Thaddeus Stevens, American Hero

I had never even heard of this guy, but a post over at the White nationalist site Occidental Dissent condemning him as one of the worst Americans of all time stirred my interest. I expected a fanatic. Not that I mind, after all, I’m a big fan of John Brown (even though he was a nut) and even Nat Turner (though he’s kind of gruesome). Desallines of Haiti, leader of the rebellion that killed almost all of the 25,000 Whites in Haiti, has always been one of my biggest heroes.
Over at Wikipedia’s Thaddeus Stevens page, there’s little if anything to dislike. He went beyond mere liberalism to all-out radicalism, championing the Underground Railroad and even running a waystation in Pennsylvania. He lived with a mixed-race (mulatto) female servant, and they may have had illegitimate children together.
Almost all graveyards were segregated back then, and he demanded to be buried in one of the only integrated graveyards around. His headstone even showcases this demand. He set up a university that was one of the first with an explicit non-discrimination clause, even for Muslims!
As the leader of the Radical Republicans, sure the Southerners hate him. Southerners need to get over it. You lost, we won.* It’s over. Time to move on. Not only did you get your asses kicked, but you weren’t even fighting for a legitimate cause. Southerners are just flat out nuts. They were nuts during the Civil War and they still are nuts to this day. They’re basically a bunch of fanatics. Fanatical mostly because they are still mad over losing the stupid war they started, and still angry at “the Nawth” for handing their great grandfather’s asses to them.
Towards the end of the war, Southern fanatics experimented with poison gas in an attempt to gas a room full of top US government officials. Experiments were carried out on cats in an enclosed glass case. With the war almost over, Southern fanatics still would not give up. There were many fanatical plots, including assassination plots, at the end of the war. I believe that all these nuts were caught. After the war, in a typical show of Yankee magnanimity, I believe all were released.
Southerners rant about General Sherman burning down Atlanta and other cities, but he was actually pretty civilized about it. History has not served Sherman well.
Typically he was surround a city and not let anyone out. Then his men would go door to door and try to clear out all the Southerners. Most able-bodied men would be gone, and there were just women, kids, old men, and maybe some Blacks. Union soldiers went house to house trying to evacuate the place. I’m not sure if they gave people a chance to gather up belongings.
A lot of Southerners knew what was up and insisted on going up in flames in their homes. Typically these clowns were dragged out of their homes kicking and screaming. There were a few deaths, but considering the scope of the scorched Earth operation, it is incredibly humane. I believe that only White homes were burned, and Negro homes were spared. I also believe that mansions of the slaveowners were targeted.
Anyway, Sherman’s campaign was sheer genius. There were hardly any deaths, but a lot of Southern property was up in flames. The opposite of a neutron bomb. Sherman was driven to this rage because the South, though beaten, would not say uncle. His March was the last straw.
Radical Republicanism has come in for a lot of criticism, but much of it is undeserved. The South deliberately tried to throw a monkey wrench in Reconstruction after the War and tried to bring back slavery in all but name only. Black rights were restricted in every possible way, necessitating the passage of the 13th15th Amendments, also despised by White nationalists. They hate the 14th Amendment most of all. What’s it about? Equal protection under the law. Horror of horrors.
In some ways, Reconstruction was idiotic. Blacks were put in charge of law enforcement, courts and local governments. They were well-meaning but often illiterate, had no education and were worse than incompetent. As a result, local government on most levels was a comedy of errors.
Freed Black slaves, illiterate and never having worked a day of paid labor in their lives, wandered the roads aimlessly. Many drifted back to the plantations where they had been enslaved and set up camp there. They weren’t exactly asking to be enslaved again, but it was almost something like that.
Slavery had been torn down, and nothing had been erected in its place. Within a few years, the KKK was a huge force raging across the South and sowing terror. This was a response of a beaten White South to its burned mansions, destroyed, crippled and wounded manhood, widowed womanhood, newly empowered and sometimes vengeful Blacks, the idiocy and incompetence of Black rule and Federal military occupation.
It was all too humiliating to Southerners raised on super-masculinity and the pride that grew from that. The North had little stomach for the long-term military occupation that Stevens rightly proposed and didn’t want to take on armed and outraged White Southerners. The War was over.
Andrew Johnson practically rescinded Reconstruction, pulled most US troops out, and basically threw in the towel on the South. The North had fought a bloody war with the South and had no stomach for more fighting. The Feds basically said the Hell with the South, we’re out of here, and went home.
After 1868, things got much worse for Blacks as the KKK ruled the South and Jim Crow began to be cemented, but the US government was tired of fighting Southern White men and adopted a see no evil, hear no evil attitude.
Nevertheless, Reconstruction was right and proper and did not go on for long enough. The South’s defiance of the terms of surrender after defeat was outrageous and violated the basic human rights of Blacks.
By 1868, Stevens was dead, and Reconstruction was headed out.
The name of Thaddeus Stevens, American hero, is one more US schoolkids ought to know.
Good summary on Stevens at the link.
*I had relatives who fought on both sides of the Civil War. Some owned slaves too. One relative freed his slaves in the 1830’s. Another relative nearly joined the KKK in the 1920’s until his wife heard about it and said, “No you won’t!” I’m supposedly related to Stonewall Jackson, great Confederate general. My anti-Southernism and pro-Yankeeism in terms of the Civil War is typical of Californians. I’ve never met a Californian who supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, and you will never see a Confederate flag in this state.

Appalachian English

I’m not ready to split off English dialects into separate languages yet, as my previous forays into this area have pissed people off enough as it is. As a general rule, I can understand almost anyone speaking any dialect of US English. I lived in a tourist town near Yosemite National Park for many years, and we had tourists coming in from all over the country. Never once did I have a hard time understanding anyone, and I think I heard them all, the dialects that is.
In my previous piece on this subject, I suggested that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) or Ebonics, probably deserves to be called a separate language from US English. Many if not most US linguists who have an opinion seem to agree, but I think no one wants to touch it since the rightwingers not to mention the White nationalists would go stark raving berserk.
However, I recently spent a couple of hours with a couple of local Black women who were speaking AAVE. It might as well have been Greek. They could also switch on a dime over to a perfectly intelligible US English, so they were effectively bilingual. But damned if that wasn’t the nastiest and hardest to understand US English dialect I have ever heard firsthand.
I mentioned in the other piece that a guy came out to the mountains here in California recently from New York. He was a young Italian-American guy from Queens, New York. Queens is one of the holdouts for the hardest of hardcore New York English dialects. The guy spent three or four months here hardly being understood by a soul until he finally figured out how to speak California English and make himself understood.
There were a couple of clues that he was speaking a foreign language and not a US English dialect. First of all, he was unable to moderate or tone down his lect of make it more intelligible, even after months in the area. That’s a good sign that you’re dealing more than a mere dialect. Dialects are typically adjustable, separate languages much less so. Another sign was that even after 3-4 months of listening to him, a lot of the people he was talking to could not understand him any better than they could on Day One. This is also a good sign of a foreign language and not a dialect. With a US English dialect, usually we can adjust to it pretty quickly after hearing it a bit, and then we can get most to all of it.
Therefore, I would split off AAVE and hardcore New York English into separate languages, but I won’t do so in an official post as I have enough enemies as it is.
I would like to add one more extremely nasty US English dialect to the mix though. This is something like Appalachian English, though I am thinking in particular of that spoken in a couple of locales. I am not sure where they are doing the mountaintop removal mining in the hollows of West Virginia. But I recently heard a radio report on that, and while I could understand company spokespeople pretty well, once they started interviewing poor folks down in the “holllers”, I kept having to turn the radio up and I still wasn’t getting a lot of it.
I recently heard another radio report about a tribe called the Monacans in Virginia. I assumed they would be easy to understand like most Virginians, but this was one of the nastiest US English dialects I’ve ever heard. The Monacans live in Appalachian Virginia, north of Lynchburg near the town of Amherst and then northwest of Lynchburg near the Natural Bridge and the towns of Goshen, Lexington and Glasgow.  The terrain looks something like this. The Natural Bridge area is more forested.
The spokeswoman for the Monacans was an assimilated woman speaking an intelligible Southern or maybe Appalachian English. However, they also interviewed several tribe members, older women who lived in very rural areas and recalled how they used to practically live off the land down there. I was missing a lot of what they said, and it was one of the hardest-core English dialects I’ve ever heard. The tribe is said to be somewhat Black-White-Indian mixed, and for this reason, they have had a hard time getting recognized. I am not sure how their mixed nature plays into this dialect, or how many other folks around there talk the same way. I suspect that the real hardcore lect is with older people, rural people, and possibly females. Females often have the hardest core dialects since males have to work. In having to work, they often have to tone down their hardcore dialects or languages and either learn a majority tongue or speak a more assimilated dialect. Traditional women are just in the home and in a lot of parts of the world, they stay monolingual and don’t learn the majority language of the country.
I’m not sure how the rest of Appalachian English sounds, but at least the speech of some parts of Appalachian West Virginia (this area is in the Blue Ridge Mountains) and Virginia is incredibly hard to understand. The dialect spoken by the Monacans seems to be one of the Southern Appalachian dialects. These are the dialects that are said to resemble Shakespearean English. Though this is not Shakespearean English (this is an urban legend) these dialects to contain many Elizabethan English words from 1550-1600 which are no longer used in Modern English.
They also have strong influences from Scots and North Ireland Scots English, along with some influences from Welsh.
Wikipedia says that Appalachian English is one of hardest to understand English dialects spoken in America.

New Traffic Record Immediately Broken On Robert Lindsay

The new record for third highest traffic day set on July 20 was quickly broken on July 27, just one week later. The July 20 record was 3,353 hits. Just one week later, that record was broken as 3,498 hits were recorded on July 27. Additionally, there were 177 visitors on the old site, where traffic has been growing since July 20, for a total of 3,675 hits.
Both records were set on Mondays. Mondays have traditionally been my highest days on both sites. I’m not sure how it is with other sites, but it seems like Mondays may be high traffic days for lots of sites. Traffic slows down on the weekends, and Sundays is typically the worst day of all. Friday is the slowest day during the week.
That’s because at least on my site, I think most folks still access the Internet from work! On my old site, traffic used to get high around 8 AM, often peak around 10 AM-2 PM, and then decline after 5 PM. Late at night and very early in the morning there was little traffic. Part of the problem is that most traffic to my site is from the US. If I were able to draw from around the world, those hourly trends might get a lot fuzzier.
It’s interesting that people still access the Net a lot from work, when one would think they would be working. And when they go home, the last thing they want to do is go on the Net. Same thing on weekends.
As the owner of a website, I’m much in favor of anything that gets low income, poor, working class and even Third World people on the Net. The Internet, even in the US, is still very heavily male and upper income. Traffic from the Third World tends to be the elites. So the Net ends up being a pretty rightwing place. As a Leftist, I would love it if my natural constituency had more access to the Net. Also as a linguist, it would be nice to see speakers of a lot of these lesser spoken languages get on the Net.
It would also be nice to hear the voices of ordinary folks in the Third World. It’s gets tiresome listening to a bunch of elitists all the time.
There are serious problems connecting the world. Much of the Third World still accesses the Net in Internet cafes, when they even have access to the Net. Wireless networks are dramatically needed. Cellphones have unbelievably been able to penetrate the Third World very well, and have ranged down below the mere elites towards more ordinary folks.
The price of a computer is still a big problem. In my apartment complex, I am one of the only folks on the Net, and this is an American city. A computer still costs $400-500, and that’s beyond the reach of most of my neighbors. On top of that, broadband is another $25-50 month.
In a lot of areas near me, we now have virtual monopolies on broadband. You have a choice between cable or DSL, and both are seriously overpriced. There’s also satellite, and that’s even more. Each seems to have a monopoly in its area, and no one seems to be competing on price. Instead it looks like non-competition agreements and price-fixing.
In the mountains where I type this, you can get your broadband from the cable monopoly, the phone monopoly or the satellite monopoly. Obviously, the customer gets screwed hard by all these monopolies, a monopolistic fact as simple as night following day.
I don’t know what to do about it. The problem is that the evil cable companies have laid a lot of their own lines. Since they own the lines, it’s going to be hard to force them to make others use them. You run into the problem of the phone monopolies, who typically put up the poles and run the underground phone lines.
Around here, the government does a shitty job of regulating the phone companies. The cable monopolies, as natural a monopoly as the phones, are an unregulated monopoly. If the phone, electric and gas natural monopolies are regulated, cable needs to be too.
For starters.

Is The Idiot Box Making Us Smarter?

A young commenter named Ger is going round and round with me on the Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense post. This person thinks that primitive peoples are actually smarter than civilized ones and suggests that civilization actually makes you stupid. An analogy was made to domesticated dogs and cats getting stupider after they were civilized and made into pets.
Problem is that civilized peoples have IQ’s that tend to be much higher than primitive or 3rd World peoples. When 3rd World peoples move to the 1st World, their children gain around 5-15 IQ points in the first generation, suggesting that civilization is good for your brain.
The Flynn Effect has been ongoing at least since 1930, with the most noticeable effects in the First World. IQ’s have been rising at about 3 points per decade due to this effect, which seems to be largely one that postulates that higher levels of civilization actually make residents more intelligent, possibly an adaptation to deal with the increasing complexity of modern life.
Adding further evidence to the data is that more primitive or Third World peoples who move to First World societies tend to flounder, suffer heavy unemployment, use welfare a lot, drink, take drugs, engage in domestic violence, commit lots of crime and suffer lots of imprisonment and finally to suffer diseases and die young.This in spite of rising IQ.
This suggests that while primitive peoples are highly intelligent (one way to prove this is to look at the miracle of their insanely complex languages) they still have not evolved the “rocket scientist” intelligence necessary to flourish in the First World. Why didn’t they evolve sky-high IQ’s? They probably did not need them. If they needed to be rocket scientists, read Moby Dick and take advanced calculus, they would have evolved the super IQ’s to do it.
Anyway, Ger doesn’t believe any of this, and thinks the modern world is a gigantic Idiocracy Factory. A recent comment:

How is sitting in front of a TV eating fast food cognitively demanding?

