver. Turns out that the Federal government is run by two treasonous political parties that have decided 20 million illegal aliens ain’t nearly enough and we can hardly deport even one of them.
So the Feds refuse to enforce the law. The locals aren’t legally allowed to enforce the law. The law is therefore not enforced. Why bother to have laws then?
I guess I don’t understand the ACLU. Why all the love for the illegals? Other than that this is a Cultural Left organization and love of illegal aliens is part of the whole Cultural Left package, and they just dish out the poison Cultural Left kool-aid to the rest of us hapless Americans.

Against Sandra Sotomayor For Supremes

My mailbox is being flooded with mails urging me to support this woman for Supreme Court. She leaves me cold. The main reason is because she is Hispanic.
Most Hispanics in the US are frankly traitors, and we don’t need any traitors on our highest court. They are traitors because they support the illegal alien criminal invasion of our lands.
It the insanity of this group and their lobbies, operating with profound ethnocentrism and in promotion of group interests to the detriment of other groups, that has created the madness of Sanctuary cities, essentially non-deportable or non-reportable illegal aliens, US benefits, in-state college tuition and driver’s licenses for illegals, and other acts of utter insanity.
You don’t have to read Kafka to figure out that no sane country would let itself be invaded like this and then sit back and write a bunch of policies that totally defy the laws of the land and demand that the laws are not enforced.
I don’t know her position, but it’s clear to me that Sotomayor is probably an Open Borders nut, as are about 80% of Hispanics and a huge treasonous section of both traitor political parties.
She’s Puerto Rican, so that softens things a bit (I’m not sure if Puerto Ricans give a damn about Open Borders since the border’s already open to them), but she has made some strange statements, including the profoundly ethnocentric statement that Hispanic women make better judges than White men. Imagine if a White man had said that White men make better judges than Black women. Can you believe the furor?
So Sotomayor represents the leading edge of Identity Politics that hijacked the Western Left in the 60’s and for all intents and purposes ruined it.
Identity Politics meant a move away from an emphasis on class analysis (as LS in the comments section notes, the only really scientifically valid way to formulate a coherent Left analysis) towards the typically ferociously ethnocentric rights of Hispanics, gays, women, Blacks, Asians, American Indians, and I guess one-legged fucking lesbian Micronesian midgets in wheelchairs.
The movement has since expanded to disabled folks, crazy people (I actually support this one – Go Mad Rights go! And I think words like crazy, weird, strange, eccentric, etc. are often hate speech, as I don’t use them.), transsexuals and other freaks of nature, and every ethnic group under the sun.
East Indians, Arabs, Muslims and other super-reactionary groups have jumped on the bandwagon. A logical Left critique of their reactionary, fucked up, misogynistic and backwards societies in the finest Marxist tradition is banned on the grounds that to critique their backwardness and cultural idiocy is racism!
A corollary to the love of all non-White ethnic groups, females, non-heterosexuals and genitally abnormal humans was the hatred of Whites, males, straights and people with their dicks and pussies where they ought to be.
Those bearing most of the wrath were the White males. The ethnocentrism and promotion of one’s interests at the expense of others, championed by the Identity Politics nuts for everyone else, was denied to us.
That means we White guys were unilaterally disarmed while everyone else got to wage ethnic and gender warfare against us. Not that I have anything against ethnic or gender warfare – it’s the way of man, especially under capitalism. But it’s no fair calling a war and then taking the guns away from one side.
It is such a hole that the Western Left has dug for itself. Sadly, with the election of Obama, the Identity Politics idiots have won the day. Who can blame the Hispanics, women, Blacks and whatnot for supporting Identity Politics? It’s a winner for them. But no sane White male should support such self-abuse.
As an example Sotomayor’s outrageous Cultural Left mindset, she ruled, incredibly, to throw out the promotions of White firefighters in New Haven because only Whites had passed the test. The Black candidates had all failed. If this is where our Civil Rights laws are headed, then I actually supporting clipping them in the wings.
Equality of outcome must not be legislated. I believe it’s actually unconstitutional and probably violates the 14th Amendment.

A Look At the Catalan Language

Updated September 25, 2011.
Catalan is a Romance language that is most closely related to Occitan. Although Occitan-Catalan started forming in 700-800, Occitan and Catalan are usually thought of as splitting from 1000-1300. However, scholars such as María del Candau de Cevallos and others present evidence that Catalan was already breaking away from Catalan-Occitan as early as the 700’s-800’s.
An alternate method is to see Catalan as part of something called Ibero-Romance together with the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula and to put Occitan in Gallo-Romance together with French and related tongues. It’s better to just avoid this and create a whole new category called Catalan-Occitan.

The Catalan-speaking world. Catalan is mostly spoken in Catalunya and Valencia in Spain, a bit in Aragon in Spain, and also in far southwestern France in Rousillon. The three shaded islands on the map are the Balearics. The tiny shaded area on the island at the far right represents Alghuerese Catalan spoken in Alghuero, Sardinia.
The Catalan-speaking world. Catalan is mostly spoken in Catalunya and Valencia in Spain, a bit in Aragon in Spain, and also in far southwestern France in Rousillon. The three shaded islands on the map are the Balearics. The tiny shaded area on the island at the far right represents Alghuerese Catalan spoken in Alghuero, Sardinia.

There is a common notion running about that Catalan speakers can understand Occitan. Although surely it differs with exposure, in general, Catalan speakers have a hard time understanding Occitan. Intelligibility between the two languages is probably on the order of 50%. But after only a few weeks of close contact and some intense coaching, they should be able to understand each other pretty well. On this basis, Occitan and Catalan are surely not dialects of a single tongue. However, Catalan and Occitan are very closely related languages.
The same type of folks (I call them “everyone can understand everyone” people or lumpers) also insist that Castillian and Catalan are mutually intelligible. If this were the case, there would be no grounds for a political fight in Catalunya from the Castillian speakers who do not wish to have Catalan shoved down their throats.
The truth is that Castillian speakers can only understand about 40% of written Catalan. Some estimates are that spoken Catalan and Spanish have less than 60% intelligibility. The actual figure may be even less. Catalan is surely not a dialect of Castillian.
There are claims that Catalan and Portuguese are mutually intelligible. This is not the case.
Catalan is also not intelligible with Aragonese. In the Medieval Period, Aragonese and Castillian were considered to be unintelligible to Catalan speakers in the Catalan region. Aragonese is not even intelligible within itself. Why would they be able to understand Catalan too?
Catalan, when spoken, sounds like a cross between Castillian and French.
There is a lot of intense language politics swirling around Catalan. It is the language of an autonomous region of Spain called Catalunya. The fascist Franco tried to kill the language by forbidding its use.
Spanish nationalists are just as horrible as French nationalists, if not worse. As an example, there is a tiny part of Portugal that Spain has occupied for hundreds of years. As per a treaty of 1812, Spain was required to hand over this bit of territory. In the 197 years since then, they have flatly refused to do so. An imperialist Spain continues to occupy a few small islands of frankly Moroccan territory off the coast of Morocco in defiance of Moroccan insistence that they are Moroccan territory.
After the fascists were toppled, Spain was arm-twisted into making Galician, Basque and Catalan into official languages. During the dictatorship, Galician and Catalan were referred to as dialects of Castillian. Recently, Aranese, an Occitan dialect, was also recognized. There are other languages in Spain such as Asturian, Leonese, Murcian, Andalucian, Extremaduran and Aragonese. These are not yet recognized by the imperialist Spanish state.
There are problems in Catalunya. At home, about 1/2 the population speaks Catalan and 1/2 speaks Castillian. However, 95% can understand Catalan, 81% can read Catalan, 78% can speak Catalan and 62% can write Catalan. The Catalan government, understandably, has been mandating the amount of use of Catalan on billboards, the percentage of foreign films translated into Catalan, the number of hours of school instruction that must be in Catalan and the hours of foreign language study in Catalan or Castillian.
For this, Castillian speakers have called them “fascist,” but it’s only normal for them to try to save their language, which is not necessarily doing all that well.
In Andorra, the official language is Catalan, and this is also the most widely spoken language. It is the only officially independent Catalan speaking country on Earth. French and Castillian are also widely spoken.
All dialects of Catalan are said to be mutually intelligible.
However, people say that about the Occitan lects, about Dutch and German, about the Scandinavian languages, about Spanish and Portuguese, on and on, so that is not very reliable.
Further, there is a strong politicization movement similar to Occitan whereby a language in trouble wants to see its various lects as unified under a single language. The notion is that splitting will further endanger a troubled language. Hence, there is a tendency for Catalan nationalists to scream that they can easily understand every variety under the sun. That’s ultimately a politicized response, and it is not scientific.
It’s only natural to wonder whether Catalan is more than one language, so an investigation was undertaken.
Method: Literature and reports were examined and Catalan-speaking informants were interviewed to determine the intelligibility of the various dialects of Catalan. >90% intelligibility was considered to be a dialect of Catalan. <90% intelligibility was considered to be a separate language. The emphasis was on intelligibility rather than structural factors. Overtly political argumentation was ignored.
Results: The result of this investigation was to split Catalan from 1 to 2 languages. Below, separate languages are in bold, and dialects are in italics.
Discussion: Catalan is a very tight-nit language family. The vast majority of Catalan lects can more or less understand each other with few problems. The Blaverist Movement is politically motivated and is not linguistically justified.
A great map of all of the languages and dialects of SW Europe. It's in Spanish, but you should be able to understand it anyway. All of the Catalan dialects are listed here in dark green.
An excellent map of the languages of southwest Europe. Catalan languages and dialects are in dark green.

There are many dialects of Catalan.
Some are: Rousillonese (Northern Catalán), Valencian (Valenciano or Valencià), Balearic (Balear, Insular Catalan, Mallorqui, Menorqui and Eivissenc), Central Catalan, Alghuerese, Northwestern Catalan (Pallarese, Ribagorçan, Lleidatà and Aiguavivan).
Northern Catalan is actually spoken in France by about 100,000 speakers. It receives no support from the Jacobin French state. Northern Catalan is a very divergent Catalan dialect, although Catalan speakers say that they can understand it just fine. It has a lot of French influence in the lexicon. Northern Catalan sounds very much like French to Southern Catalan speakers. About 40% of the population can speak the language.
Rousillonese is the main dialect of Northern Catalan spoken in France. It’s in better shape than many say it is, but the future prospects are probably not too good.
Rousillon is close to the Occitan language Languedocien.
There is a tremendous to-do over Valencian. Valencian activists, the Blaverists, insist that Valencian is a separate language from Catalan. This is a political issue, not a linguistic one. Linguistically, it is long settled. Valencian is simply a dialect of Catalan, and the two varieties have about 93% intelligibility. There is no scientific grounds for splitting Valencian into a separate language.
Balearic, Alghuerese and Rousillon (Northern or French) Catalan are much further from Central Catalan than Valencian is.
Balearic is spoken in the Balearic Islands and is said to be quite different. Majorca Catalan is somewhat hard to understand for Valencians. It is even hard for Barcelonans to understand. Central Catalan speakers say they go to the islands and communicate without problems, however others say that the old Catalan language of Ibiza is hard for Barcelonans to understand. Some Balearic speakers, like Valencians, say they speak a separate Catalan language.
Intelligibility between Balearic and Catalan Proper is said to be about the same as between Catalan and Valencian, which would mean that Balearic is a dialect of Catalan. We will tentatively split this off due to reports of intelligibility issues, but this remains very controversial. The best way to sort this out would be through intelligibility studies as have been done with Valencian.
Central Catalan is the main variety and is the most widely spoken. This is the variety of Barcelona, and this is what the literary language is loosely based on. Catalan TV usually uses this dialect.
Northwestern Catalan is extremely divergent.
Ribagorçan is transitional to the Aragonese language and is sometimes called a dialect of Aragonese. The truth is that the eastern part is Catalan transitional to Aragonese, the western part is Aragonese transitional to Catalan and the central part is Benasques.
Pallarese is also spoken in the same area and is said to be very different.
Aiguavivan is spoken in high valleys of Pyrenees and is very different. Related varieties called Chapurriau are spoken in Castellote, Torrevelilla and Matarraña nearby in Aragon and across the border in Valencia. These are mixtures of Old Castillian, Castillian, Valencian, Aragonese and a bit of Catalan. The Valencian element predominates. Although these lects are intelligible with Catalan proper, the speakers insist that they do not speak Catalan.
Benasquese is spoken in the same region as Aiguavivan and is often said to be a Catalan dialect. It is not. It is either a transitional lect between Catalan and Aragonese, a divergent Aragonese dialect, or a separate language in between Aragonese and Catalan. At any rate, however we wish to characterize Benasquese, it is not a Catalan dialect.
All of NW Catalan appears to be intelligible with the rest of Catalan.
At last we come to Algherese, spoken in Sardinia in the town of Alghero. This language is dying out, but there are still 20-30,000 speakers, mostly older people.
Many say that structurally, this is by far the most divergent variety of Catalan, created when Catalans landed on the island over 500 years. Algherese has been split from Catalan for over 500 years now. The lect sounds like Medieval Catalan and furthermore, lots of Sardinian language has gone in. Catalan speakers say it sounds like Italian.
Reports indicate that Catalan travelers to Alghero can still understand Algherese quite well, albeit as a somewhat Medieval form of Catalan.
However, the venerable Encyclopedia of Endangered Languages treats Algherese as a separate language, as all of the lects listed are treated as languages. However, this treatment will rely on intelligibility alone, and on that basis, Algherese is a dialect of Catalan, not a separate language.


Candau de Cevallos, María del C. 1985. Historia De La Lengua Española. Potomac, Md.: Scripta Humanistica.
Gulsoy, Joseph. 1982. “Catalan”, Chapter in Posner, Rebecca, Green, John N. Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology, Volume 3. La Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton.
Moseley, Christopher. 2007. Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages. Abiding, UK: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