Granted it doesn’t require any brains to eat the Big Mac, but there may be more to the TV than meets the eye.
Actually, people have been wondering what is driving the Flynn Effect and one theory that they have come up with is…the Boob Tube! Yes the Idiot Box is thought to be making people smarter.
My late father thought this theory was insane because he hated TV.
But you need to sit back and really think about what is going on with TV. Even US sitcoms are surprisingly intelligent these days. The dialog is witty and clever and operates on several different levels. Same with your standard drama shows. These also operate on several different levels at once and there is one level, like in the sitcoms, that is actually quite intellectual. You really have to be smart to get out of these shows everything that is put into them.
On sitcoms the jokes come right after the other and they are quite sophisticated. On dramas, things happen very quickly, plots are often extremely complex, etc.
On complex TV shows, in any given minute, many different things may be going on, sometimes all at once.
Many shows nowadays test our knowledge – see the knowledge game shows for instance.
Even cable news is cognitively demanding. The issues are complex, and the stories quickly move on one after the other. Very intelligent people are interviewed in succession, and they don’t really simplify the concepts they are dealing with a lot.
Even modern cartoons have a Hell of a lot going on with them. I can’t believe how sophisticated Adult Swim stuff is.
Bottom line is if you really want to get something out of TV, you need to be on the ball and paying attention, sometimes to multiple things all at once. This gets massively magnified by the modern tendency to channel surf.
The Flynn Effect is seeing its most explosive gains on visual analysis and visual reasoning. TV, along with cell phones, computers, VCR’s, remote controls, dials on automobiles, microwaves and many other things, even garage door openers, all require some kind of programming to make them work properly these days.
Of all of these, the TV must be considered one of the strongest drivers of all, if only due to its ubiquity.

Check Out Galician

Galician is a language similar to Portuguese that is spoken in Spain by about 3.5 million speakers. Speakers are located in the far northwest of Spain in the region of Galicia. Galicia is one of four languages other than Castilian that are recognized by Spain. The other three are Basque, Catalan and Aranese (Occitan). Galician is having problems lately, as a lot of speakers in urban areas are not speaking it anymore, and much of the speaker base is located in rural areas.
Nevertheless, it is still widely spoken outside of large cities, even by young people. There have been some problems setting up Galician-medium schools, as the Spanish state doesn’t seem to want to pay for it. The state of Galicia has not done a very good job of preserving the language. For instance, most of the Galician TV stations are in Castillian.
Despite all of this, Galician is still doing pretty well and should be secure for the remainder of the 21st Century.
Galician is related to Portuguese, but Portuguese speakers are very ethnocentric and crazy about their language, and they have adopted the notion that all dialects of Portuguese can understand each other. This is not the case, as there are several languages under the Portuguese rubric, and even saying that Brazilian and European Portuguese are the same language is getting harder and harder of a case to make.
A group called “Reintegrationists” insists that Galician is a dialect of Portuguese, but this does not seem to be the case. For one thing, Portuguese and Galician are not really fully intelligible. So it looks like the best case is to split Galician off as a separate language closely related to Portuguese.
As long as we are talking about dialects, it really ought to be the other way around – Portuguese as a dialect of Galician. Galician is actually the original language of the area and it preserves the old form of Portuguese-Galician best of all. Portuguese is best seen as a Galician dialect that drifted further and further away from the original Galician language. Galicia has been a part of Spain for a good 600 years or so, and in this period, Galician and Portuguese have drifted further apart.
Galician is now properly seen as a language closely related to Portuguese that has been heavily influenced by Castillian. If you will, a language partway between Portuguese and Castillian. So if you speak Spanish, Galician should be more accessible to you than Portuguese. What is interesting is that Galician and Portuguese have drifted so far apart that Spanish speakers say that they understand Galician better than Portuguese speakers do. This is doubtless due to the heavy Spanish influence on Galician.
In recent times, the Castillian influence has only increased. A Galician group based in Spain has formed to oppose the influence of the Reintegrationists, who are proposing a common writing system for both Galician and Portuguese. The Galician purists propose a purified Galician written language that emphasizes Galician’s differences with Portuguese. They have their work cut out for them.
The video above is from Galician TV. On Galician TV a new form of Galician has emerged that is closer to Castillian than the form typically spoken on the Galician street. Many Castillian speakers say they can understand Galician TV pretty well, but even they have a hard time understanding street Galician. In the video, the female broadcaster in particular is speaking a heavily Castillianized form of Galician. The male broadcaster’s dialect is less so.
They are interviewing a man who represents the Reintegrationist group in Galicia. He is speaking a much more “street” form of Galician and was harder for me to understand. I understood the woman best of all, then the male broadcaster and last the man being interviewed. I understand Spanish pretty well.
If you understand Spanish, you should be able to understand some of the video above, but you probably won’t fully understand it.

Paper Adds Support to Aryan Invasion Theory

Note: Repost from the old blog.

The notion that an “Aryan Invasion” that occurred 3,500 years ago in India and subsequently shaped the physical and religious landscape of the country is a controversial one, but it is steeped in Indian sociocultural politics.

Though it is uncontroversial outside of India, a huge debate has heated up inside India.

On the one side are the Dalits and their allies. The Dalits claim that they were the original Indians and practiced some sort of a nice, utopian religion. I don’t know if it was Goddess worship, but I guess it was something like that. The Dalits really hate Hinduism because Hindus have decided that Dalits are doomed through life to be lower than whale shit, and that’s at the bottom of the ocean.

So the Dalits say that these Aryans (White folks) invaded down from the steppes to the north and west (possibly Tajikistan or around Iran) and conquered a large part of India. They brought with them Hinduism and caste. They made themselves the lighter Brahmin caste and made the darker folks lower castes, and the darkest of all Dalits. So the Aryan invasion started the whole mess.

Hindu nationalists (Hindutvas) love their Hindu religion and feel that it can do no wrong, so they dislike this Aryan Invasion Theory. Their whole line is that there was no Aryan invasion.

Hinduism was native to India and was not some wicked religion brought by evil lighter-skinned dudes.

White nationalists, some high caste-Indian racialists, and Afrocentrists all support the Aryan Invasion Theory. White nationalists feel that there are two races in India – light-skinned cool guy “Aryans” in the north who are smart and get everything done in India, to the extent that anything gets done there in the first place, and darker Dravidians, who are apparently inferior muds or something.

In reality, there are just Indians of varying shades. The ones towards the northwest to tend to be more European-looking and lighter, and the ones heading to the south and east tend to get darker and more Dravidian looking. However, there are plenty of dark-skinned North Indians with varying degrees of Dravidian features, and in the south, there are a lot of lighter folks with more European features.

The “Aryans” and “Dravidians” have gotten so mixed in over 3,500 years that these categories no longer make much sense, except to idiots. In which case, they are encouraged to continue using them.

High-caste Indian racialists go along with this and hang out in White nationalist forums trying to convince White nationalists that funny- looking light-skinned Indians are really just White people too, albeit with patchouli oil and a taste for curry. White nationalists are dubious about admitting wogs into their midst of their White purity.

Afrocentrists like this theory because they moronically think that Dravidians are Black folks. Except they’re not. Actually, all Indians are pretty closely related and are very distant from Africans – they are no closer to Africans than anyone else on Earth. Any resemblance to Africans is just convergence, genetic drift, or coincidence.

Well, India was populated by all these really cool Indian Black folks, and then evil White dudes came in, brought an evil White Supremacist religion called Hinduism, and cruelly imposed it on the darkies.

In the midst of all of this swarming intellectual idiocy, it falls to the scientists to add some sense to the discussion.

The interesting paper  listed in the references  section adds to the evidence for an Aryan invasion.

They did find that higher-caste folks tended to be lighter than lower-caste Indians, but that was just a trend. There are light-skinned low-caste Indians in the northwest, and many of the Brahmins of South India are quite dark.

They also found a trend for lighter skin and more European features and genes towards the northwest and darker skin, more indigenous features and more Asian genes as one moved to the south and east. The paper felt that they had evidence for a large introgression of European-looking peoples maybe 3000-4000 years ago, though things have gotten pretty mixed up since.

Other papers studying the genetics of India have concluded Indians have been evolving, more or less in situ without a lot of outside inputs, for 15-20,000 years (call it 17,000 years). The result has been this endlessly varying type we call the East Indian. And where did the Indian stock come from prior to 17,000 years ago?

The authors were not sure, but they felt that the seed for the stock that started to grow the modern Indian tree came from the Middle East 17,000 years ago.

India, along with North Africa, the Caucasus, and the Middle East, is also one of main staging grounds for the evolution of Caucasians and proto-Caucasians from 39,000-52,000 years ago. In particular, there was a movement out of India to North Africa 30,000 years ago which probably helped to create the Berbers.

There are also other, lesser known influences on the people of India and Pakistan. The Mohajirs in Uttar Pradesh are heavily Persian and Arab. Former Pakistani President Musharaff is a Mohajir, so his background was mostly Arab and Iranian.

Mohajirs are the Muslims that fled India to Pakistan during the bloody partition in 1947. They have since suffered a lot of persecution in Pakistan and are not all that well-liked there. They have set up their own patronage system along with patronage political parties that benefit them and only them.

We see an interesting thing in the far western states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Possibly 50% of the population of Haryana and probably all of Rajasthan is related to Scythians from 1,500-2,000 yrs ago. The Scythians were probably the same as the Ossetians of today. Long ago, the Ossetians were known as the Alans, horse-riding nomads of the Central Asian steppes.

There are some theories that try to connect to the Alans to Japan, especially to the Caucasian-appearing Samurai caste, in an invasion centuries years ago. This rests on similarities between Alan names and legends and those of the Samurai. At present, the Alan-Japanese theory remains little more than a controversial hypothesis.

The Caucasian appearance of the Samurai class is probably due more to their Ainu roots than to any Alan invasion.

Even today, the Japanese ruling class looks different (some say, more Caucasian) than the rest of the Japanese, who are closer to the Yayoi, rice-farmers from Korea who invaded 2,300 years ago and conquered the island, displacing the Ainu. The Ainu, despite superficial Caucasian appearances, are actually anthropologically Australoids close to Aborigines. Genetically, they are Asians.


Bamshad M, Kivisild T, Watkins WS, Dixon ME, Ricker CE, Rao BB, Naidu JM, Prasad BV, Reddy PG, Rasanayagam A, Papiha SS, Villems R, Redd AJ, Hammer MF, Nguyen SV, Carroll ML, Batzer MA, Jorde LB. 2001. “Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations.” Genome Res 11: 994–1004.

Illegal Aliens Don't Vote

I don’t particularly like illegal aliens in the aggregate, though I’m known to socialize with them and even buy them a taco if they are hungry, or a beer in the bar if they are thirsty.
Check out this stupid-ass article via the never-heard-of-before Cutting Edge News, which, it turns out, is a far Right and pro-Zionist neoconservative rag. That they get 1.4 million readers a month is frightening. On the other hand, we do get 90,000 readers a month right here on Robert Lindsay.
This article is really retarded. I have no doubt whatsoever that illegals register to vote, probably by giving the application to someone who can speak English to fill it out. They do this to get into the system in order to get their fake ID’s so they can work. But I doubt if many of them vote.
I live in a community that is completely overrun by illegals and their anchor baby horror-children. The illegals certainly do not vote, and the anchor babies usually don’t either as they are too busy smoking dope and gangbanging.
These illegals are not involved in their communities in any whatsoever. I would laugh if I heard of any significant number of them voting in an election. They’ve probably heard that voter fraud is a felony and I’m sure they’d like to avoid that. They are pretty paranoid people, believe it or not, and most of them want to avoid anything that’s going to get them in trouble legally or get them deported.
We are talking about a community that takes no interest whatsoever in politics, that can’t read, write or in general even speak English, and who lives on the margins. The idea that they would vote, or could even read a ballot, is comical.
Legal Hispanic aliens are another story. Most of them don’t speak English really well either, don’t read much English, probably can hardly write English at all, and are estranged from US society. I guess a few of them might vote, but I doubt it. They do speak English better than the illegals, but they have a lot of problems with the language and are most comfortable with Spanish.
These illegals avoid anything having to do with government in any way. After a traffic accident or if they get victimized by crime, they refuse to go to the cops. You will never see one near the government building. They are voting? GMAB.

Interesting Website

Note: Repost from the old blog.
It looks like a big Latvian site. Took me a little while to figure this linguistic puzzle out.
Click here and you get the Latvian version of the page, and click here and you get the Russian version of the same page. What I found very interesting was the very large number of commenters on the Russian version of the Latvian page.
It’s well known that all of the Baltic states have been hostile to the Russian population (unfortunately seeded in the Baltics as settler-colonists in order to flood out the native Baltic peoples and water down Baltic nationalism) and the Russian language.
I believe that upon independence, Latvia was as much as 40% Russian and Russian first language speakers. No doubt it’s declined since then, but this dual webpage implies that Russian-speakers are still pretty common in Latvia, no?
Wikipedia to the rescue. Looks like Russophones and native Russians were 40% at independence and only down to 28% now. That’s a great big fat demographic that can’t be ignored by any major website. Interesting fact – in Latvia, 81% know Russian, and only 79% know Latvian!
Wow. No wonder Latvian nationalists are pissed. Obviously this goes back to the USSR when Russian was the national language of Latvia and a lot of native-Latvian speakers also speak Russian too. With 80% of the population speaking either Russian or Latvian, damn right you better make that website in both languages! The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says:

“The Russian language is robust in Latvia, as Russian-speakers are a majority or plurality in many cities, almost all Latvians speak Russian as well as Latvian and culture and media from Russia have a strong presence in Latvia. Indeed, the legacy of Soviet Russification policy was still evident in the results of the 2000 census in Latvia, which showed that knowledge of Russian is still more widespread than knowledge of Latvian in Latvia: 81% of all inhabitants know Russian, while only 79% know Latvian.”

"The 39 Steps" by John Buchan

Note: Repost from the old blog.
I’m not much for spy novels, but this is supposed to be one of the greatest ones ever written . I read it long ago and recommend it strongly. Thriller! This is supposedly one of the first spy novels ever written, and it’s long been a classic. Plot has more twists and mysterious turns than a mountain road. You never quite know what’s going on.
Of course, that’s perfect for a Hitchcock movie, and Hitchcock adapted it in 1935, but I never saw the film. The author, John Buchan, was a fairly minor author, but this book was a smashing success, especially with Allied soldiers in the trenches.
The Scottish author later left for Canada where he become a famous politician, where he changed his name to Lord Tweedsmuir. He’s one of those classic British colonial swashbuckling wild guys, running around the globe for the crown doing all sorts of crazy and important stuff.
This is one of those books that was very successful and was repeatedly adopted as film, so most folks figure it’s shlock, but in my opinion, it’s actually great literature. Plot summary here. Watch out, it contains a spoiler.
This book is creepy! It’s set in the UK on the eve of World War 1, and there are German and British spies and British cops running around everywhere. There’s a notebook written in code, a dead spy, an assassination plot to start the war, and British and German war plans that each one wants.
Gives you shudders up and down your spine. It’s also a great book for paranoids, because the protagonist is always being followed by weird unknown characters everywhere he goes and he has to live by his wits like a criminal. He assaults strangers, forces them to change clothes and jobs with him and drive him places, to let him stay at their places.
He never knows who anyone really is, and people who seem like good guys turn out to be bad guys and vice versa. Check it out. It’s a really short book and you can probably get it free or even read it online. I read it after a recommendation by none other than Thomas Pynchon, who listed it as an influence. It definitely still makes a lot of peoples’ best books list.

Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense

Note: Repost from the old blog.
When you work in a field, you find that the vast majority of folks outside the field have totally false and yet often culturally popular views about the major questions we deal with in the field. I have a Masters in Linguistics, and in Linguistics, we have a few of those.
One is that linguists all speak more than one, or often many, languages. Not necessarily. I only speak English well. We just study languages; we don’t necessarily speak more than one of them, although most PhD linguists do speak more than one and often several or more languages.
Another is that primitive people speak primitive languages. It’s true that they often have only a few words for numbers and may only count up to two or so, but that’s because in their societies, they don’t need to know any numbers more than two. They have other deficits, like only a few colors, but maybe they don’t need to know many colors.
Here is an interesting article (Amren link only because this Yahoo link will soon go dead) about Aboriginal kids in Australia. The article is getting a lot of ridicule on some sites, but it’s actually straight up.
The question deals with a linguistic and cognitive science question: Do kids need to have words for numbers in order to have concepts for numbers? Turns out they do not. The aboriginal kids were able to count up to nine even though they did not have words for the numbers 3-9.
That’s actually fascinating from the point of view of those disciplines, but you would have to understand the import of the theory. How can someone have a concept for something if they have no word for it? It seems impossible? Yet they can. How does that work? Who knows?
This kind of work is important for Linguistics but mostly for Cognitive Science, and the two disciplines are seeing a lot of interaction these days. I’m also very happy to hear that the aboriginal languages Warlpiri (one of the most maddeningly complex and crazy languages on Earth) and Anindilyakwa (never heard of it) are doing great. If only some of our US Amerindian languages were doing so well.
If they’re going to function in Australian society though, do they not need to know some English? And I would think that these aboriginal languages need to borrow some terms for other numbers since they need them now in modern society.
There is a false claim out there by people like Richard Lynn that primitive people have primitive languages. That’s completely wrong. The most wild, crazy, complex and undecipherable languages out there that we almost still can’t figure out, are the more primitive types of languages spoken by more primitive, isolated and less civilized or at least modernized groups.
Once a group gets civilized or modernized, the structure of the language undergoes simplification, often massive simplification. The more civilized or modernized the language, the simpler and more dumbed-down the structure of the language is.
The reason is that in a modern society, everything is rush rush rush, and people want to get concepts and whatnot across in the simplest and quickest manner. Why? They are busy making money because time is money, and because when they are not making money, they are busy multitasking doing this or that.
In the more primitive or less modernized societies, humans are still actually quite intelligent, though they may not seem that way to us. We can tell how smart they are by looking at their languages. There is no way that a bunch of morons could have created such infuriatingly complex tongues. Forget it.
These people are bored. They don’t have much to do all day, so they use their wildly complex language to be creative and exercise their minds, playing games with language, figuring out the most complicated, difficult and arcane way of saying this or that, etc. That’s what one theory anyway.

Northern Leopard Frog Needs Listing

Note: Repost from the old blog.
This long pdf, available for download on this blog, is a copy of the petition filed to list the Western population of the Northern Leopard Frog (NLF) as an endangered species in the US. Genetically, the Western population is genetically distinct from the eastern population, and may merit splitting into a subspecies or even a separate species.
The Center for Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Black Hills, Forest Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ark Initiative, Native Ecosystems Council, Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action and Jeremy Nichols filed the petition in June 2006.
I never even knew the Leopard Frog was in danger. They are very rare and probably extirpated here in California. They are most common in the Midwest.
The document is quite long at 200 pages, but I read through most of it easily.
Reasons for the decline are uncertain, but pesticides, herbicides, strange diseases, viral, bacterial and fungal, along with global warming in the more arid portion of its range, seems to be playing a role. Global warming is expected to cause general drying across the frog’s range in the West (see Table 21). In one high elevation region of Colorado, leopard frogs were extirpated due to disappearance of breeding ponds, probably due to global warming.
Water pollution seems to be one of the main reasons for the decline. The leopard frog’s main range is in the Midwest, and farming is big there. Herbicides, pesticides and water pollution from various things, in particular chemical fertilizers which cause algal blooms, seems to be hurting the frog.
In general, this frog seems to need clean, healthy wetlands and watercourses, and these are definitely declining.
The Bush Administration had by far the worst listing record of any US administration in history. Even his Bush’s father was vastly better than his son. This shows how far to the Right the Republican Party, and the US Whites who give it support, have moved only in the last 14 years.
Even under the Clintons, the devastation of the environment was well underway. Nixon and Ford were much better for the environment than Clinton was.
Under Clinton, all of our nation’s landmark environmental laws, mostly enacted under Republican Richard Nixon, went by the wayside in favor of “market solutions” that, as would be expected, failed the environment. This shows how both parties have been colonized by market ideology these days to where a Nixonian Republican was more progressive than a Clintonian Democrat.
Environmental groups have gone to great lengths to show us that environmental laws are actually cost-effective in market terms. I don’t buy it. Wrecking the environment is profitable; saving it is bad for business. That’s all there is to it. There’s a reason why every business group in the US hates every environmental law we ever passed. It’s not because they are stupid. They know the bottom line.
Environmental laws show the flaws of the market-based approach to life. There is more to life than the market and making a buck. The market will probably never deal effectively with any environmental issues, as it is just not cost-effective.
Environmental laws, especially the Endangered Species Act, are in direct contradiction with the Open Borders policy of most environmentalists and environmental groups. Logically, this makes no sense at all.
I hate to coddle White nationalists, but I am wondering. Is there any ethnic group other than White Europeans in the West who would actually set up an Endangered Species Act and thwart capitalism in order to protect rats, bugs, weeds, and minnows, as the detractors of the Act would have it?
I’m wondering. I guess Amerindians might. Who else? Surely not Arabs, South Asians, Africans (!) and SE and NE Asians.

Anna Louise Strong "The Stalin Era"

Note: Repost from the old blog.
A scanned-in pdf that of this out of print book from 1957, apparently available nowhere else on the Web, is available for download on this blog. It used to be available on the Progressive Labor Party site, but they took it down. Great read, lots of fun. She deals quite honestly with the terrible years of 1937 and 1938.
Fairly good-sized download.
Wikipedia on Anna Louise Strong.

New Weekly Traffic Record on Robert Lindsay For July 20-26

Yet another traffic record was set on Robert Lindsay last week. There were 19,807 hits that week, setting a new record for 2nd highest number of hits in a week. The previous record was 16,784 hits for the week of June 22-29. The new record represents an 18% increase over the previous one. In addition, there were 1,758 visitors to the old site last week. All told, there 21,565 hits to both sites, or an average of 3,081 hits a day.
Thanks to all my readers, and especially to all of the new folks who are stopping by!