A Short History of 20th Century Poland

Repost from the old blog. More dealing with Jews, Eastern Europe, WW2, ethnic conflict, etc etc. Eat it up antisemites. One thing I realized in writing up this stuff was how monumentally complicated all of this was. Even the history of Poland in the 20th Century left my head spinning.
Great thread on the UK Guardian’s comment page about Poland’s enormously complex recent ethnic history, with Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews all fighting with, killing and making nice with each other. I don’t begin to understand it all, but I can grasp the outlines.
Pay attention to the anti-Semitic and anti-Russian Polish nationalists and their usual distortions, generally along the lines that Stalin was far worse than Hitler. Ukrainian and Belorussian nationalists were cut out of similar cloth during this war, and most of them are still wearing these silly clothes.
Their anti-Communism and hatred of the USSR is leavened heavily with anti-Semitism, and most of them fought alongside the Nazis during the war.
This is what this crap about the “Holodomor” (or man-made famine – falsely named because there was no intentional famine) and the Katyn Massacre is really all about – trying to make the Soviets seem worse than Hitler in the interest, in effect if not in intention, of furthering Nazi propaganda.
The alliances shift back and forth, Poland invades the USSR in 1920 and anti-Communists blame Soviets for starting the war (!!). Russia conquers eastern Poland early in the war, not a nice thing to do, but those under Russian occupation fared far better than those under German annihilationist occupation.
The theme of Polish anti-Semitism runs through the whole thing. Jews were resented for a variety of reasons, principally the fact that Poles were Catholic and Jews refused to convert to Catholicism. Many Jews also supposedly refused to learn Polish. There were also allegations of economic competition that surface wherever Jews exist in large numbers.
Holocaust survivor and Israeli resident Israel Shahak’s much-derided book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion is a great read. It’s not that long, and the whole thing is up on the Net. The late Shahak is accused of anti-Semitism, mostly by other Jews. Unfortunately, most of his fine works can only be found on anti-Semitic websites.
In Chapter 4, there is a section on the history of Poland. During the 1600’s, many Jews were serving as tax collectors for the Polish Roman Catholic nobility. The peasants they were collecting taxes from were Orthodox Slavs. The Cossacks revolted against the Polish Roman Catholic overlords and their Jewish agents.
The revolt resulted in the severing of Ukraine from Poland. Russians and Ukrainians view the rebellion positively and Poles have tended to view it negatively. Khmelnitsky is regarded as the Father of Ukraine, similar to our George Washington. Given this difficult history, you can understand why Jews and Ukrainians have had such a hard time.
This rebellion, called the Chmielnicki Rebellion, lasted from 1648-1656, and resulted in the deaths of many Jews, but the numbers have been exaggerated. Chmielnicki is seen by Jews as an anti-Semite, but he called upon the poor Jews to join him in his rebellion, which was just a peasant rebellion against feudalism. The poor Jews refused, citing ethnic solidarity to stand alongside their brethren fighting alongside the feudalists.
The Soviet Union created the Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky (Chmielnicki) for heroism during the Great Patriotic War. There were three classes of the order. Altogether, over 8,423 Soviet citizens were granted this order. Some Jewish soldiers were upset when they heard they were going to be granted the medal because Khmelnitsky is regarded by Jews as a vicious anti-Semite.
Jews focus on the 20,000 or so Jews killed during the rebellion – 1/2 of the Jewish population in the Ukraine (not 100,000 as some Jews say) but during this horrible period in the mid 1600’s, Poland was invaded by multiple nations at once, including Sweden, and was riven with horrible wars all across the land.
In the context of the typical human deprivation caused by feudalism itself, an incredible 1/3 of the population of Poland died. Yet the Jews see only 25,000 dead Jews and turn their eyes from the larger genocide. Typical Jewish myopia.
The Jews welcomed Stalin’s forces with open arms early in World War 2, then Germans overran Soviet forces a year later, and eastern Poland was under the slaughterhouse of German rule. In 1944, the Soviets “re-invaded” (according to Polish nationalists!) and whatever Jews that remained, along with many Poles, thought the Soviets were just fine as they were fighting Germans.
Yitzhak Shamir once said that Poles suck in their anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk, a nasty thing to say, but yes, there is truth to it. The Polish Communist government had quite a few Jews in it, and this also fed anti-Semitism along with Polish nationalism and pro-Catholicism.
It’s true that Stalin put a lot of Jews in the Polish government because he did not trust native Poles to run the new Communist state very well, as Communism was so unpopular.
After a while, there were plenty of Poles running the Polish Communist state and few Jews; by 1970 or so, the Polish state was officially anti-Semitic, running campaigns against “rootless cosmopolitanism” and “Zionology” in tune with the now anti-Semitic Soviet state.
But not all Eastern Bloc states mirrored this anti-Semitism from the USSR, which was rooted in the Jews’ mass flight to Zionism and the new Israeli state, aligned with the West, so there must have been some uniquely Polish animus at work there, even in Polish Communists. The Israeli state has since become most famous as being the World’s only single race-religion state, a most dubious distinction.
Someone asked why Stalin was persecuting Jews after the war, and he blurted out, “But you don’t understand! They are all Zionists!” Stalin was also afraid of East Bloc and Soviet Jews spying for the West in tandem with the Israelis’ turn towards the West in the late 1940’s.
In this he was partly correct, as we now have some evidence, via Terry Kollek, Jewish CIA agent, that a number of Eastern Bloc Jews followed their loyalty to the pro-West Israel by spying for the US against the Soviets and their allies, beginning as early as 1946. Jews in the Eastern Bloc were helping to implement Communism and at the same time working for the CIA to stop it.
As usual, there were Jews on both sides of a major issue.
To call Stalin an anti-Semite is wrong, but he did turn into one late in life.
Stalin persecuted all sorts of minorities, not out of racial supremacism as is often alleged (a sort of hyper Georgian nationalism), but generally only those minorities he saw as disloyal to the USSR. Yet early in its history, the USSR laid down a new model for the best treatment of minorities by a state, a model that is mirrored now in many progressive states the world over. The paradoxes go on and on like funhouse mirrors.
The Jews are coming back to Poland, which is very heartening. The anti-Semites are re-awakening too, as we would expect. It’s not correct to be either excessively optimistic or pessimistic about Jewish prospects in Poland today.
Nationalist Jews will usually sneer at any notion that things are any better there – as they see Poles as some sort of metaphysical eternal anti-Semites, corrupted probably in their very souls with nary a hope of salvation.
Neither is it correct to cheer these events on too much. But in Polish-Jewish relations, any forward progress should be cheered, as it should in most any other arena of life.
Deborah Lipstadt, a fighter against Holocaust Denier David Irving, has some comments on the absurd Jewish notion that “Poles were worse than Nazis”. I don’t really like her much, but she’s smart and perceptive. At the end of the day, she’s no Jewish viper as the Deniers claim; she’s just a garden-variety Jewish nationalist, carrying on about Jewish intermarriage as if it were the New Holocaust.
I read through the whole thread and found it fascinating. It’s very long, but you may wish to dip in if you have any interest in the history of Poland in the past century. Note the nationalist Jew or Jews on the thread throwing the anti-Semite epithet around promiscuously.
There are some excellent comments by readers at the end of this post on the old blog.

It is Better to Forget Some Things

Repost from the old blog. This is great stuff here – a debate on the Katyn Massacre. I tend to agree with Communist and anti-Zionist Israel Shamir’s assessment at the end, seconded by Joh Domingo and Treanor. The hullabaloo over the Katyn Massacre is, as Shamir suggests, a tempest in a teapot.
6 million Poles died in World War 2, most of them murdered in cold blood, and few thousand Polish officers is the worst crime in the war? Please. Polish nationalists have jumped all over this because it demonstrates the perfidy of the USSR, who imposed Communism on reluctant Poles.
Even Stalin said imposing Communism on Poles was like putting a saddle on a cow. Part of the reason for the Poles’ reluctance to embrace Communism is their intense Catholicism. Far Rightwingers love Katyn because it shows that the true evil force in World War 2 was the Soviets, not the Nazis. This line of thinking is strongly tied in with anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism and appears in many different forms.
Hitler was only trying to save the West from Communism. Jews took over in the USSR, killed some people, and then this set Hitler on some maniacal murder spree because his sensitive heart was so troubled by the murderous Jewish Bolsheviks.
The USSR was getting ready to attack Germany and Germany pre-emptively attacked just in the nick of time. Anti-Communism, anti-Semitism and pro-Germanism all wrap together here like vines of ivy and picking them apart is no easy task. Part and parcel of this nonsense is the notion of the Holodomor, literally a “deliberate genocide” which was nothing of the sort.
1.5 million died in a famine that was mostly due to natural causes and partly due to the chaos of too-rapid collectivization, and partly to the kulaks’ destruction of 50% of the livestock in the USSR and much of the nation’s grain crop through either refusal to plant or burning of fields.
Kulaks were not innocent, most had formed armed gangs that killed members of collective farms, raped peasant women and committed mass sabotage. The Ukrainian famine occurred in the midst of a counterinsurgency. During that year, there was famine and there were famine deaths all over the USSR, even in big cities like Moscow. It was just a lot worse in the Ukraine.
The famine was jumped on by Nazi William S. Hearst in league with Adolf Hitler and other Nazis. Pro-fascist Alexander Solzhenitsyn played his part. The figures were constantly revised upwards to 6-8 million dead, when the true figure is 1.5 million.
There is a reason for this. Ukrainian nationalists were overwhelmingly pro-Nazi and many still are. The whole idea is to make the “Holodomor’ a higher figure than the Jewish Holocaust, for nefarious purposes. For more on the Holodomor, see my previous post.
I wish the Hollywood Jews were as pro-Communist as they are always said to be, but I doubt if they are. I used to hang out in Hollywood for years on end, and I met some of these people. They aren’t Communists at all – they are just bourgeois liberals for the most part.
The people who say that “Hollywood Jews” (coded as Commie fellow travelers) cover up the crimes of Communism because “Communists were Jewish”, is, frankly, a Nazi lie. The Killing Fields was a big Hollywood hit. Were the Chinese Maoists Jews too? How about the North Koreans?
Jan Thomasz Gross’ book about Polish anti-Semitism is right on. Many Poles are anti-Semites; it’s just a fact. And large numbers of them gladly helped the Nazis to point out the Jews in their midst; on this one issue, occupiers and occupied often shared one hatred.
But many rescued Jews during the war and the General Government tried to save Jews and was one of the first to blow the whistle on the Nazi project for the Jews. Like most things, the relationship between Poles and Jews is complicated. Polish nationalism is objectively anti-Semitic and probably has been for some time. Jews have a right to be wary about it. For more on this subject, see my previous post here.
I am dubious about whether anyone is trying to stir hatred between Russians and Poles in order to put the NATO missiles in Poland. Russia is perfectly correct to be indignant about these missiles on its front door. How’s about if Russia sticks missiles in Mexico? Poles already don’t like Russians too much due to Communism.
Cold Warriors have jumped all over Katyn as evidence of the evils of Communism. Why Stalin would order 4000 totally innocent Polish officers to be murdered for no apparent reason was always beyond me. Now we find out that the killers were Germans and Ukrainians.
Ukrainian and Polish nationalisms, two vicious and insane ideologies, had been dueling during this period, with persecution, bigotry, ethnic cleansings and killings all around. In part it was a conflict between Catholics and the Orthodox, but Shamir wisely points out the class angle, always neglected in “class does not exist” America.
That the Nuremberg Trials found that the Nazis committed the Katyn Massacre is now used by anti-Semites as more evidence of the evil project of the Jewish-controlled Nuremberg Trials to hang wonderful Nazi humanists and at the same time let the Jews’ genocidal Bolshevik Soviet buddies off the hook.
The Nuremberg decision was a good one at the time. Whether new research has proved them wrong is not known. Exhumations show that some of the Polish officers killed at Katyn were killed with German weapons. Those sneaky Commies must have stolen German guns to blame the nice Nazi pacifists!
It also appears that most of the people shot at Katyn had taken up arms against the Soviets who had moved into Eastern Poland. The Soviets were facing a very nasty insurgency there by Polish nationalists.
There is quite a bit of Jewish-conspiracy mongering in the text below. Although Jewish conspiracies, like all sorts of other ethnic conspiracies, obviously exist, I don’t see much to indicate that Soviet Jews were behind the Katyn shootings or that Hollywood Jews are trying anti-Russian anymore than anyone else and trying to stir up Poland against Russia.
By World War 2, the Jewish era of the NKVD was through – the heyday was 1936-1938. Besides, I am sick and tired of debating anti-Semitic “Bolshevik Jews” talk.
Ferreting through the genealogies of Soviet leaders for drops of Jewish blood here and there smacks of anti-Semitism and seems to be a wrong-headed enterprise, unless one can prove that 1/4 Jewish blood somehow anoints one into the Tribe, I say let it rest. Lots of Jews don’t even like converts, I can imagine what they think of 1/4 Jews.
Hollywood Jews are leftwing pacifists, anti-imperialists and soft Zionists. They are hardly agents of Tel Aviv or the neocons – if anything, they are their opponents.
Joachim Martillo adds his comments to start off:

I tend to agree in terms of relations among nations and particularly in cases where the truth is extremely hard to determine or history is used to create hostility instead of understanding, but comprehending how the Katyn Massacre has been used historically from Nuremberg until today is worthwhile if only because it is still being used politically — Joachim.