Spogliata e Lapidata: Delitto D'Onore

Note: Repost from the old blog. This is the Italian translation of my post Kurdish Teenager Stoned to Death Near Iraq, which deals with the tragic and outrageous stoning to death of Dua Khalil Aswad, a Yezidi girl who was killed by her fellow Yezidis for eloping with a Muslim man, as intermarriage is forbidden in their religion. The title, translated to English, is Stripped and Stoned: An Honor Killing.
Viewer discretion is advised – watch at your own risk.
[wpvideo 66rZZg5H]
Chiunque volesse avere maggiori informazioni sugli Yazidi, può leggere (in inglese, per il momento) i miei articoli: Do Yezidis Worship the Devil? e Yezidis, a Mysterious Kurdish Religious Sect. Quest’ultimo è molto antecedente al fatto che vado a descrivere.
Come purtroppo avete già capito, il filmato è impressionante, non fatelo vedere ai minori o alle persone sensibili, per favore.
In effetti, la lapidazione della ragazza Curdo-Yazida accusata dai propri familiari di essersi innamorata di un Mussulmano (ed addirittura di aver abbracciato l’Islam), ha destato molta impressione, sconcerto, rabbia e tristezza.
L’epilogo della vicenda si è svolto nell’aprile del 2007, nel villaggio Ba’shiqa, vicino a Mosul (e non in Mosul come erroneamente riportato da certa stampa). Nel 2006, Doa Khalil Aswad, una studentessa di 17 anni natìa di Ba’shiqa, si era innamorata di un vicino di casa, un Curdo-Mussulmano, di professione negoziante. Dopo essere scappata da casa, Doa si è sposata e convertita all’Islam.
Purtroppo Doa ha commesso dei ‘peccato’ estremamente gravi: non solo ha disonorato la propria famiglia non obbedendo ai loro voleri, ma si è anche convertita all’ Islam. Queste religioni continuano a considerare la donna un ‘essere’ sottomesso che non può decidere della propria vita.
Povera Doa, una storia d’amore finita tragicamente!
La religione Yazidi è una delle più vecchie del pianeta, sembra che le origini siano risalenti a più di 10.000 anni fà. Nel loro culto ci sono elementi propri di Gnosticismo (v. Manicheismo), Giudaismo, Islam, Mazdeismo (v. Zoroastro), Cristianesimo, Buddismo, Induismo, Mitraismo.
Leggete il mio vecchio articolo The Yezidis, a Mysterious Kurdish Religious Sect, ci sono informazioni molte interessanti.
Ritorniamo a Doa. Dopo aver trascorso alcuni mesi in casa di un religioso Mussulmano, ben protetta dalla rabbia dei propri familiari e concittadini, la povera ragazza ha commesso lo sbaglio di credere al perdono offertogli dalla famiglia.
Sì, la famiglia gli ha offerto il perdono come trappola per topi, per farla uscire dal suo nascondiglio. Che Bastardi!
Il video ci mostra la Via Crucis di una povera ragazza di 17 anni!
Ad attenderla sulla via del ritorno a casa c’era una folla di un migliaio di uomini imbestialiti, ululanti, schiumanti di rabbia. Viene lasciata in balìa dei suoi parenti (una dozzina di uomini). Accerchiata, percossa e gettata a terra come una bambola di pezza, Doa viene così UMILIATA e SPOGLIATA!!!
Vediamo poi solo alcuni momenti dell’intera lapidazione: la ‘Cerimonia è durata almeno 30 minuti!
L’atroce tortura finisce con il colpo di grazia alla testa di Doa. Un bastardo gliela spacca con un blocco di cemento…però alla fine le coprono le gambe con una giacca! Bisogna sempre salvare ‘il comune senso del pudore’, eh?
Quanti di loro si saranno eccitato a vedere le gambe nude e gli slip neri della ragazza? Tanti, sicuramente.
Come posso definire esseri umani coloro che si ‘stracciano le vesti’ se una donna osa mostrare le gambe o un lembo di carne in pubblico e non esitano a denudare e uccidere selvaggiamente una ragazzina (hai peccato di ‘sesso’ e sei diventata Mussulmana: ora ti lapidiamo nuda…)??
Mi ha colpito un fatto: il contrasto tra un atto così incredibilmente barbaro e arcaico e la feroce, morbosa presenza di molte persone che cercavano in tutti i modi di registrare ‘l’evento’ con i propri videofonini.
Ma non sta succedendo così anche nella nostra cosidetta società ‘civile’? La progressiva scomparsa del sentimento umano di pietà, di soccorso; prevale l’insensibilità, l’egoismo.
In definitiva è questa la malattia del mondo moderno: non solo non lottiamo (o lo facciamo blandamente) contro i soprusi, ma siamo anche dei ‘guardoni’, meri osservatori che registrano e godono delle disgrazie altrui (ehi, lo metto anch’io su Youtube questo filmatino, andate avanti ragazzi…un sorriso alla camera…ok…spostatevi, idioti che non riesco a riprendere bene, ah, ok, così va meglio).
Se volete vedere alcune istantanee del video cliccate qui e qui. Per gli ‘amanti’ delle foto inedite, ce ne sono altre cinque qui
Dopo l’assassinio, il corpo straziato di Doa è stato bruciato e seppellito assieme alle ossa di un cane, come segno di massimo disprezzo.
Non è la prima volta che i Yazidi giustiziano una delle loro donne per fatti del genere. Ad una di loro, convertitasi all’Islam, la sorte è stata ‘migliore’: una pallottola al cuore dal Capofamiglia.
La vicenda di Doa ha sollevato alcuni punti interrogativi.
Perchè la polizia Curda non è intervenuta al momento della lapidazone? Erano complici? Cosa ha significato il successivo intervento di reparti dell’esercito Curdo, che ha transennato e proibito l’ingresso alla ‘scena del crimine’?
Sebbene influenti personalità religiose della comunità Yazidi abbiano condannato la barbara uccisione di Doa, i Mussulmani hanno reagito violentemente, attaccando sia persone che istituzioni Yazidi. Una donna Mussulmana è stata uccisa!!! Già, Mussulmana…peccato che quando devono giudicare un ex-Mussulmano, la sentenza è una sola: morte!!
I Mussulmani curdi si sono dimostrati incredibilmente ipocriti in questo caso, ma d’altra parte è tutta l’essenza della religione Mussulmana che è impregnata di ipocrisia. Quattro mesi fa c’è stato il caso di una donna Mussulmana ed uno Yazidi. La ‘scappatella’ è finita tragicamente sia per la donna (decapitata) che per la Comunità Yazidi del villaggio (tutte le case sono state bruciate).
Allora, se una donna non Mussulmana si sposa con un Mussulmano e si converte all’Islam, và tutto bene.
Ma se una donna Mussulmana si sposa con un non Mussulmano allora si deve ucciderla e bruciare tutte le case dei non Mussulmani? Ma che cazzo?
E la chiamate religione? E’ questo l’Islam del Kurdistan?
I Curdi Mussulmani sono orgogliosi del comportamento dei Mussulmani del Kurdistan?
Un altro clamoroso esempio: tempo fà, un gruppo di terroristi Iracheni di Al Qaeda ha bloccato un autobus di lavoratori a Mosul. Dopo aver selezionato gli Yazidi, l’autobus si è diretto in una zona est di Mosul. 23 persone sono state giustiziate al grido: “Dio maledica il vostro diavolo!” In effetti molti Mussulmani pensano che gli Yazidi siano adoratori del Demonio.
Lo Stato Islamico Iracheno, ovvero Al Qaeda in Iraq, ha rivendicato questa azione ed allo stesso tempo ha ‘graziosamente’ minacciato tutti ‘gli Adoratori di Satana’ (gli Yazidi).
Ma che bella gente!
Sia i Mussulmani Curdi che i Sunniti Takfiris locali hanno inviato minacciosi messaggi di morte agli Yazidi del Kurdistan.
Lo scorso 26 aprile, un fornaio e tre lavoranti Yazidi sono stati uccisi a Mosul. Due giorni dopo anche due poliziotti Yazidi sono stati assassinati. L’Armata dei Mujahedin di Mosul (di etnia Takfiri) ha lanciato un chiaro messaggio a tutti gli Yazidi: o vi convertite all’Islam o dovete lasciare immediatamente la città.
A queste minaccie, Il panico si è diffuso tra gli Yazidi. Sia studenti universitari (più di 800 giovani) che comuni lavoratori hanno fatto i bagagli e sono scappati nei villaggi di origine. La paura ha preso il sopravvento.
In altre città della Regione Autonoma del Kurdistan, come Erbil, Dohuk e Sulaimaniyah, ci sono stati diversi attacchi Mussulmani a vari siti frequentati dagli Yazidi (dormitori, negozi, fabbriche, etc.). A Bashiqa, gli Yezidi hanno intimato ai Mussulmani di abbandonare la città.
Covertiti o muori è un’antica tradizione Mussulmana ritornata di attualità. Tranne alcuni casi (ex-Jugoslavia, Filippine, Libano) le altre religioni hanno abbandonato da tempo questa forma di pulizia etnica…
Nel quartiere Dora, a Baghdad, un solito gruppo Jihadista ha intimato ai Cristiani di pagare la tassa di ‘protezione’ e diventare dhimmis, ovvero: convertiti all’ Islam o muori!
La fuga di molti Cristiani è stata l’ovvia conseguenza a queste serie minaccie.
Un altro effetto del casino provocato dall’uccisione di Doa: non si contano più i ‘delitti d’onore’ in Kurdistan. Il delitto d’onore e il sacrificio volontario di donne non sono una novità. Una tragedia al giorno era un evento abituale in Kurdistan.
Ma ora sembra che tutti gli uomini si arroghino il diritto di uccidere le donne come e quando vogliono. Bravi…
Certo è che molti omicidi vengono archiviati come ‘suicidi’ e che molte donne sono costrette ad uccidersi per salvare l’onore della famiglia.
Gli Yazidi venerano Malak Taus, un arcangelo dalle fattezze di un di pavone. E’ un angelo caduto che si è pentito ed ha ricostruito il mondo.
Per i Mussulmani quell’angelo non si è affatto pentito, anzi, è il Diavolo in persona. Gli Yazidi sono dunque adoratori del Demonio. Differenze di interpretazione religiose? Mah, a me sembra la solita lotta tra etnie tribali, dove il proprio Dio è quello giusto e il Dio del nemico è il Diavolo.
La cosmologia religiosa Yazidi è criptica, complessa, ma non mi sembra che adorino una Divinità maligna. Il loro libro sacro è segreto e solo una piccola èlite religiosa può custodire e tramandare i suoi segreti. Tentare di accedere alla visione di una copia di quel testo significare rischiare la morte.
Eppure, poco tempo fà, qualcuno è riuscito ad impadronirsi di una copia del Libro sacro degli Yazidi ed a diffonderne in rete una traduzione ed anche una puntale analisi religiosa. Ho letto tutto quello che era possibile leggere ma continuo a non capirci granchè. E’ inutile sperare di avere qualche forma di collaborazione da qualche Yazidi, non hanno alcuna voglia di svelare i loro segreti al mondo.
Non sono i soli. Pensiamo alla setta degli Alawi in Siria; possiamo paragonarli alla Chiesa Cattolica del Medioevo, dove tutti i riti religiosi si svolgevano in latino, lingua praticamente incomprensibile al popolino.
Si veniva così a creare quell’aurea di misticismo e superiorità della quale la Chiesa Cattolica ha goduto per secoli al fine di imporre il proprio dominio temporale.
La religione e la cultura Yazidi ha molti punti in comune con il Mazdaismo (o Zoroastrismo). La suddivisione della società in caste (7 livelli) è simile, i matrimoni con appartenenti ad altre religioni sono vietati e puniti severamente. Non è possibile contrarre matrimoni tra membri di caste diverse.
Un’ottima analisi delle ragioni della lapidazione della povera Doa è stata fatta dal Dr. Showan Khurshid, ricercatore di scienze politiche presso l’Università di Cardiff, in Galles.
Khurshid è un intellettuale moderno, ha analizzato crudemente e senza peli sulla lingua le barbare usanze e le retrograde tradizioni dei Curdi, Yazidi e Mussulmani.
Khurshid, natìo di Kirkuk e quindi Curdo, sostiene delle affascinanti tesi Turkmeni, gli Yazidi e Assiri fossero divisi nell’antichità in comunità etniche nella regione Curda.
L’attacco all’Islam di Khurshid è veramente efficace e scevro dai soliti luoghi comuni. Nessuna teoria conservatrice, sionista, imperialista, teodem o neodem comune ai soliti nemici dell’Islam, quindi. Il Kurdistan avrebbe veramente bisogno di altri intellettuali come Khurshid…
Nei disordini seguìti alla lapidazione, altri due Yazidi sono stati uccisi e diversi edifici sono stati bruciati. A condanna di tali fatti, alcuni religiosi Mussulmani hanno emesso delle Fatwa contro i responsabili. La reazione degli Yezidi è stata parimenti dura, hanno attaccato la sede del KDP distruggendo a sassate tutti i mobili ed hanno poi bruciato le automobili dei funzionari Mussulmani.
Senza contare i 24 Yazidi uccisi a Mosul, altri 192 Yazidi hanno perso la vita a seguito dell’Invasione. La maggior parte di loro si era rifiutata di obbedire all’ultimatum ‘convertiti o muori’ intimatogli dai Mussulmani.
Visto che gli Yazidi non hanno alcuna voglia di convertirsi, devono forse essere sterminati? C’è qualche altra religione in questa terra che prevede lo sterminio dei non-convertiti? La possiamo chiamare religione? I Mussulmani hanno da sempre considerato gli infedeli degni solo di morire, non sono mai cambiati. Ci potrà mai essere un’evoluzione pacifica della loro religione?
I delitti d’onore sono molto diffusi in Iraq. Nell’area Sunnita a maggioranza Mussulmana ogni giorno viene uccisa una donna. Nemmeno a seguito di un’ipotetica presa di potere dei Mussulmani in Iraq si avrebbe potuto pensare ad un tale deterioramento della situazione. Neanche nel Kurdistan del Nord, regione in apparenza laica e secolarizzata, i delitti d’onore si sono ridotti, anzi…
L’oltraggio dell’infibulazione è praticato al 60% delle donne Curde. E’ un’epidemia che non colpisce la maggior parte dei paesi Arabi. In Stati come Egitto (70%) e Yemen (20%), l’alto numero di mutilazioni è causato dalla notevole influenza di usi e costumi Africani.
Al di fuori della sfera di influenza Africana, l’infibulazione non viene praticamente praticata. Gli Arabi possono essere colpevoli di altri delitti, ma attribuire la paternità di questa barbara usanza sulla donna è un atto propagandistico ed un puro falso ideologico.
Ci sono dei casi di infibulazione all’interno di Tribù di Beduini presenti in Palestina, Israele (ad Oriente si hanno usanze meno tribali) ed Arabia Saudita. Nonostante la dura repressione di Gheddaf, nel Sud della Libia ci sono altri Beduini che praticano questa mutilazione femminile…
(Ndt. e qui una nota per quella merda di Gheddafi, vero terrorista ed assassino spietato, divenuto dopo l’11 Settembre un campione della libertà e delle lotta ai terroristi Mussulmani! Grazie, George W. e S.B., affanculo anche a voi! Doveva essere giustiziato Gheddafi e non Saddam!)
L’infibulazione viene praticata anche nell’Africa Sub-Sahariana, dove viene associata all’Islam, e nell’intero Corno d’Africa.
Non possiamo unirci ad una parziale propaganda anti-Mussulmana, la pratica dell’infibulazione è sopratutto un’usanza tribale Africana e non può essere associata solo all’Africa Mussulmana. Per questo mi sembra incredibile, oltraggioso ed anche strano quello che stà succedendo in Kurdistan.
Ritorniamo ai delitti d’onore. Anche se il ‘fattaccio’ è stato compiuto da barbari Yazidi, il delitto d’onore è diventato sinonimo di pratica Islamica. E’ comune in Marocco, ma nel resto del Nord Africa ci sono stati pochi casi in Libia, Tunisia (nessun delitto d’onore da 16 anni a questa parte) e Algeria. Non si hanno notizie di tali delitti ne’ in tutta l’Africa Occidentale, ne’ in Bangladesh ed Indonesia (per particolari ragioni).
Sono molto comuni in Israele, Palestina, Siria, Giordania, Libano, Yemen ed Iran. Aggiungiamo alla ‘lista nera’ anche l’Afghanistan, la Somalia ed il Pakistan (si parla addiritura di epidemia di uccisioni di donne in Pakistan…)
Sebbene il Governo del Kurdistan abbia già introdotto alcune leggi contro i delitti d’onore, la realtà è che gli organi di polizia se ne fregano ed i tribunali non condannano gli assassini.
I Mussulmai dicono che il delitto d’onore non ha nulla a che fare con l’Islam. Bah, ipocrisia. Perchè continua ad essere un ‘biglietto da visita’ riservato soprattutto agli uomini dei paesi Mussulmani? Perchè tanti esimi Islamisti continuano a difendere il principio del delitto d’onore?
Io penso che il delito d’onore sia l’apice dell’abbruttimento del maschio, l’atto più disgustoso che si possa fare contro una donna. Se la pensate come me, visitate il sito: Stop Honour Killings .
E’ comunque deprecabile che la notizia sia stata usata in chiave Anti-Mussulmana (vero seguaci della defunta profetessa dell’odio, Oriana Fallaci?). Gli assassini della povera Dea sono stati proprio i suoi familiari e la folla loro complice, gli Yazidi!!

Kurdish Teenager Stoned To Death Near Mosul

Note: Repost from the old blog. This is a horrible video that was very famous a couple years ago. A 17 year old Yezidi girl was tragically stoned to death by a crowd of 1000 Yezidi men for eloping with a Muslim man. Many of the participants took pictures of the good clean fun with their cellphones. It is at points like this that my tolerance for cultural relativism halts. Be very careful before you decide to watch this. It’s pretty bad.
Warning: Graphic content. Viewer discretion advised.
[wpvideo 66rZZg5H]
Those seeking more information on the Yezidis please see my two posts on the subject, Do Yezidis Worship the Devil?, and The Yezidis, A Mysterious Kurdish Religious Sect.
Original video here. Thanks to Not Ready For My Burqua for this one.
This video of a Kurdish Yezidi woman being stoned to death by her relatives for running away with a Muslim man and converting to Islam is one of the most disturbing videos making the rounds these days.
This incident occurred around April 10, 2007, in the Yezidi village Ba’shiqa, near Mosul, not in Mosul itself as many news reports are saying. Doa Khalil Aswad, 17, a Yezidi student from Ba’shiqa, had fallen in love with her neighbor, a Muslim Kurdish shopkeeper. Then she ran away from home to marry him and converted to Islam.
This is shameful and forbidden, according to the Yezidi religion, an ancient religion that combines aspects of Gnosticism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mithraism and Judaism, but likely predates all of the above.
It is thought to be one of the oldest religions on Earth, possibly dating back 10,000 years or more. See an old post of mine, The Yezidis, a Mysterious Kurdish Religious Sect, for detailed information on this fascinating religion.
The girl was apparently sheltered in the home of a Muslim cleric for several months to keep her away from enraged townspeople. In early April 2007, her family encouraged her to return home on the promise that her relatives had forgiven her for her mistake. But it was all a ruse.
This video shows what happened when she came home. A group of up to 1000 Yezidi men ambushed her on her way home, grabbed her and threw her to the ground. A small group of the men, about a dozen or so, all members of Doa’s extended family, then partially disrobed her and stoned her to death, while cellphone videocameras recorded the sordid deed for all time.
In the video, she is partially disrobed, attacked with stones, then taunted and kicked until a man finishes her off with a rock to the head. If you look at the video closely, you can see she is still in pretty good shape up until between 41-44 seconds into video, when a man steps up and bashes her over the head with a large concrete block. After that, she is bleeding badly from the head and never moves again.
A couple of photo grabs are here and here.
The stoning went on for 30 minutes until the girl finally died. She was probably partially stripped to symbolize how she had dishonored her family and her religion by marrying a Muslim and converting to Islam. At the end of the video, you can see one of the men covering her legs with a jacket.
It is interesting that they think it is shameful to have a girl’s bare legs showing in public, but it is not shameful at all to brutally murder a girl in public.
After she was killed, her body was taken outside of town, burned, and buried with the bones of a dog, to show how worthless she was. An autopsy showed she died of a fractured skull and spine.
This is not the first time the Yezidis have killed one of their women for such an offense. A few months ago, another Yezidi woman converted to Islam and her family killed her with a single bullet to the head.
Kurdish police at the scene who apparently went along with the whole outrage. After a while, Kurdish Army soldiers came by and refused anyone entry to the scene of the crime. There was a significant blowback from this barbaric incident.
Many local Yezidi religious figures, to their credit, condemned this bit of depravity. Unfortunately, local Muslims went nuts afterward, attacking Yezidis and their institutions in response to “the killing of a Muslim woman”. Never mind that these same Muslims would gleefully kill any Muslim who dared to convert out of Islam…
The Muslims of Kurdistan are incredible hypocrites about this stuff, as usual for Islam, a religion that oozes hypocrisy from its very essence. Four months ago, a Muslim girl and a Yezidi man eloped. Local Muslims set fire to Yezidi homes in the village where this took place. They also found the girl, brought her home, beheaded her.
So…let’s see now…non-Muslim women get to run off and marry Muslim men and convert to Islam – no problem. But a Muslim woman goes off with a non-Muslim man and marries him, they get to kill her and then burn down the non-Muslims’ villages? You call that a religion? Is this the Islam of Kurdistan? Are Kurdish Muslims proud of the behavior of the Muslims of Kurdistan?
Iraqi Al Qaeda stopped a bus full of Yezidi workers in Mosul, separated the Yezidis from the others, drove the bus to (Kurdish) Eastern Mosul and executed 23 Yezidis in broad daylight. Attackers shouted “God curse your Devil!” a reference to the fact that many Muslims think that Yezidis are devil worshipers.
The Islamic State of Iraq, which is just a fake name for Iraqi Al Qaeda, took credit for the attack in this statement, where they threatened “the worshipers of Satan” (read: Yezidis) in general. Nice people. Kurdish Muslims and local Sunni Takfiris issued threats to the Yezidis of Kurdistan.
On April 26, 2007, a Yezidi baker and three of his Yezidi workers were murdered in Mosul. Two days later, two Yezidi policemen were murdered. The Takfiri group the Mujahedin Army ordered all Yezidis in Mosul to either convert to Islam, or be killed if they wish to stay in Mosul. Otherwise, they need to leave the city.
Over 800 Yezidis fled Mosul University after local Muslim animals issued the typical Muslim “convert or die” orders. Yezidi workers also fled Mosul. In addition, Yezidis were attacked at their workplaces and dormitories in Erbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah, inside the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. Most fled back to their Yezidi villages. In Bashiqa, Yezidis ordered Muslim residents of the town to leave.
“Convert or die”, of course, is an ancient Muslim tradition that most other religions do not engage in in recent years. In 2007, the fundamentalist jihadis in Baghdad’s Dora District told the local Christians to pay the jizya tax and become dhimmis, convert to Islam, or be killed. Consequently, many Christians fled.
Since the killing of Doa, honor killings exploded in Kurdistan, and men seem to think they have the license now to kill women for any reason they want. Even previously, honor killings and female self-immolations were occurring at a rate of about one a day in Kurdistan.
Female self-immolations are often actually murders by men disguised as suicides. In other cases, the women are pressured to kill themselves for having violated the family’s honor.
The Yezidis do worship Malak Taus, a blue peacock archangel, whom the Muslims mistake for the devil. In the Abrahamic religions, the archangel, of king of the angels, was condemned by God and sent to Hell, where he now rules as the Devil. Since the Yezidis worship the archangel, Muslims conclude they must be worshiping the Devil. However, the Yezidis vociferously disagree that Malak Taus is the Devil.
Yezidi cosmology is mostly secret and highly complex, but upon analysis, it appears that they may be right in that they do not worship the Devil at all. The holy books are only accessible by a tiny elite, are guarded, and outsiders are not allowed to access them.
However, recently, a copy of the Yezidi Holy Book was captured and translated and attempts were made to analyze the religion. The book and the analyses of it can be read on the web. I have read them but I still don’t understand the religion. Most Yezidis are only told part of their religion and the secrets of the religion are kept from them.
The situation with the Alawi, the sect that rules Syria, is similar. There are also parallels with the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, when services were done in Latin in part because the commoners could hardly understand the language. The idea was that keeping the common folks ignorant of even their religion was a good idea, as they lacked the skills necessary to properly understand it.
Yezidi culture and religion is derived from the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism. Like the Zoroastrians, the Yezidis still have a backwards caste system. I believe they have seven castes. Marriage to non-Yezidis is strictly forbidden, as is marriage across castes.
An excellent progressive analysis of this killing and why the Yezidis stoned this woman can be found here. Dr. Showan Khurshid, a PhD student of political theory at Cardiff University in Wales, takes on Muslim, Kurdish and Yezidi culture and gives them all the appropriate lashings that any progressive ought to mete out to these backwards societies. Khurshid is a Kurdish intellectual from Kirkuk (biography).
He has some interesting views – the thinks that Turkomen, Yezidis and Assyrians should all have their own ethnic cantons inside Kurdistan. He has unleashed some superb attacks on Islam from a progressive point of view (most anti-Islam polemics suffer from a pro-imperialist, pro-neoconservative, pro-colonialist or pro-Zionist mindset). Kurdistan needs more thinkers like Khurshid.
Two more Yezidis were killed and Yezidi buildings were set on fire in the unrest that followed the stoning. To their discredit, a number of Kurdish Muslim clerics issues fatwas sanctioning attacks against Yezidis for the stoning. Yezidis then rioted at the local KDP Headquarters, destroying furniture, throwing stones and setting cars on fire.
Not counting the 24 Yezidis killed in Mosul in the bus incident, another 192 Yezidis have been killed since the invasion, mostly by Islamists who have issued the usual charming “convert or die, infidels” orders to Yezidis in general.
Since Yezidis tend not to convert, they are being killed. Excuse me? Is there any other religion on Earth that issues demands that non-practitioners of the religion either convert to the religion or be killed? You call that a religion? For how long have Muslims been ordering non-Muslims to “convert or die”? From the start of Islam. When will they stop? Can Islam be reformed?
Honor killings are very common in Iraq. In the Sunni Muslim areas, one woman a day was being killed in honor killings recently. They have gotten much worse as Islamists have taken over Iraqi society. In the Kurdish north, they are also very common, even though the Kurds are supposedly more secular.
The outrageous crime of female genital mutilation is epidemic (60%) in Kurdistan, while being uncommon in much of the Arab World. It is widely practiced in Egypt (70%) and Yemen (20%) but these areas have strong African influence. Outside of Africa, FGM is uncommon, despite attempts of anti-Arab propagandists to smear Arabs with this practice.
There is a bit of FGM amongst Bedouin tribes in Palestine, Israel (in the Levant it tends to take less more trivial forms) and Saudi Arabia and there is some amongst the Bedouin in Southern Libya, although Qaddafi has tried to quash it. Other than that, FGM is mostly confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, where it tends to be associated with Islam, with a locus on the Horn of Africa for some reason.
Propagandists screaming about FGM and Islam are being disingenuous. FGM, while associated with Islamic Africa, is best seen as an Africanism. Hence the FGM epidemic in Kurdistan is both curious and outrageous.
Although this killing was done by tribal Yezidis, honor killings tend to be associated with Islam. They are common in Morocco but not in the rest of North Africa – they are rare in Libya, Tunisia (there has not been an honor killing in 16 years in Tunisia) and Algeria. They are unheard of in all of Muslim West Africa, Bangladesh and Indonesia, for some odd reason.
They are very common in Israel, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. They are common in the Kurdish areas of Turkey and in Iran. They are also very common in Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan (there is a veritable honor killing epidemic in Pakistan).
Although the Kurdish government has supposedly introduced reforms to try to crack down on the insane barbarism of honor killings, the crimes are almost never investigated, much less prosecuted.
Muslims say that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. That may be true, but why have they persisted mainly in Muslim areas, and why is it the Islamists who always defend them so much?
If you, like me, regard honor killings as the nadir of barbarism and beastliness, you might want to check out the Stop Honor Killings webpage.
Predictably, this crime is being used by the Muslim-haters to bash Muslims, as if Muslims did it, when in fact it was done by Yezidis.

Latin American Hispanics Versus European Spaniards

One of my favorite commenters is a fellow named Rafel from Catalonia in Spain. He knows his country inside out. He’s also quite a progressive fellow. In the recent post Hispanics and Alzheimer’s, he remarks on some of my comments about the working class Hispanics that I live around:

I would tag the mentality you describe as “fatalism,” and I think it happens more among Hispanic lower classes. Hispanics are very polarized by social class, even more so than Anglo-Americans. Depending on one’s social class, one’s values and mindset vary dramatically (and also the perception of what’s good and evil and gender roles).
Perhaps in the US you lack some perspective because there aren’t many super-rich Hispanic big landowners (most of Hispanics in the US have their roots in poor families from Mexico and other countries).
Class polarization in countries like Mexico or Brazil is brutal, and it doesn’t have to do only with wealth and living conditions. This huge divide of mindset and values depending on class is to be found in many Catholic countries (not only Hispanic).
As for Spanish machismo…take a look at today’s Spanish society where it has diminished dramatically. “Machismo” may have been originated in Spain, but today’s mentality in the country is very similar to other West European countries…Today the strongholds of “machismo” in Europe are Italy, Greece, Portugal and the former communist countries of central-eastern Europe such as Poland, Rumania…
Even inside Spain until the 70’s, there were strong mentality differences with regard to gender between the north of the country and the center and south (the North being more “European” and “liberal” and the South with more “machismo” values), but today the mentality is more “liberal” all over the country. This means the machismo mentality can evolve.
Unfortunately in Spain during the last 10 years, massive migration from Moroccans, Latin Americans and Eastern Europeans (and all of them from lower classes) has brought machismo with them (most of episodes of violence against women involve immigrants, and the integration of Muslim women in Spanish society is almost impossible due to their strong submission to their husbands and families).
Spanish Gypsies have “preserved” a lot of machismo too, and, by the way, they fit in a lot with the portrayal you make of US Hispanics. Each word of your text referring to US Hispanics could be applied to Spain’s Gypsies!

I don’t know many upper class Hispanics. Most of the ones I know are definitely lower class. It’s heartening that Spain is leaving this idiot machismo behind and becoming more normal. The way we see it in the US is that this machismo just goes too far. I respect masculinity in males, but machismo is almost a caricature.
I’m not as hopeful about machismo diminishing in Hispanics just because it has in Spain. Spain is White, and it’s part of Europe, hence it’s influenced by European trends. Hispanics are isolated in Latin America and are influenced by that continent.
The Spaniards of the North take pride in being “Whiter.” True, all Spaniards are White, but the Northerners see themselves as aligned more with Northern Europe, especially Celtic heritage. The South has long had a heavy Arab influence. It is the South we think of when the other continentals say “Africa begins at the Pyrenees.”
I am sure that Muslims are not assimilating in Spain, and furthermore, it seems that they are never going to assimilate. That can only mean quit importing them.
It’s not surprising that Gypsy culture is so sexist and male chauvinist. I had long suspected that.
He mentions Italy, but the machismo is much stronger in the South, especially Sicily, than up in the north around Trieste, where a friend of mine lives. Sicilians are almost Arab-like in secluding their daughters are protecting them from other males.
In an older post, What the Future Hispano-Catholic USA Will Look Like Rafel takes a similar tack.