Our British reader, Martin Webster (once a prominent far-right leader) wrote about the Katyn film:
Polish film about Katyn Massacre.
The above is the link to a review about a new Polish film which a Polish friend tells me deals with the massacre by the Soviet Union of the Polish officer corps — a crime which for years was blamed on the Germans.
It seems that this film is so good it is up for some kind of a film industry prize, even an Oscar.
I doubt if any such film will be granted high accolades. The people who run the movie business may not be too keen on allowing a prize to go to a film which places the blame for a notorious war crime on the Communists rather than the Nazis!
And as it happens, the Zionists have just commenced a propaganda initiative in Poland designed to make the Poles feel co-responsible with the German Nazis for “the Holocaust”.
Recently Jan Thomasz Gross, a Polish Jew who left Poland in 1968 to become a U.S. citizen and a history professor at Princeton University, has returned to the land of his birth to promote his latest book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz.
His technique for securing publicity for his book has been to stage provocative public meetings in Polish cities at which he accuses the Polish people in general and the Polish Catholic Church in particular, of responsibility for massacres of Jews during and after the German occupation.
These meetings caused an uproar for, as Time magazine of 23rd January 2008 reported:

“……Poland, which lost about 6 million of its citizens in the war — half of them Jewish — prides itself on being the only country in Nazi-occupied Europe that did not have a collaborator government.

This kind of vilification of the Polish people by Zionist propagandists has been part of Israeli school curriculum for decades past and it has clearly inculcated among Israelis a hatred for Poland and its people.
Shamir replied to Martin:
Dear Martin,
This is your mistake: “The people who run the movie business may not be too keen on allowing a prize to go to a film which places the blame for a notorious war crime on the Communists rather than the Nazis!” And this is an archetypal error of the Right.
Your “The people who run the movie business” are Jews, and associated with them other forces. You think that for Jews, Nazis are forever the most evil force, while Commies are akin spirit.
Jews are not such idealists as you think. “The people who run the movie business” are first of all American Jews, and they are fully siding with the US, so they want to eliminate every independent force and cause everybody, all mankind, to submit to the will of the US, and by proxy to their will.
Russia is the real enemy for them, as well China or Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, but they are first of all enemies of Russia, the militarily strongest one. They want to cause more hatred between Russians and Poles in order to implant the US missile stations in Poland and move NATO troops eastwards.
This is important real stuff, while the fight with Nazis is a nice entertainment. Nazis were defeated in 1945, and the modern far right is too weak to matter.
“The people who run the movie business” will give this film an Oscar if it will help to undermine Russia’s independence.
Joachim Martillo proposed to shift the blame for Katyn on the Jews:
Here is the Katyn Massacre Recommendation/Order. Investigating Beria’s background leads to the same sort of confusion that is associated with Lenin’s ethnic heritage shown later to be in part Jewish.
The signers of the massacre order are all reputed to have been members of the Kremlin Jewish Faction. From what I have read practically everyone up and down the chain of command in the killings of Polish leaders and intellectuals was Jewish. It takes a little digging to get the backgrounds, and I have yet to see it published in a popular journal.
It took 90 years for the NY Times to admit that all the killers of the Czar and his family were Jewish. Probably around 2030 the NY Times will publish the complete story of the Katyn Massacres including who conceived the idea and advised Stalin.
Shamir concludes on Katyn:
This is far from clear who and how many were shot and when at Katyn. There is a whole literature of blame-shifting and denial, much of it in Russian, Polish, German.
The Nurnberg Tribunal decided that the massacre was done by Germans, and denial of Nurnberg is illegal in many countries – but you may do as much as you wish, if you aim against the present enemy, the too-independent Russia. Probably you may also blame it on Muslims, or Palestinians – as it was almost done by Dershowitz.
This Katyn Massacre was chosen by our enemy. Otherwise, who would give a damn about a few thousand soldiers and officers’ fate in the war where millions perished? More Poles died at Monte Cassino, not to mention Warsaw. What actually happened in Katyn?
It is perfectly possible that as many as 4,0000 Polish officers were actually executed by the Soviets as enemies: do not forget that Napoleon executed 6,000 POW’s, the whole garrison of Jaffa, after they have surrendered. There was much bad blood between the Red Army and the White Poles: over 100,000 Red Army POW’s were killed or starved to death by the White Poles after 1920.
On the other hand, some of the Poles exhumed in Katyn were undoubtedly killed by German weapons. The place could be a preferred place for mass killings, as the Babi Yar in Kiev was, and it was used by whoever was in power.
As far as I understand, one may consider the background, Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine, a piece of land that was shifted from Austro-Hungarian empire to independent Poland after Versailles and to the Ukraine in 1939.
There was extreme animosity between ruling Poles and peasant Ukrainians; the Ukrainians were harshly treated by their Polish masters, and this animosity caused severe persecution of the ethnic Poles when Polish rule was over.
Whoever ordered the shooting the Polish officers – the Soviets or the Nazis – it was anyway done by the Ukrainians, the pro-Soviet Ukrainians or pro-German Ukrainians, for there was nobody else to do the job. In other words, Katyn fits well into Volyn, the place where tens of thousands of ethnic Poles were massacred by Ukrainian nationalists.
One may compare it with the massacre of whites in Haiti after their colonial rule was over; and many other unpleasant events in human history.
I agree with our Polish friend Marek G, with Treanor and Joh Domingo: it is better to forget some things, using the Greeks’ example: they had a capital punishment cure for those with over-long memories. It is better for Russians and Poles to be good neighbours; but the enemy wants them to fight. Likewise, the enemy wants the Arabs to fight Iranians.
The rest of the discussion appears here.

Who Were the Real Terrorists in Kielce 1946?

This is a repost from the old blog by a guy I used to publish as a guest author – the mysterious Eastern Orthodox expatriate US academic Stojgniev O’Donnell (a pseudonym). I kept warning the guy about his anti-Semitism (we don’t publish anti-Semitism here and we deny the Jews and Judeophiles who lie and say we do) but you know, these guys just can’t seem to knock it off.
He’s basically coming from the POV of an Orthodox Christian Polish or Pan-Slavic nationalist. I believe the guy was an academic or was a grad student in the US, had bad experiences Jewish colleagues, and they either tried to run him out or fired him, I forget. Anyway, he left the US and has been holing up in, I think Poland lately. He’s afraid that Jews are out to destroy his career in the US, and I guess they are. I have no contact with him anymore.

He writes pretty well. Unfortunately, this mindset is very common among many Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, etc. It’s a combination of Pan-Slavism and Pan-Orthodoxism and it is best on display in Russia with nationalist types. It’s not going away!
This essay is anti-Semitic and I put lots of comments in there. Still, because the history of Jews and Poles has been so tragic, it is useful to publish the Polish side of the affair in an effort to try to understand the roots of the problem.
This essay deals with a pogrom of Jews in Kielce, Poland, in 1946, after World War 2 was over, from a Polish nationalist point of view. Although I have not read it, Jan T. Gross’ Fear – Anti-Semitism After Auschwitz is supposed to be an excellent work that deals comprehensively with the terrible Kielce pogrom.
Out of a pre-war Jewish population in Kielce of 25,000, only about 200 Kielce Jews survived the war. The surviving Jews returned from the forests and camps and found that Poles had stolen their homes. This was the setting in which the famous pogrom took place.
It is fascinating how Jewish Zionists can rage beet-red about “Poles stealing the homes and land of Jews”, while being oblivious to the nightmarish Jewish state occupying Palestine, which has stolen every inch of land it illegally claims.
Although only 39 Jews were killed in the pogrom (relatively few compared to other pogroms), the Kielce Pogrom had great significance for Polish history. After WW2 ended, many Jews had hopes of continuing to live in Poland. For many of them, Kielce ended all of that.
As Stephen Pollard notes, Kielce convinced many of them of the need for a Jewish state (this is actually a dubious assumption on the part of Zionist Pollard). Debate about the Kielce Pogrom and the Polish role in it has continued in recent years.
A Polish commission in 2000 concluded that a mob of local Poles spontaneously attacked and killed the Kielce Jews as a result of “unfortunate coincidences of an historical nature”, and dismissed a conspiracy theory that the pogrom was instituted by the Soviet Union.
Last month, on July 6, a memorial to the victims of the pogrom was laid in Kielce on the 60th anniversary of the pogrom. The Polish President’s office read a statement at the ceremony describing the pogrom as “a great shame and tragedy for the Jews and Poles”. This blog concurs completely in that sentiment.
The essay below deals with an article by Adam Michnik, the Jewish editor or Poland’s largest newspaper. This article also sheds light on current Polish affairs and indicates that, alas, all is still not well between the Poles and the Jews.
The piece makes some pointed critiques, which are commonly made, of secular, liberal Jews in the media using that forum to aggressively push a particular type of Jewish tribal agenda onto a non-Jewish population.
Note the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet sentiment in O’Donnell’s piece, typical of Polish religious nationalism.
Suffice to say that O’Donnell’s views are pretty typical of Slavic Eastern Orthodox Christians in Poland, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and to a much lesser extent among Orthodox Christians in Greece and the Arab World.
Socially conservative yet anti-imperialist and to some extent anti-Western, these Orthodox have also had a tempestuous relationship with the Jews.
These difficulties, and the reasons behind them, have of course been shrouded in fog by the Politically Correct theory of anti-Semitism, which holds that anti-Semitism is a form of mental illness, is not understandable by anyone but a psychiatrist or a prison warden, and occurs for no known reason at all.
I call this the mystification of anti-Semitism, and while it serves ego-defensive purposes for the Jews and philo-Semites who have contrived this nonsense, it surely sheds little light on anti-Semitism.
Furthermore, by promoting Zionism and the Jewish state (one of the worst mistakes the Jews have made in recent years) this mystification serves more nefarious ends. For it is Zionist dogma, elucidated by Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism himself, that the Gentiles will always hate the Jews, everywhere the Jews are, for eternity.
Such it has been, such it is, such it will be.
Hence the need for the armed gangster-state ghetto (It even has a wall around it!) called Israel.
A further elaboration is that worldwide, an eternal epidemic of anti-Semitism has occurred, continues to occur, and most importantly, will always occur, ever since the Jews appeared on Earth, for no intelligible reason whatsoever other than merely a manifestation of evil.
The insidious and disgusting sentiments working here? All Gentiles are anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is incomprehensible other than as an infection of evil.
Putting the two together, we realize that many ultranationalist Jews actually believe that all Gentiles are evil people. Hence, apparently on some level, they hate us (Israel Shahak said a majority of Israelis had a deep hatred of all Gentiles). And they accuse us of being “haters”.
In truth, Jewish suffering has not been particularly unique. Throughout most of the history of feudal Europe, Christian serfs would have gladly traded places with Jews. Certainly there were pogroms and other forms of prejudice and racist hatred, but serfdom for the serfs themselves was one centuries-long pogrom.
If one reviews the history of any ethnic group, tribe or nation, one will find that they have often been in conflict, often armed conflict, with various neighbors for various reasons. Wars have been ongoing, and many members of the tribe or nation were killed. The land was often overrun by invaders, often repeatedly, much of their land stolen, and many of their people killed.
Painful as it may sound, the history of the Jews (until the 1940’s anyway) is probably not that much more painful that that of many tribes and nations. Even the extermination attempt in the 1940’s was not unique, sadly, as there have been many attempts to exterminate various ethnic groups.
The Tutsis lost possibly 70% of their population in the genocide in 1994. By any accounting, that is more than the 1/3 of Jews lost in the Shoah. One-third of the population of East Timor was killed after Indonesia invaded, equivalent to the Shoah as a percentage. Many American Indian tribes have been wiped clean off the map altogether.
I am not an expert on Slavic Orthodox Christian anti-Semitism but in Poland, in general, Catholic anti-Semitism was religiously-based, or more accurately based on confessionalism (religious bigotry without religious belief). In a nutshell, the Poles wanted Jews to convert to Catholicism and intermarry with Poles. The Jews would do neither, and hence anti-Semitism ensued.
The Chmielnicki Rebellion in the Ukraine from 1648-1654, during which about 20,000 Jews and 100,000 noblemen were killed, has achieved permanent victimology status amongst Jews as merely an outbreak of murderous anti-Semitism, and nothing else.
That it was, but many Jews had formed a middle class that allied itself with the brutal feudal lords. The Jews were often the only face of feudal rule that the serfs ever saw.
The rebellion was probably mostly just a peasant rebellion of serfs against the feudal lords and their allies. Many people were killed on all sides.
Chmielnicki, who led the rebellion, actually implored the Jewish poor to join the fight against their brethren who were allied with the feudal classes. The Jewish poor refused. To this day, Chmielnicki is seen as a hero in the Ukraine, while Jews regard him as some kind of Hitler and see his fame as emblematic of anti-Semitism in the region.
Chmielnicki is probably more akin to, say, Tupac Amaru, who led the Inca against the Spaniards in the late 1700’s, or Mao Zedong, or Ho Chi Minh, or Desallines in Haiti in 1804, or other leaders of peasant rebellions. It is useful to note that peasant rebellions, whether involving Jews or non-Jews, are typically bloody affairs.
For example, in 1804, in the Haitian Slave Revolt, the Haitian slaves rose up against French slave-holding families in Haiti and killed most of the 25,000 population of them. This blog regards that wild massacre, as, in general, a great day for humanity (though the children of the slaveowners could have been spared).
Another interesting aspect of the Chmielnicki Rebellion is that the Jews look at the rebellion and the 1600’s in which it occurred, as one of, as noted above, an insane outbreak of murderous anti-Semitism, and little else. From the Jewish point of view, this was the century in which people went nuts in the Ukraine and slaughtered Jews for no reason. Not much else happened of consequence in the region at that time.
Never mind that the Jews killed were the public face of inhuman feudal brutality, as noted above. We need also to note that during this same period, Poland was wracked another terrible outbreak of anti-Semitism, but this occurred in the context of general chaos, wild warfare and multiple invasions of Poland by various foreign powers.
During the period in which Jews narcissistically mourn their own losses as the only salient tragedy of the time, an incredible 1/3 of the population of Poland (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was exterminated. This is a population loss equivalent to the Jewish Shoah. So, while Jews were definitely being killed in Poland during this time, the Poles themselves were also being slaughtered like flies.
Whether Jews were being killed to a greater extent than Poles is open to debate. The critical point here is that this was not so much only another wild outbreak of incomprehensible Nazi-like slaughter of Jews (the myopic Jewish view) but instead, it was simply a period of mass slaughter of the population at large by various actors for various reasons.
The number of dead in the Chmielnicki Rebellion has also been exaggerated, which has been a general tendency of Ashkenazi Jews who have cultivated a victimhood epic. Exaggeration of one’s own losses, and the resulting embrace of victimhood, is probably a general human tendency and not limited to Jews.
Jewish sources originally said that 2.4 to 3.3 million Jews were killed during Chmielnicki, and modern-day Jewish sources put the figure at 500,000. An Israeli historian has produced a more accurate figure of about 19,000 Jewish dead out of a population of 40,000. Nobles suffered much more, as they were virtually exterminated from the Ukraine – scarcely one survived.
Nevertheless, one gets the impression that Jewish activists look at Poland in the 1600’s and see only dead Jews and no other corpses.
A useful book that deals peripherally with Polish-Jewish and Ukrainian-Jewish relations is Primo Levi‘s “ If Not Now, When?” (review here) about a group of armed Jewish anti-Nazi partisans operating behind enemy lines in Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and Germany in World War 2.
They meet up at one point with a group of Polish resistance fighters. The Jews air their grievances about Polish treatment of Jews to the Poles, who retort with a history of equally lamentable treatment of Poles at the hands of all sorts of invaders and local abusers.
The Jews end up concluding that the Poles have been just as abused as the Jews have, but in their twisted way, many of the Poles took out their rage on the local Jews instead of on the real abusers. Both sides leave with a refreshed understanding of each other. By the way, I enjoyed Levi’s book and recommend it.
With that background, we can move on to the piece. As usual, my comments, if any, will appear in bold brackets:
I am no expert on the history of the events that took place in Kielce, Poland in July 1946 and resulted in the death of a group of Jews. And I have no intention of becoming an expert, for several reasons. First of all, I am convinced that the version of the Kielce events which is promoted by Jews as historical reality is, in fact, a clever distortion of the truth.
[RL: I do not think that this is completely accurate, though the standard Jewish line includes various inaccuracies.]
The aberrations include that 80, or 50, or however many, Jews were killed – no, it was 39 – and that the Polish army and police and gleefully joined in the killing – in fact, the Polish army fought off the mob for some time, and took the wounded to the hospital, although some other soldiers joined in the pogrom.]
The Jewish version of the notorious “pogrom” has been crafted by Jews because of the propaganda value of its symbolism. Kielce is one of those shticks with which Jews love to thrash Poles. (Always the Jews glorify their distinctiveness. They can’t speak German unless it becomes “Yiddish.” They can’t get their butts kicked unless it’s a racist “pogrom”).
[RL: For the record, Yiddish and German are distinctive languages. Yiddish is not even a dialect of German; it is a separate language altogether. Yiddish is actually a sort of a German-Slavic creole with many Hebrew words mixed in.]
Life is too short to be distracted by what happened in Kielce. Some Jews were murdered by Poles. A Polish boy mysteriously disappeared for awhile (though he turned up unharmed after the violence) and there were rumors of ritual murder.
Substantial evidence suggests that the Kielce “pogrom” was engineered by Soviets in Poland, who used the incident to slander postwar Poland in the international press, while at the same time shoring up and legitimizing the unpopular Soviet occupation, which was bitterly opposed by the vast majority of the Polish population.
[RL: This view is quite popular in Poland, especially with Polish nationalists. A major Polish commission reviewed all evidence about this Soviet conspiracy theory and rejected it out of hand as unproven. There are many problems with the theory.
The main one is that there is little, if any, hard evidence supporting it, only a cui bono theory that suggests that the Soviet Union could have benefited from it.
Another mark against this theory is that, despite the blatherings of Jewish ultranationalists, the Soviet Union was not anti-Semitic at the time or prior, and was not until the disappointing “rootless cosmopolitan” campaign of 1948.]
The reason I raise this topic is because of an interesting article on Kielce by Adam Michnik, the notorious Jewish “dissident” and contemporary media magnate. Michnik’s article appeared in his newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza: “Pogram Kielecki: Dwa rachunki sumienia” (3-4 July 2006, pp. 12, 13, 14 and 10-11 July 2006, pp. 22, 23, 24).
How did Michnik (real name: Adam Szechter) go from poor dissident to publisher of the most powerful daily in postcommunist Poland? I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusion.
Michnik’s newspaper is a source of rabid anti-Polishness; anti-Christianity; political correctness; strident support of homosexuality, love parades, and social deviance; and propaganda for all of contemporary America’s and Western Europe’s wickedest nonsense on relativism and multiculti.
Michnik occasionally and strategically writes with sympathy about the Catholic Church, which enjoys the backing of the great majority of the Polish population.
[RL: Jewish hostility towards Christianity, to one degree or another, is often seen in even very assimilated US Jews, and is most pointed towards Catholicism, and not so much towards Protestantism. Jews have long memories, and Christian anti-Semitism in Europe was, for the vast majority of its history, Catholic.]
We see this Catholic anti-Semitism in Latin America also. Typically, it took the form of a complaint that “Jews killed Jesus”. Hence the furor when Mel Gibson, a deeply conservative Catholic, made the movie,”The Passion”. Protestants in general have never cared much about Jews one way or the other, though lately many Protestant fundamentalists have become passionate Zionists.]
Michnik’s people will pen some insignificant article on a minor religious celebration, illustrated perhaps with a color photo, while in the same issue publishing a couple of deeply ideological articles which seek to compromise the Polish Church.
[RL: I confess it is beyond me why the secular, liberal, Westernizing Jews that tend to own media outlets so often play with fire in this way.
We have seen so many reports like this of Jewish ethnic activists in the media aggressively pushing a particular secular, liberal, Westernizing Jewish agenda onto a non-Jewish population that it cannot possibly anti-Semitic fantasy. However, to dislike Jews due to the activities of these “media Jews” is a mistake.
Many Jews, especially Orthodox Jews and particularly in Israel, are deeply conservative on social issues like multiculturalism, abortion, homosexuality, etc. They don’t have much in common with the species of liberal “media Jew” described above.
Contrast the “media Jew” behavior with the mindset of Overseas Chinese, another minority very similar to Jews in that a tiny minority has often achieved huge economic power in a number of societies. Yet the Overseas Chinese tend to keep their heads down, assimilate, and not provoke the majority.
Pogroms have occurred against the Overseas Chinese, as they have against Jews, which suggests an economic basis for at least some of these violent uprisings. Yet perhaps Jews could learn a thing or two from the Overseas Chinese about how to not go out of one’s way to provoke a majority population.]
In the article on Kielce, Michnik demonstrates his mastery of the Jewish art of propaganda.
He goes so far as to quote long passages about the Kielce “pogrom” written by Kielce Archbishop Czeslaw Kaczmarek and later delivered to the American ambassador in Warsaw (international Jewry at that time was agitating the West to defend Poland’s helpless, innocent Jews against racist Polish anti-Semitism).
Archbishop Kaczmarek eloquently explains the Poles’ suspicion of Jews:

Here after the large-scale murder of Jews committed by the German government in recent time in Poland, also in Kielce, there was no negative antagonism towards Jews and there was no anti-Semitism. Everyone sympathized with the Jews, even their most determined enemies. The Poles had saved many Jews, and without Polish aid, not a single Jew would have survived” Jews are unpopular, even hated, throughout Poland. There is no doubt about that.
Jews are hated by those Poles who belong to no political party, but also by those who belong to the ruling [communist] party – The origins of that antagonism are well known, but certainly they have no racial basis. Jews in Poland are the chief propagators of the communist system, which the Polish nation completely rejects.”
Jews are everywhere in the government, in [Polish] institutions outside of Poland, in industry, in administrative offices, in the military, and everywhere in the most important, most influential positions. They control the nation’s press; they control all censorship today in Poland. They control the security apparatus and they are responsible for arrests (p. 13).

Something similar took place in other countries of the postwar Soviet bloc, as Jews in the name of communism and the brotherhood of nations with violence and terror “settled their accounts” with Christians.
[RL: The Cardinal’s account is self-contradictory and problematic. As a Leftist, I don’t necessarily have problems with Jews being Communists. It was true that there were many Jews among the Communists in Europe and the Soviet Union, especially in leadership roles.
These Jews were often outside of normative Jewish culture, religion and even mainstream Jewish identity. The notion that Jews in the Communist movement may have unfortunately used their power to attack their ancient enemies is a long-standing complaint of anti-Semites that deserves examination.
Certainly in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s in the Soviet Union, the abuse of the Christian religion was almost taken to the form of a fetish.
But note also that the institutional Christian churches in these Eastern Bloc states often opposed the Communist regimes. Jews as part of these regimes (and other government officials) consequently attacked these churches, as they attacked any other dissidents.
The notion that Jewish Communists were attacking dissidents not as Communists first, but as Jews first, is problematical and remains to be proven.
Many Communist Jews in the Eastern Bloc were probably trying to put into practice the noble Jewish tradition of being a “light unto nations”. They may have been misguided, but they were probably sincere about wanting a better world.
Furthermore, many Eastern Bloc Jews probably saw Communism as a remedy for long-standing, often irrational anti-Semitism in the region. Note that in the 1960’s, the Polish Communist government could no longer be considered Jewish-dominated, and even orchestrated a disgusting anti-Semitic campaign called the Polish 1968 Political Crisis.]
Here I should remind those foolish and naive Poles who worship America that the latter country does not allow any discussion or investigation of the Jews’ role in the communist terror.
[RL: This is simply not true at at all. There are no laws against it. However, there is a taboo associated with the subject. The Nazis made much of the association between Jews and Communism, so anyone equating Jews with Communism since then has been, partly properly, seen as treading in Nazi footsteps.]
According to the American academy, there was no collaboration between Jews and communists (I was recently told that point blank by one American professor).
Michnik (along with a handful of other Jews) occasionally admits, however, that Jews truly were responsible for communist terror.
[It’s not proper, as I have noted above, to ascribe all Eastern Bloc Communist repression to Jews. I believe that Jews were a minority even amongst, say, the Polish Communist Party.
In the early days, even in Poland, Communism was actually fairly popular, despite what O’Donnell implies, especially among working-class Poles.
Initially, conditions for workers and especially peasants were dramatically improved. Recall that Polish feudalism did not truly die until 1945, and it was the Communists who put the stake into feudalism’s dying heart once and for all.
But the Polish Communists made a number of stupid mistakes, especially very heavy-handed repression, and by the mid-1950’s or so, much of their popularity had evaporated.]
It is permissible in America for a Jew, but not for a non-Jew, to point out parallels between Jews and communists.
The main point of Michnik’s article is that the Catholic Church is to blame for the murder of innocent Jews in Kielce. (The ultimate implication, then, is that such an institution cannot be legitimate). Michnik quotes other Poles in the Catholic hierarchy and points out the moral failings of their political incorrectness.
And yet Michnik is so daring in his propaganda, so convinced of his skill at selling his “buy-one-get-one-free” illusion, that he is willing at times to argue the side of truth, i.e. the Polish point of view.
Archbishop Kaczmarek’s explanation, as quoted by Michnik, is a balanced, unemotional explanation of the Jewish role in the postwar communist terror in Poland. Reading Archbishop Kaczmarek’s text, one understands that, for historical reasons, Poles will never ever trust a Jew.
[RL: I think that is dubious. People have short memories, and Polish Communism is dead anyway.]
Michnik quotes some words delivered by a certain Rabbi Kahane in Kielce at the ceremonious burial of the Jewish victims of “Polish terror.” Michnik doesn’t provide background information on Kahane, but I have in my mind a definite, colorful snapshot of a spiteful rabbi puffed up with pride and venom.
Michnik, confident in his skill of disinformation, asks:

Polish reality, obligated at that moment, in 1946, to appeal publicly to the Jewish public for [Jews] to avoid cooperation with the communist regime imposed upon Poland, and especially with the security system, which was in fact for Poles a system of persecution? Was not the rabbi obligated to condemn the violation of human rights [in Poland], the persecution of people [from the non-communist, anti-Nazi underground], the excesses of censorship, the fake elections?

[RL: On the other hand, the only proper attitude of the Polish people towards Kielce itself is the statement of the Polish government at the July 7 ceremony discussed above – that it was a shame and a tragedy for both the Jews and the Poles.]
In attempting to appear impartial, Michnik raises some legitimate, essential questions. Why were Jews silent when Jewish communists were arresting, persecuting, and murdering innocent Christians?
[RL: We have dealt with the “Jewish Communists persecuted Christians” bit on this blog before. Recall that over 95% of Poles and 80% of Russians were at least nominal Christians, even during Communism. So any Communist repression was likely to target “Christians” simply because they were a majority of the population.
This essay of O’Donnell’s seems to be an example of a Polish phenomenon called Zydokomuna and his complaints about persecution of Poles an example of Polonphobia. Both articles are excellent background for this post.]
The implication is this: Why was your Jewish Holocaust more important than ours?
[RL: It is interesting to note that 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed in WW2. Poland lost an incredible 1/3 of its total population. That is 1/2 of the Jewish Shoah right there. 22 million Russians died in WW2. That is almost 4 times the number of deaths in the Shoah. Where are the “Russian Holocaust” Museums in America?]
We live in a time of struggle with Jews. The inclination of the Jew is to lead the world to Armageddon.
[RL: This is just rank anti-Semitic nonsense, but as far as the gangster, thuggish state of Israel goes, combined with its determined and often-fanatical opponents, there seems to be some truth in this. Which is another reason that state should have never been created.]
As I have noted before, a great virtue for the Christian is knowing when and how to ignore Jews.
[RL: I think it is important to note the ethnic biases which may be lurking in the propaganda of various ethnic groups. At that point, one can at least choose to ignore that propaganda or decide that it has an ethnic basis that may not be relevant to one’s own group.]
One should never permit one’s life to be directed by Jews. Those non-Jews who spend their life in hatred of Jews are foolish, for their hatred is exactly what the Jew thrives upon – it confirms the Jew’s ethnocentrism.
[RL: Unfortunately, I conclude that this is true. Anti-Semitism indeed feeds Jewish ethnocentrism, which then feeds further anti-Semitism, which then…get it? Albert Einstein, who was Jewish himself, noted that Jews were determined to be at war with the whole world and then were surprised when the world did not react favorably to them.
Hostility towards outsiders, along with xenophobia and accompanying paranoia and a victimization fetish, go hand in hand with ethnocentrism. All ethnocentric groups (that means all humans, really) have the potential to display such tendencies. As a group becomes more ethnocentric, they will tend display these qualities more.
Jews, being perhaps the most ethnocentric tribe on Earth, would be expected to display xenophobia and accompanying paranoia along with a penchant to see themselves as eternal victims, in spades.
The solution, as noted by progressives from Marx on, is simply the assimilation of the Jews and the tearing down of all ghettos, physical and mental. Such is the road to liberation.]
I pity those Americans who have, in contempt, adopted the pejorative name “kike.” Never have I heard a non-Jew use that word in conversation. I have encountered “kike” only among Jews, who are hoping and dreaming that someone would legitimize their ethnocentricity by calling them a “kike.” The name “Jew” is enough. Jew says it all.
When a Jew mentions Kielce or Jebwabne, I simply smile and comment on the weather. I refuse to allow a Jew to dictate my thoughts. The point of this article is this: as the Jews become more powerful, they become more daring in their allusions.
[RL: As Kevin MacDonald notes, as Jews increase their power over non-Jews, anti-Semitism seems to increase. It is this, not some incomprehensible sickness of the soul, that holds the key to our understanding of much anti-Semitism.
The question then is, which way forward?
Is there something to be said for the Overseas Chinese tendency to keep one’s head down and be discreet? Belligerence and overreach have caused the Jews untold heartache through time. Minorities prosper and live in peace at the whim of majorities, like it or not. Hence, pragmatism mandates reasonable discretion on the part of any minority.]
Adam Michnik and other Jews have come to believe that Poles are so simple-minded that they can be persuaded that Kielce is proof of the inherent evil of Polish society and the Polish Church. The reality is that Michnik, in particular, and Jews, in general, are deceiving charlatans. It is in their nature to deceive non-Jews.
Comments: I was taught somehow, possibly through the standard pro-Jewish Holocaust line, that Polish Jews had heavily collaborated with the Nazis in killing Jews. Let us note that the degree of Polish collaboration with Nazis in Occupied Poland is controversial.
For some alternate views on the Nazi occupation of Poland that show that many Poles collaborated with the Germans and, more commonly, delightfully helped themselves to Jewish property after the Jews were gone, contradicting my general tone in this post, see here, here and here.
It is true that some Poles participated in 22 massacres of Jews during the Holocaust and a number of Poles collaborated with the Nazis. But one point of view is that, unlike Lithuania, Ukraine or other East European states, Polish enthusiasm for collaboration and pogroms during the Holocaust was less than other East European nations.
In fact, most Poles did not cooperate with the Nazi persecution of the Polish Jews at all, and most of the Jews who were killed in Poland were killed by Germans alone (with some exceptions such as the Jebwabne Pogrom).
In the cases where the Nazis had “local” collaborators, it is more accurate to describe them as the Polish Government in Exile did in the famous letter below, as “the dregs of Eastern Europe”, rather than only Poles. In other words, Nazi collaborators in Poland came from a variety of East European nations.
There are more Poles listed than any other national group in the Righteous Among Nations Award given by Israel for those who helped to save Jews during WW2.
In Nazi-occupied Poland, hiding Jews was punished by the death penalty. Poland was the only Nazi-occupied country that formally instituted the death penalty for sheltering Jews. Nevertheless, as we noted above, more Poles saved Jews than any other national group.
The Polish government in exile was the first government to tell the world of the existence of concentration camps and the Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews (a copy of that famous document is here).
Anyone who insists, as one of my commenters did at the end of this piece, that the vast majority of Poles collaborated with the Nazi Final Solution, or that the Poles have always been some of the worst anti-Semites on Earth, needs to carefully read this remarkable 15-page historical document.
This document, describing the reality of life in Nazi-occupied Poland in stark, brutal terms, focuses on the plight of the Jews, and describes the Nazi destruction of Polish Jewry in rich, detailed terms. The document could have been written by the ADL or the Israeli government.
We should also note that the Polish government in exile was the only government that set up an organization specifically dedicated to saving the Jews of Poland – this organization was called Zegota.
When I first read O’Donnell’s post here, I could not understand his anger and I thought that he was just degenerating into anti-Semitic irrationalism (as he does from time to time). But now that I have learned the reality of the dynamic between Poles and Jews in WW2, I am beginning to understand his anger.
Yes, a number of Poles collaborated and some even killed Jews themselves, but this occurred in most Nazi-occupied countries. But the vast majority of Poles refused to get involved, and a huge percentage of the population either joined or supported an often-suicidal Polish resistance.
The Polish resistance was one of the largest, most potent and accomplished of all of the resistance armies in the Nazi-occupied lands. The Polish resistance, with the support of millions of Poles, worked feverishly to save every Jew in Poland as part of their resistance project. They even organized an amazing resistance organization in the bowels of the Auschwitz itself.
A Pole, Witold Pilecki, was the only person who volunteered to be imprisoned at Auschwitz and the first person to organize a resistance organization there. Those few Jews who survived (a horrifying 90% were exterminated – 3 million in total out of 3.4 million, or 1/2 of the entire Shoah) survived only at the whim of their Polish neighbors who hid them.
The reality of the Polish-Jewish dynamic in Occupied Poland was, as elsewhere in Nazi-occupied lands, more complex than the sound bites the propagandists feed us. Some Poles collaborated but many more did not. Some Poles killed Jews, and many more worked night and day to save them and fight Nazism.
In that light, Jewish chauvinist propaganda depicting Poles as super-Nazi collaborators and the worst anti-Semites on Earth is not only erroneous but it is also disgusting and unfair. And this is the misguided agenda of Organized Jewry (exemplified here by Mr. Michnik).
This agenda needs to be condemned alongside Poland’s historical anti-Semitism and the refusal of many Poles to take responsibility for Kielce. Kielce happened, 60 years ago, but it’s all over now. It’s time to put it to rest and move on towards Polish-Jewish healing instead of this endless, divisive pummeling of dead beasts.
In that context, Jewish obsession with Kielce and other Polish horrors seems misplaced. The latest philo-Semitic notion is that “the world was silent” after Kielce – that seems highly dubious to me.
Instead, Poles should be commended for refusing to collaborate in the Judaicide. Michnik’s harping on aberrations like Kielce would not appear to be conducive to rebuilding Polish-Jewish relations.