How do you explain that today Spain is one of the most socially liberal countries in the world? Ever traveled to Madrid or Barcelona? You’ll see gay couples walking the streets holding their hands, Spanish women practicing nudism at the beaches, etc…In Spain, we have had gay marriages since 2005.
By the way, a new, more progressive law on abortion has been approved this year (and anyway, since 1985 we already had  more liberal abortion laws than Ireland, Poland, Portugal or Italy). Besides, in places like Catalonia, the number of civil marriages surpasses that of Catholic marriages. Spain’s society has changed dramatically during the last 50 years!
If you compare the birth rate per woman or church attendance, Spain happens to be much less religious than any part of the USA.
Yes, it’s true that Catholic Church still has a lot of power and tries to influence society…but at least in Spain they’re losing the battle year by year. In Barcelona there are almost no locals in a Sunday mass…most people you’ll see attending the Sunday mass are immigrants from South America!
As for the Islamic influence…remember that the kingdoms that founded Spain as a political entity (Castile and Leon, Aragon including the county of Barcelona, etc.) were either never conquered by Arabs or just experienced Arab occupation for a century.
For instance, Arabs were in Barcelona only from ~720 until 801, when the Franks conquered the city. The northern Christian kingdoms conquered and repopulated the south of the peninsula.
True, there is still a lot of Moorish cultural influence, especially in Andalusia. But I’d say that Italian, Spanish and Portuguese “machismo” is more a consequence of the androcentric Roman culture and Roman law (for example, the institution of the paterfamilias) than a consequence of Arabic influence.
As for the burning of churches thing…well, it’s just that the Catholic Church in Spain was perceived by both liberals and socialists as a threat. No doubt the Catholic Church has been a reactionary force during the history of Spain…but much in the same way as other traditional Catholic countries like France.
The difference is that revolutionaries in France had more success in setting apart the Catholic Church from politics and only had to burn churches once, not every ten years like in Spain!
In Spain early attempts to separate Church from state began at in the start of the 19th Century…the problem was that they never succeeded, as reactionaries always regained the power soon after every short liberal period (with the help of the Catholic Church and the army).
As the Church always supported the reactionaries during the 19th and 20th Centuries, the population in the cities accumulated a lot of resentment against the Catholic Church, especially in industrial areas like Catalonia or Asturias. That’s why in every revolutionary period, uncontrolled crowds burned churches and killed a lot of clergymen. They were sort of a scapegoats for the masses…

It is very nice to hear that gay rights is quite open in Spain, at least in the large cities. Incredibly enough, this “backwards Southern European Catholic country” now has legalized gay marriage, something the US cannot seem to get behind.
So Spain is becoming part of the rest of the Europe in a pan-European sort of way. What happens in Netherlands, several years hence, moves as a trend into Spain. Spain increasingly has more in common with Denmark and Sweden than with Mexico and Bolivia.
In this way we see how shared geography influences culture possibly more than shared ethnicity or language. Being situated in Europe trumps the ethnic culture and language that Spain shares with Latin America (as Latin American culture is descended in part from Iberian roots).
Catholic Spain, like Catholic Italy and France, is seeing plummeting Mass attendance and a very low birthrate. The low birthrate can only be explained by mass contraceptive use by women. Clearly, Catholic Western Europe pays little attention to the Pope’s lunatic decrees on birth control.
Along with declining attendance, we see the declining power of the Church. I’ve always felt that the Catholic Church was mostly about power more than anything else. It’s probable today that the Church is less powerful in Spain than in Italy, where it is still quite strong. In no Catholic country, including Italy, can the Church seem to keep its mitts out of politics.
It’s good to hear that Spain’s abortion law is fairly liberal compared to other European Catholic countries. I still don’t think it goes far enough, but it’s not bad.
Abortion in Latin America is a tragedy. It’s illegal in most of the region, and 250,000 women die every year from botched abortions in Latin America. El Salvador and Nicaragua have now passed some truly evil abortion laws that ban it in all cases, even rape, incest or the life or health of the mother. It’s hard to see what kind of good Catholicism does in this world anymore.
Thanks to Rafel for clearing up the church-burning business. I just thought it was bizarre, and that that Spaniards were just nuts. However, it was frustrated rage on the part of an oppressed population at a reactionary Church that just would not go away. It kept rising, Lazarus-like, every 10 years, just when they thought it was down for good.
He attributes machismo more to Roman influence than to the Arabs, but I am not so sure, as one who subscribes to the Pakistan-Peruvian Axis Theory of Arabized societies.
While it is heartening that Spain is moving forward on gay rights, reduced church influence, declining birth rates, abortion and reduction in male chauvinist machismo, Rafel implies that US Hispanics may be ready to follow suit.
I would not be so sure about that. US Hispanics, and Spaniards are quite different. True, young US Hispanics now show trends of increased tolerance towards gays, at least here in California. US Hispanics get more abortions than non-Hispanics, and US Catholics get more abortions than non-Catholics.
Among the lower-class Hispanics I am around, unplanned pregnancies and abortions are omnipresent. Those ending their pregnancies are nominally Catholic, but they never go to Mass and don’t seem to have religious qualms about abortion. Nevertheless, they may vote against abortion in the booth. But after a generation or so, US Hispanics’ views on abortion are little different from the general population.
As far as machismo, I don’t see that lessening too much in Hispanics, but it may be in the younger generation, as the increasing acceptance of young Hispanic gays may suggest.
As far as declining birthrates, we are not seeing that yet in the US, though in Brazil, incredibly enough, the rate is actually below replacement. In a super-Catholic, macho culture too at that. So there’s hope.

New Traffic Record Set on Robert Lindsay July 20

On July 20, another traffic record* was set on Robert Lindsay. There were 3,353 hits that day, setting a new third highest day record and breaking the previous record of 3,300 set on July 11.
Thanks to all of my readers, and especially to my new readers.
*Records are recorded for the 1st-5th highest days, weeks and months.

Air Pollution Kills 300-700,000 Per Year

Note: Repost from the old blog.
In the world, that is. Pretty amazing figure, but it’s apparently solid, and if anything, it is conservative. Not only that, but 50 million kids cough chronically due to smog too. It’s from a book called The Natural Wealth Of Nations: Harnessing The Market For The Environment by David Roodman.
Roodman’s book is not bad, but he does advocate for “a market for the right to pollute.” The problem is that if we accept his figures that air pollution kills 500,000 people a year, then a market for the right to pollute boils down to a buying and selling disease and murder. How can that possibly be justified?
A steady theme in this book is one of environmental taxes. If we taxed pollution, we could cut back on taxes on individuals and business by up to 15% and still be revenue neutral.
Furthermore, experiments with pollution taxation in Europe have shown that when the taxes are high enough (for instance, taxing companies for the discharge they put into waterways) the result is typically a rapid decline in pollution. The very notion of taxing pollution has been ferociously opposed by business here in the US and it has never gotten off the ground.
It is little discussed in the debate over trading pollution credits, but under such a regime, it is quite possible for a business to invent new sources of pollution and then go to the government to set up a market for that pollution and then to profit from selling the rights to that pollution. This is about as perverse as things can get, but it shows you just how nuts capitalism can be.


Roodman, David Malin. 1998. The Natural Wealth Of Nations: Harnessing The Market For The Environment. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Hispanics and Alzheimers

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Interesting article shows that, tragically enough, Hispanics seem to be developing Alzheimer’s at an earlier age than Whites.
Suggested factors were stress and low educational attainment. The low educational achievement is quite clear, since US Hispanic culture, while not made up of morons, places nearly zero value whatsoever on education.
I don’t buy the stress thing though. I live in a mostly-Hispanic city, and these people do not worry about much of anything at all. They are some of the least neurotic people I have ever met. The whole philosophy is, “So what, take it easy, be apathetic, don’t worry about it, don’t think about it, take it one day at a time.”
Hispanics seem to live very much in the present moment. Most of the time, they seem to be thinking about their immediate environment and reacting to it. I’m not sure that they think that much beyond the present moment and what’s directly in front of them.
There are advantages to that, but it doesn’t create a forward looking society.
I don’t buy that Hispanics experience massive levels of stress. They seem to be pretty stress-free, happy go lucky, people from what I can tell.
The stress that does exist is in the form of acting out. Couples fight it out like wildcats and stress and distress over this. People go to jail a lot, and there are lots of health problems. Unplanned pregnancies are typical, and I am starting to wonder if any Hispanics ever have a planned pregnancy.
Once you get to know them, the happy go lucky Hispanic will sometimes complain of depression. Ask him what should happen in his life to relieve his depression, and he is likely to say nothing. There is no hope. Misery will always be his secret company. Other Hispanics, like young gangbangers, sometimes say that they don’t care if they live or die. Sounds like a depressed person of some type to me.
Hispanic females can be very quiet, such that they seem nearly schizoid, except that the emotional life is full, but the introversion is such that it cannot be easily glimpsed. It’s a very shy woman of few words and deep emotions. Obviously a personality type that could be prone to depression. The extent of depression in Hispanic females is not well-known. The culture is people-rich and there is probably a lot of somaticizing.
There may be masked male depression, probably appearing most of the time as depression or drug abuse. Hispanic culture is a culture of action, not delay, introspection and denial of present action.
The true extent of psychopathology in such a culture is not easy to discern, but the absence of observable neurosis and worry is clear. It’s not White culture at all; it’s something altogether different.
Whenever I look for parallels to Hispanic culture, I keep getting reminded of the psychological type of the American Indians. To understand the Hispanic, first observe the Amerindian of the West and Latin America. There’s other stuff going on – machismo from Spain – but that’s a good place to start.

A World Without Blonds

Note: Repost from the old blog.
When the White race goes extinct, White nationalists tell us, blonds will go with us. Blonds like this one below will be known only from photos in museums. It will be a sad day for mankind.

In a world without Whites, all mankind will have dark hair and dark eyes. The blond, beloved by men for 10,000 years, will go the way of the dinosaur. All that will remain will be the bottle blonds known today from such lands as Israel and Argentina. “Does she or doesn’t she?” we may inquire of the lass above. Only her hairdresser knows for sure.

Russia and the Jews, 1795-1916

Note: Repost from the old blog.
A review of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, a history of Russia and its Jews from 1795-1916. It’s the best thing I have ever read on the subject, and I’ve read a lot of crap about this area from all sides. The author is Richard Pipes and it’s published by Benador Associates.
Benador Associates is Neocon Central, home of all manner of rightwing, Zionist, pro-Terror War and pro-Iraq War nasties. From the About US page:

Among the experts are James Woolsey, A.M. Rosenthal, Richard Perle, Amir Taheri, Kanan Makiya and Saad Eddin Ibrahim.

It’s supposedly run by some reactionary Peruvian ruling-class woman named Eleana Benador who I’ve never heard of before. Her photos are here. I hate to make fun of people’s appearances, but I will make an exception in here case and call her a hunchbacked dwarf. Why? Because I don’t like her, that’s why.
Her biography shows you what kind of nasties make up the horrible Peruvian ruling class. Such a malignant bunch of gangsters could only have produced equally malign revolutionaries like the Shining Path. Like creates like; politics is a mirror.
Ms. Benador is also apparently in deep with International Jewry of the nastiest sort, but that’s not unusual, because I understand that some members of the Peruvian ruling class are in with them. These folks are fabulously rich, care nothing at all about their country, and don’t even spend much time there, they are so busy jet-setting around.
They spend most of their time in foreign cities or on jetliners and they put most of their money in the US, often in the New York Stock Exchange. They’re afraid to invest in their own country because it’s so “unstable”. The reason it’s unstable is due to their existence.
I figure she’s fronting for some big money lurking somewhere in the background?
I always thought Richard Pipes was a complete prick. He spent most of his life working for the CIA, more or less, as a Sovietologist. Most prominent Sovietologists like Condoleeza Rice were always pretty much just glorified CIA employees. He’s another Robert Conquest. Plus, he produced, from the spawn of his loins, an abhorrent ultra-Zionist maniac son named Daniel, he of the fascist Campus Watch .
Pipes was one of the original neocons, along with Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and Richard Perle. He even worked for Henry Jackson in the 1970’s, and you can’t much more seminal neocon than that (the neocons were birthed by a largely-Jewish group operating out of Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s). Of course he wrote for Commentary – that’s another classic neocon steppingstone.
He opposed detente, served on Reagan’s National Security Council in 1981-1982 and teamed up with Paul Nitze and Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the Team B “Beware the Bear!” liars.
He dedicated his whole life to US imperialism’s war with the USSR. He lied all day, went to bed, dreamed a bunch of dishonest dreams, got up the next morning, poured some liar crystals into his brewing coffee and started off another day of lying. That was his life; every time he opened up his mouth, it was just the voice of the CIA.
Pipes’ work as a Sovietologist, while quality scholarship, was also a politically motivated pack of lies, propaganda and bullshit from the very start, though he did have his moments. Check out his thesis on the cause of the Russian revolution, which I agree with:

Pipes is famous for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy in a Russian version of the Sonderweg thesis.In Pipes’ opinion, Muscovy differed from every state in Europe in that there was no concept of private property in Muscovy, and that everything was regarded as the property of the Grand Duke/Tsar. In Pipes’ view, this separate path undertaken by Russia ensured that Russia would always be an autocratic state with values fundamentally dissimilar to the values of Western civilization.

Nice, huh? It’s true in part, but avoids the crucial role of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Anyway, like many of these one-sided characters, once you get them away from the subject of their feverish obsession (in his case, the USSR), they can be surprisingly level-headed, because they’re extremely smart and they are finally thinking clearly for once.
Since he is Jewish, I expected the usual Jewish bullshit pile of invective towards the Czar, the Russian people and Russia in general, but this nice review is fair to all sides and sums up the role of the Czar, the Church, Russian nationalists, Jews both traditional and assimilating, revolutionaries, etc superbly.
Check it out and learn something.
I assume his evil spawn Daniel will just go on being an asshole for the rest of his life.

Jesus Loves Tortillas

Note: Repost from the old blog.

Look closely and you can see the Son of God in yellow outline, Shroud of Turin-like, in the center of the heated and rolled slab of dough. If you’re schizophrenic, this is a secret message telling you to go to the nearest taco truck, buy two rolled tacos of any type, and eat them, right now. If you aren’t and are merely a believer, you may be having a religious experience right now. I’m not, but then, I’m so secular, I’m just this side of agnosticism.

Guy shows up everywhere, huh? All those Mexican Catholics going to Mass all the time and praying finally had an effect. Jesus repays their prayers by showing up on their favorite form of flattened dough.
Wonder if he likes tacos too?

Ecosystem Collapse Mysteries

Note: Repost from the old blog.
To bend your mind around a few things, try these baffling examples of what looks like instances of total ecosystem collapse in the US:
White-nose syndrome in bats. Also here.
Bee colony collapse disorder.
Try to figure out why these two environmental syndromes are occurring. For the life of me, I cannot. But I am thinking maybe global warming?
Plus, some think that they are related.
My mind is spinning. What’s next, anyway? Scary stuff.

The Trotsykite Plot Against Stalin, A Tale of the 1930's USSR

I have been saying for a long time on here that the Purges and Great Terror of the 1930’s, especially 1937-38, were in part a response to a plot within the party to kill Stalin and overthrow the leadership of the party. Trotskyites were involved in the plot. They had cut a deal with Nazi Germany. After the hoped-for invasion of the USSR, the Nazis would allow the Trots to take power in the rump USSR. In return, the Trots would give the Nazis the Ukraine and Belorussia, at the least.
People deride the existence of such a plot, and say there is no evidence for it. It’s true that the evidence is a bit sketchy. However, this recent article by top Soviet scholar J. Arch Getty shows that Trotsky was indeed involved with oppositionist circles in the USSR in the early 1930’s anyway, giving at least partial support to the Trotsky As Traitor theory outlined above. I have only given this a cursory look over. Feel free to check it out.

Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International

By J. Arch Getty*

Soviet Studies, vol. XXXVIII, no. 1, January 1986, 24-35

Leon Trotsky’s formal political break with the Bolshevik Party came in 1933 with his decision to renounce allegiance to the Third International (Comintern) and to form a Fourth International. The rupture had not come easily for him. Although the Bolshevik leadership had expelled him from the party in 1927 and exiled him from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky, for his part, had never formally split from the party or the Comintern.
From the time of his exile to the 1933 break, pro-Trotsky communists (‘Bolshevik-Leninists’) had tried to work both within and outside the official parties of the Comintern in order to influence their policies in a Trotskyist direction and Trotsky had been reluctant to organise or sanction new Bolshevik-Leninist parties outside the framework of the Comintern.
He had consistently maintained his allegiance to the Third International and expressed his willingness to defend the Soviet state and Bolshevik monopoly of power against internal and external class enemies.
His four-year loyalty to the party that had exiled him was based in part on his fears of the dangers facing the Soviet government. Trotsky defined the Stalinist regime in this period not as a rightist or ‘Thermidorean’ counter-revolution but rather as a centrist political faction which ‘zig-zagged’ between left and right.
He believed and feared that the zig-zagging and incompetence of Stalinist leadership could, however, produce a crisis in which the real political right (kulaks, nepmen, Whites, or even a man on horseback) could take advantage of the chaos and mount a genuine counter-revolution. In such circumstances, Trotsky would feel bound to support and defend even the Stalinist centrists from an attack from the right that could topple the Soviet state.
He therefore resisted suggestions that he adopt the slogan ‘overthrow Stalin’ or organise a new political party which could split the Bolsheviks in a time of crisis.1
When studying political actors and theorists it is always difficult to separate the subjective from the objective. Does a politician adopt a particular policy or stance as a result of subjective personal motivations or objective analysis? Treatments of most Bolshevik (and especially Stalinist) politicians have routinely stressed personal ambition as a determinant of political or theoretical pronouncements.
But few of the hagiographical or scholarly works on Trotsky have questioned his intellectual integrity or asked critical questions about the personal motives behind his theoretical and political positions. Since Isaac Deutscher’s pioneering biography, Trotsky has been ‘the prophet outcast’, a tragic hero whose personal and political life was shaped—often disastrously—by his objective theoretical views more than vice versa.2
In particular, Trotsky’s 1933 decision to form the Fourth International has been explained as a function of an objective economic, social, and political analysis of the situations in the Comintern and the USSR. Yet Trotsky’s private writings and activities suggest that his changing theoretical evaluations of the USSR and the Bolshevik Party resulted at least in part from the vicissitudes of his tactical position and partisan hopes and not vice versa.
Trotsky was a politician as well as a political analyst and one should not be surprised to discover that his private political activities continued in exile or, as with most politicians, influenced his public theoretical pronouncements.
Formation of separate political organisations and renunciation of allegiance to the Comintern would have made Trotsky and his followers members of a separate, anti-Bolshevik political party and would have placed him and his partisans completely outside the pale of Bolshevik politics. Such a stance would doom any chance for him to return to the Moscow party leadership.
With hindsight, for Trotsky to have harboured such hope seems naive and quixotic, but the uncertainties of the dynamic political and social crisis of 1929-32 made many things seem possible. Indeed, Trotsky believed in and hoped for the possibility of a return to the Moscow leadership and worked tirelessly for it. The collapse of his last hope for a recall to Moscow coincided with his decision to form the Fourth International.
Using Trotsky’s public writings of the 1930s, most writers have agreed that Hitler’s crushing of the German Communist Party (KPD) and workers’ movement in February-March, 1933 led Trotsky finally to question his allegiance first to the KPD and then to the Comintern and its member parties.3
Trotsky was angry with the KPD and its Comintern masters for not forming a ‘united front from above and below’ with the German socialists (SPD) to block Hitler’s victory. In March, he wrote a series of articles in which he called for the formation of a wholly new German Communist Party rather than the resuscitation of the KPD.4 Writing under the pseudonym ‘G. Gurov’, Trotsky suggested that the decision had been taken reluctantly:

‘Just as a doctor does not leave a patient who still has a breath of life, we had for our task the reform of the party as long as there was the least hope. But it would be criminal to tie oneself to a corpse.’5

Although Trotsky now sanctioned the formation of a new non-Comintern party in Germany, he stopped short of renouncing loyalty to the Third International or Soviet Communist Party and refused to approve the creation of new communist parties anywhere except Germany. In reply to a rhetorical question about giving up on the Comintern as a whole, ‘G. Gurov’ waffled: ‘In my opinion, it would be incorrect to give a rigid answer . . .’.
He then suggested that the German disaster could serve as an object lesson that could shock other communist parties into reforming Comintern policy. ‘The question has not been settled for the USSR, where proclamation of the slogan of the second party would be incorrect . . . It is not a question of the creation of the Fourth International but of salvaging the Third.’6
Again, on 9 April 1933, Trotsky maintained that ‘we do not break with the Third International’. In response to a question on whether it was not inconsistent to break with the Comintern in Germany and not elsewhere, Trotsky minimised the issue as a matter of ‘bookkeeping’. ‘If, however, the Stalinist bureaucracy should bring the USSR to ruin . . . it will be necessary to build a Fourth International.’7
For four months following a call for a new German communist party, Trotsky declined to extend his renunciation of the KPD to the Soviet or other communist parties. It was not until mid-July that he finally announced that one cannot remain ‘captive to one’s own formula’ and that hope for Comintern reform was dead.
In an article entitled It is Necessary to Build Communist Parties and an International Anew, he wrote that the Soviet Communist Party was no longer a party at all but merely ‘an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy’. There was, therefore, no party with which to break.8 Five days later, he wrote that ‘the Bolshevik Party no longer exists’ and that accordingly it was time to ‘abandon the slogan of the reform of the CPSU’.9
Apprehensive that he would now be widely regarded as an anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary, Trotsky still refused to call for a revolution in the Soviet Union. In his view, Soviet Russia was still a workers’ state that ‘can be regenerated . . . without a revolution’.10 It was not until 1 October 1933 that he asserted: ‘No normal “constitutional” ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletariat only by force’. (emphasis Trotsky’s).
Still queasy about the implications of this position, he argued that such force would not be ‘an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat but the removal of a malignant growth upon it’. He was advocating not ‘measures of a civil war but rather the measures of a police character’.11
Trotsky’s October call for the use of force against the Soviet party regime was not qualitatively new. He was only dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s of his key July statements renouncing the Bolshevik party and denying its existence.12 If reform were impossible and if the Stalinist clique refused to abdicate power, then the July position already implied removing it by force.
Trotsky’s July renunciation of the Comintern and Bolshevik party and his simultaneous call for a new International comprise the chief watershed in the political activities of his exile.
Why, after the mid-March articles on Germany did it take Trotsky four months to follow the clear logic of his position and break with the Comintern? His admiring biographer Isaac Deutscher found the delay ‘illogical’ but explained simply that ‘the logic of his new venture soon got the better of Trotsky’ in the months that followed. Deutscher attributed Trotsky’s peculiar hesitation on the matter to his longtime loyalty to the Comintern and his fear of Russian counterrevolution.13
While these factors were pertinent to the 1929-32 period, an explanation based on them does not fully account for the illogical four-month pause between breaking with the KPD and renouncing its Moscow Comintern policymakers. Did either rightist danger or Trotsky’s loyalty to the Comintern decrease so dramatically after the March KPD disaster?
Trotsky himself anticipated questions about the delay. He had written in April that a Fourth International would not be necessary until the Stalinist clique brought the USSR to ruin. Since he never claimed that any action on Stalin’s part between March and July brought the USSR any closer to ruin than it already was, both the delay and the proposal of a Fourth International needed explaining. Indeed, on 27 July 1933, Trotsky admitted that logically the Comintern break should have come in April.
First, he explained that a disagreement between himself and his ‘German comrades’ on the question of a new party had caused friction in the ‘Left Opposition’ and delayed the total break. Trotsky had had to convince his German followers of the necessity for a break. Second, he claimed that between March and July he had been waiting to see if the parties or leadership of the Comintern would ‘wake up’ and abruptly change their policies.14
It is hard to weigh the importance of either these factors for Trotsky’s unusual indecisiveness. It is true that the German Trotskyists with whom he corresponded resisted the notion of a new party, although Trotsky had not taken them seriously enough to consult with them beforehand and had never shown much reluctance to break with the small European leftist groups which defied him.15
The other explanation, that Trotsky waited four months for the Comintern quickly to admit the error of its ways, is even less convincing. No one had less reason than Trotsky to be optimistic about the Comintern and no one had so relentlessly documented its failures over the preceding decade.
Trotsky could not have been so naive or ignorant of Comintern politics as to expect either a mea culpa from the Comintern Executive Committee or an independent, defiant policy from the member parties. It seems therefore that the lack of Comintern reform cannot explain the timing of the call for a Fourth International.
Yet Trotsky’s typically polemical, assertive, and self-justifying writings have led scholars to accept his version of the Fourth International decision and to ask few questions about his procrastination. The issue is of more than simple antiquarian or psychological interest since both published and archival documents suggest another side to Trotsky’s life in the 1930s quite apart from his journalistic and editorial activities.
Behind the scenes of his public reflections on the Comintern, Trotsky was trying both to organise illegal opposition groups in the USSR and to negotiate with Moscow for his legal return.
Long before the 1933 disaster in Germany, Trotsky had tried to maintain contact with followers in the USSR. Since 1929 he had corresponded with those of his adherents who were in internal exile in Serbia or Central Asia.16 He had tried to smuggle copies of his Byullenten’ oppozitsii into the Soviet Union, and through his son Lev Sedov (who lived in Berlin) had maintained contacts with tourists and Soviet officials travelling to and from the USSR.
As it became clear that his letters to the Soviet Union were being screened and intercepted by the secret police, he switched to postcards, since he believed that they were scrutinised less carefully.17
At the time of the Moscow show trials, Trotsky denied that he had any communications with the defendants since his exile in 1929. Yet it is now clear that in 1932 he sent secret personal letters to former leading oppositionists Karl Radek, G. Sokol’nikov, E. Preobrazhensky, and others. While the contents of these letters are unknown, it seems reasonable to believe that they involved an attempt to persuade the addressees to return to opposition.18
We know considerably more, however, about another clandestine communication between Trotsky and his supporters in the USSR late in 1932. Sometime in October, E.S. Gol’tsman, a former Trotskyist and current Soviet official, met Sedov in Berlin and gave him a proposal from veteran Trotskyist Ivan Smirnov and other left oppositionists in the USSR for the formation of a united opposition bloc.
The proposed bloc was to include Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. Sedov wrote to Trotsky relaying the proposal and Trotsky approved. ‘The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable’, Trotsky wrote, ‘but it is a question of bloc, not merger’. ‘How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, principally through reciprocal information.
Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern’.19 In his view, the bloc should exclude those who capitulated and recanted: capitulationist sentiment ‘will be inexorably and pitilessly combatted by us’.20
Gol’tsman had relayed the opinion of those in the Soviet Union that participation in the bloc by the Right Opposition was desirable, and that formation of the bloc should be delayed until their participation could be secured. Trotsky reacted against this suggestion: ‘The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval . . . .’
Trotsky was impatient with what he considered passivity on the part of the Right Opposition. ‘One struggles against repression by anonymity and conspiracy, not by silence’.21 Sedov then replied that the bloc had been organized. ‘It embraces the Zinovievists, the Sten-Lominadze group, and the Trotksyists (old “—”)’22 ‘The Safarov-Tarkhanov group has not yet formally entered—they have a very extreme position; they will enter soon.’
Ironically, back in the Soviet Union, the leaders of the bloc were being rounded up by the police at this precise moment. Ivan Smirnov and those around him (including the economist Preobrazhensky) had been arrested ‘by accident’. It seems that a provocateur in their midst had denounced them on a separate matter. Moreover, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been arrested and deported for knowing about the oppositional Ryutin platform and not reporting it to the authorities.
Although these events certainly disrupted the bloc, Sedov was not despondent. He was sure that the police had found no documents or ‘Trotskyist literature’ on Smirnov, and while ‘the arrest of the “ancients is a great blow, the lower workers are safe’.23
At about this time, Trotsky attempted to contact his ‘lower workers’ directly. During a brief stay in Copenhagen, he handed a letter to an English supporter named Harry Wicks who was to convey it to oppositionists in Russia. The letter began: ‘I am not sure that you know my handwriting. If not, you will probably find someone who dies’.
Trotsky went on to call upon loyal oppositionists to become active: ‘The comrades who sympathize with the Left Opposition are obliged to come out of their passive state at this time, maintaining, of course, all precautions’. (emphasis Trotsky’s) He went on to give names and addresses of safe contacts in Berlin, Prague, and Istanbul to whom communications for Trotsky could be sent, and then concluded, ‘I am certain that the menacing situation in which the Party finds itself will force all the comrades devoted to the revolution to gather actively about the Left Opposition’.24
It is clear, then, that a united left oppositional bloc was formed in 1932. In Trotsky’s opinion, the bloc existed only for the purposes of communication and exchange of information, and from the evidence, it is clear that Trotsky envisioned no secret ‘terrorist’ role for the bloc, as Moscow would charge four years later.
There is also reason to believe that after the decapitation of the bloc (through the removal of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smirnov, and others), the organisation included mainly lower level, less prominent oppositionists: followers of Zinoviev, but not Zinoviev himself.
Finally, it seems that Trotsky attempted to maintain direct contact with the allies’. The seize and strength of the 1932 bloc cannot be determined and one does not know how threatening it was to the regime. In any case, events would show that both Trotskyists and Stalinists took it seriously.
Aside from the bloc, Trotsky was pursuing another strategy in these months. During the autumn of 1932 he had written to his son Sedov that it would be strategically important to offer to ‘cooperate with the regime in power’ in order not to alienate potential supporters within the Stalin apparatus.25 In March 1933 Trotsky made a final attempt to ‘cooperate’ with Moscow by magnanimously offering to return to the Moscow leadership.
Three days after his ‘G. Gurov’ article breaking with the KPD, Trotsky made his formal offer to return to the Politbureau leadership under certain conditions. He made his proposition in a remarkable secret letter sent to the Politbureau on 15 March.26Trotsky’s letter was based on his perception that economic catastrophe was overwhelming the party leadership which now needed the support and participation of all factions in order to rebuild the party and maintain power.