Jews Versus Lithuanians

Repost from the old site. More raw meat for you anti-Semitic beastie boys.
From this Lithuanian nationalist site.
It’s pretty familiar stuff, similar to Polish anti-Semitism after the war. Basically, they are claiming that the Jews helped the USSR when the USSR invaded Lithuania in 1940. It’s true that there were some arrests and killings in the Baltic States when the Soviets took over. All of the Baltic states have always hated Communism, possibly because it was imposed at gunpoint.
In 1941, the Nazis invaded, and they occupied the place until 1944. It would seem to me that the Nazis were much worse as far as killing folks than the USSR, but that’s just a WAG.
The Holocaust in Lithuania was one of the worst in any nation. There were about 200,000 Jews there when the Nazis invaded, and only 3-4% of them survived, about a 98% death rate.
I guess I can see why the Jews welcomed the Red Army with open arms.
The Holocaust here was a bit peculiar because the locals joined in the killing in a worse way than in most other Axis nations. In particular, the local police, and I believe, even regular citizens, joined in the frenzy.
The Polish (AK) and Lithuanian partisans both fought each other here in what was one of the war’s sillier moments. Apparently the AK were Polish nationalists who had some territorial designs on Lithuania as a part of Poland. A lot of killing on all sides here, including civilians. Nasty fight.
Apparently some Jews who served under Stalin in 1940 were responsible for killing some Lithuanians, and the nationalists want these Jews to be extradited from Israel, where they have taken refuge, on war crimes charges.
No one has been able to try any Allies on war crimes charges during WW2. Otherwise we have to go after the bombers of Dresden and Frankfurt. History is written by the victors, and they also host the war crimes trials. That’s just the way it goes. If you don’t like it, don’t lose a war, or if you do, try to fight at least slightly civilized while you are in conflict.
I really know little about the situation in Lithuania during WW2, and in particular, I am not able to rebut the nationalists’ charges, although I suspect that they are false. The Lithuanians killed 98% of their Jews because some Jews helped the invading USSR a while earlier? Forget it. I don’t buy it. But it might be nice to prove it.

Poles, Ukrainians and Russians Versus Jews

Repost from the old site. More red meat for you anti-Semite lions and tigers.
This post is in response to a commenter who commented that Ukrainians, Russians and Poles are the biggest anti-Semites of all because Jews dominated their economies for so long and because of the Jewish role in implementing Judeo-Bolshevism on the backs of an unwilling people.

Z comments: But the most antisemitic people in the world are Romanians.”
I’d actually say that the Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles are actually more antisemitic that Romanians, if only because there were so many more Jews in those countries as compared to Romania.
So many of the citizens in all of these Eastern European countries are antisemitic because Ashkenazi Jews dominated their economies for so long (as a non-native ethnic minority) and played such a major role in the repressive form of Communism that existed there…so can you really blame them for harboring ill-will toward them?

I respond: Ok, first of all, it’s not all Ukrainians who are anti-Semites. It’s much more prevalent amongst Poles. It’s true that Poles are anti-Semites for a variety of reasons:
1. They wanted Jews to convert to Catholicism.
2. Catholicism was doctrinally opposed to Judaism.
3. Jews refused to assimilate to Polish culture.
4. Jews often refused to learn Polish (though this has been overblown as many Jews did learn Polish).
5. Competition between poor Jews and poor Poles.
6. Role of Jews in Communism, which most Poles really hated. As Stalin said, bringing Communism to Poland was like putting a saddle on a horse. The main reason Poles opposed Communism was not that they were wonderful people or anything, but it was due to their Catholicism.
The business about Jews promoting Communism mostly applies to the postwar period, so Poles can hardly use it as an excuse for their behavior during the war.
Jews never dominated the economy of Poland at any time to my knowledge, unless you want to go way back in time 100’s of years. By the mid to late 1800’s, there was a massive population explosion of Polish Jews and this ended up impoverishing a large number of them.
Let this be a lesson to all of those racialists, racists, nationalists and ethnic nationalist pro-natalists who say that having lots of babies is wonderful for the economy!
Many Ukrainians are anti-Semites, but note that there was mass volunteerism when Germany invaded Ukraine. There were quite a few fighting with the Ukrainian Nazis (nationalists), yes, but there were vastly more fighting with the USSR and then in partisan bands. These partisan bands were full of Jews.
Nowadays, many Ukrainians are anti-Semites because many are nationalists. The nationalist-Nazi line has gone over pretty well, but that’s mostly in the Western Ukraine. In the eastern Ukraine, there is not much anti-Semitism and they are pro-Soviet. This is part of the Holodomor crowd.
It’s not really known how nationalist or anti-Semitic Ukrainians were from 1945-1990. The Ukrainian nationalists blow things way out of proportion. Keep in mind that many more Ukrainians joined partisan bands and volunteered for the Red Army than joined the nationalist bands.
Note that the Red Army and the partisans were in a war to death with the nationalists – a terrible and gruesome war with atrocities on all sides. The Holodomor – Ukrainian nationalist crowd is associated with the nationalist bands who fought alongside the Nazis against the Red Army and partisan bands in WW2.
To say that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians still line up with the nationalist – Nazis against the partisans, or that it was always this way, is completely mistaken. Many Ukrainian peasants were quite happy to be rid of those kulak bastards, and peasants were the overwhelming majority in the Ukraine, not kulaks.
Yes, there was a famine in the Ukraine, but life expectancy exploded in the Ukraine before and afterwards. This was a time of hardship, and people were just taking a lot of this horror in stride.
I would guess that the vast majority of Ukrainians felt or later figured out that the Nazis were far worse for the Ukraine (and had an infinitely worse plan for the future) than Stalin ever did. During WW2 and even afterwards, most Ukrainians did not believe in this Holodomor bullshit, and most felt that about 2 million died.
Ukraine lost 25% of its population during the Nazi invasion, and the Nazis had deadly plans for most of the rest. That’s way more than died in any kind of Holodomor, fake or otherwise.
Russians do not hold it against Jews that they played a role in Communism. Communism is actually pretty popular in Russia right now, or at least it is not unpopular. The Russian nationalist fascists like Solzhenitsyn are not that common and even the Russian Nazis are usually socialists and even pro-Stalin. Stalin is positively regarded by most Russians today.
There is resentment against Jews by Russians, but Jews never dominated the economy in either Ukraine or Russia except for now with the return to capitalism, so there is now some resentment due to their role in looting the USSR.
Russians started hating Israel because the Israelis lined up with the West after WW2. That’s what that was all about. Also E European Jews (Zionists) were caught spying for the US over and over. The USSR always disliked Jewish nationalism so that was another reason they opposed Israel.
But initially Stalin supported Israel when it looked like they were going to be pro-Soviet or even neutral. They turned pro-West real quick. This explains Stalin’s anti-Semitic turn in the USSR after the war.
At one point in the late 40’s someone asked Stalin why he was persecuting the leaders of the Jewish organizations in the USSR and he said, “But you do not understand! They are all Zionists!” So he wasn’t going after them because they were Jews but because a lot of them were thought to be lining up with the West in the Cold War.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)