‘I consider it my duty to make one more attempt to appeal to the sense of responsibility of those who presently lead the Soviet state. You know conditions better than I. If the internal development [of the country] proceeds further on its present course, catastrophe is inevitable’.

Trotsky referred to the Politbureau to his recent articles in his Byulleten’ oppozitsii for his analysis. He cited Hitler’s recent victory in Germany as evidence of the bankruptcy of Comintern policy and asserted that disasters like that had led to a ‘loss of confidence in the leadership’. ‘Chto nado sdelat’?’ What was needed was a ‘rebirth of the party organisation’ in order to reestablish confidence, and the Left Opposition was willing to cooperate.
Some of you will say, Trotsky mused, that the Left Opposition merely wants a path to power and is offering to cooperate only to get back inside the leadership. However, the question, Trotsky replied, is not power [!] for this or that faction but rather the survival of the workers’ state and international revolution for many years:

Only open and honest cooperation between the historically produced fractions, fully transforming them into tendencies in the party and eventually dissolving into it, can in concrete conditions restore confidence in the leadership and resurrect the party.

Trotsky then promised that a returning Left Opposition would not persecute any party members who had opposed it in the past.
After describing the conditions which demanded the return of the opposition, Trotsky made the remarkable offer. Alluding to the platform of the Left Opposition, he insisted:

Renunciation of this programme is of course out of the question . . . But concerning the manner of presenting and defending this programme before the Central Committee and the party, not to mention the manner of putting it into effect, there can and must be achieved a preliminary agreement with the goal of preventing shocks or splitting.

Trotsky thus proposed that the Left Opposition be allowed to return to the leadership as a ‘tendency’ within the party, and insisted that his group would not publicly renounce its critique and programme. He was, however, leaving the door open for a deal under which agitation for this programme could be held in abeyance for an indefinite period.
Trotsky was willing to re-enter the leadership without the usual recantation but with the suggestion that for the sake of party unity he would refrain from criticism. This was a new proposal. Previously, he had demanded unlimited freedom of criticism for the opposition within the party, but now he was making oppositional criticism conditional on an ‘agreement’ to be worked out.
The contradiction with Trotsky’s previous conditions and demands explains the secrecy of the letter.28 Unlike his previous open letters to the Soviet leadership, this epistle was never released or published by Trotsky.29 He concluded the letter by informing the Politbureau that they were receiving the only copy of the document. This would leave the Politbureau ‘free to choose the means’ to begin discussions.
The 12 March article KPD or New Party? and the 15 March secret letter were interrelated. First, Trotsky may have thought that his call for a new party in Germany would put pressure on the Moscow leadership, which would conceivably opt to take Trotsky back rather than face a split in the Comintern. Second, the secret letter to the Politbureau also helps to explain why he wrote the 12 March article under a pseudonym.
Pending a reply to his 15 March offer, Trotsky was not yet committed to the Fourth International and the pseudonym would allow him later to deny that he had broken with the Comintern parties. Such ‘deniability’ would have been important to him if Moscow had responded favourably to his offer to return. In such a case, Trotsky’s restored position in the Moscow leadership would have been inconsistent with a call to break with the KPD and it would have been necessary to disavow ‘G. Gurov’.
Trotsky’s delay in breaking with the other parties of the Comintern (including the Bolsheviks) can thus be partially explained. After March, he was waiting for Moscow to answer his secret letter before committing himself publicly to a Fourth International. As much as waiting for the Comintern to admit its mistakes and reform itself, Trotsky delayed his break with Moscow in order to keep his personal options open.
A month and a half later, Trotsky despaired of receiving a reply from the Politbureau. On 10 May 1933 he set the Politbureau an angry coda to the March letter, which he entitled Explanation.30 This short statement began by noting that the Politbureau had only replied to him with silence.
He stressed again the danger facing the Bolshevik regime and pointedly warned that the regime could fall because of the mistakes committed by the Stalin faction. He then ominously served notice on the Politbureau that he now felt free to agitate among the lower ranks of the Stalinist bureaucracy.
‘We are sending this document [the March letter plus the May explanation] to responsible workers in the belief that among the blind, the careerists, and the cowards, there are honest revolutionaries from whose eyes one cannot hide the real state of things . . . We call upon these honest revolutionaries to make contact with us. Seek and ye shall find’.
The 10 May Explanation marked the end of Trotsky’s attempts to return ‘legally’ to the Moscow leadership. The disaster in Germany, the clumsy economic policy of the apparatus, and finally Stalin’s refusal to negotiate with him convinced Trotsky that any kind of cooperation with the Stalinist faction was impossible.
But his 15 July article It is Necessary to Build Communist Parties and an International Anew was still two months in the future. Why did he further delay his total break with the Bolsheviks and the Comintern?
While simple indecision was certainly part of the answer, it may well have been that Trotsky felt that the 1932 bloc still offered possibilities short of a total break with the Comintern. As we have seen, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been expelled from the party and exiled in October 1932 for their knowledge of the Ryutin platform.
In an article on their expulsion dated 19 October 1932, Trotsky had taken a generally soft, sympathetic, and conciliatory attitude toward the two leaders. (They were, after all, still members of the ephemeral bloc.) Their expulsion from the party and their lack of recantation still put them in Trotsky’s camp, as he saw it.31
Any hopes that Trotsky entertained about the viability of the bloc were shattered in May 1933. Fewer than 10 days after Trotsky appended his May ‘Explanation‘ to the secret letter, he learned that Zinoviev and Kamenev had capitulated to Stalin, recanted their sins and repledged their loyalty to the Stalinist faction. Their departure from the opposition embittered Trotsky.
In a 23 May article he described the two as pitiful, tragic, and subservient.32 On 6 July he rallied against them once again and denounced their capitulation in strong terms.33 The leaders (if not the lower workers) of the bloc were gone.
Both of Trotsky’s non-public strategies were now in ruins. The Politbureau had ignored his offer to return and the recantations of Zinoviev and Kamenev had decapitated the 1932 bloc. The options which Trotsky had sought to keep open were now closed and he could no longer hope for a return to Moscow in the near future. Nine days after his bitter article against Zinoviev, he penned the fateful 15 July article breaking with the mainstream Communist parties and the Comintern.
There was no longer any point in remaining ‘captive to one’s own formula’. The party which one month before Trotsky had sought to rejoin ‘no longer exists’ and was now incapable of reform. It is almost as if Trotsky equated reform of the party with his return to it.
There was more to Trotsky’s life in exile than theorising and publishing. Taking the formation of the Fourth International as a case study, one can see that his partisan activities affected the nature and timing of his theoretical assertions. Indeed, the failure of Trotsky’s secret political strategies was a major component in his decision to break with the Comintern and to go it alone.
His conspiratorial machinations were not only factors in the decision, but they were important and perhaps better account for the four-month delay in breaking with Moscow than do his public explanations.
It seems reasonable to suppose further that Trotsky’s activities were grist to the mill of those hard-line Moscow politicians who favoured repression of the opposition. His activities could not but have provided political ammunition for those in the Kremlin who demanded stern measures.
Trotsky’s secret letters to followers in the Soviet Union, his organisation of the 1932 bloc, his formation of the Fourth International, his call for the overthrow of the party leadership by force, and his continued opposition to Comintern policies (particularly to the Popular Front) later made it easy for hard-liners to portray Trotsky as a devious and ‘unprincipled’ plotter who was scheming to return, forming conspiracies, and opposing communist parties both politically and organisationally.
In looking back over Soviet history since 1933, Trotsky’s activities and writings’ might at first seem pointless and irrelevant. Indeed, there is considerable pathos in his actions and writings. After years in exile, he still wrote as if he were part of the leadership. In criticizing the first Five-Year Plan he often used the first person:

. . .we have not entered socialism. We have far from attained mastery of the methods of planned regulation. We are fulfilling only the first rough hypotheses, fulfilling them poorly, and with our headlights not yet on.34

With hindsight, his attempts to organise secret blocs and his offers to return to Moscow seem sad. Following Deutscher and others, Alec Nove observed ‘how few were his followers, how politically ineffective, even meaningless, were his eloquent, if sometimes dogmatic words’.35
But hindsight can be misleading. Bolshevik party history showed how quickly political fortunes could change. At the end of 1916 Lenin and his circle of expatriates must certainly have seemed dubious candidates to rule the Russian Empire, but war, social conflict, and political paralysis quickly changed the situation.
The social and political upheavals of the 1930s combined with the fascist threat of war offered the possibility of a similarly fluid and dynamic situation. Stalin’s removal and Trotsky’s return did not seem so far-fetched to either of them.
It seems that the Stalinists took the possibility quite seriously and never relaxed their pressure on Trotsky and Trotskyism. The Stalinist press constantly vilified Trotskyism as the ‘vanguard of counterrevolution’. Trotsky’s mail to the USSR was intercepted and his entourage was infiltrated by Stalinist agents.36 Secret police officer Yakov Blyumkin was shot simply for meeting Trotsky abroad.37
Later, in 1936, the 1932 bloc became the evidential base for the Moscow show trials and the massacre of Trotskyists in the Ezhov Terror which accompanied them.38 In the Spanish Civil War, hard-pressed Spanish and Russian communists took the trouble to round up and shoot Trotskyists. The Soviet government put continuous pressure on the governments of Norway, Belgium, France, and Mexico in an attempt to deny Trotsky an exile sanctuary or base of operations.
Finally, in 1940, with war on the horizon, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico. Stalin thus made sure that history would not repeat itself. In whatever crisis that might follow, there would be no brilliant exiled revolutionary personality to return home in a sealed train as Lenin had done in 1917.
University of California, Riverside
* The author is grateful for a research grant from the University of California, Riverside’s Academic Senate Committee on Research.


1 The Trotsky Papers (Exile Correspondence), Houghton Library, Harvard University, 10248, 4777 show Trotksy’s discussions with his son on such questions. Robert H. McNeal, ‘Trotskyist Interpretations of Stalinism’ in Robert C. Tucker, ed., Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation, (New York, 1977) pp. 30-52, analyses Trotsky’s changing theoretical evaluation of Stalinism.
See also the summary in Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast. Trotsky: 1929-1940, (New York, 1963) pp. 172-5.2 Most writers on Trotsky in exile have concentrated on his writings rather than his political activities.
See Alec Nove, ‘A Note on Trotsky and the “Left Opposition” 1929-31’, Soviet Studies, Vol. 29, No 4, (October, 1977) pp. 576-89; Richard B. Day, ‘Leon Trotsky on the Problems of the Smychka and Forced Collectivisation’, Critique, No. 13, 1981, pp. 55-68; Warren Lerner, ‘”The Caged Lion”; Trotsky’s Writings in Exile’, Studies in Comparative Communism, Vol. 10, (1977), pp. 198-203; Samuel Kassow, ‘Trotsky and the Bulletin of the Opposition’, Ibid., pp. 184-97; Siegfried Bahne, ‘Trotsky on Stalin’s Russia’, Survey, No. 41, (1962), pp. 27-42.
Exceptions include Jean van Heijenoort, With Trotsky in Exile: From Prinkipo to Coyoacan, Cambridge, Mass., 1978 and Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast. op. cit.
3 Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast, op. cit. pp. 198-200; Michel Dreyfus, ‘Trockij dall’ opposizione di sinestra ai fondamenti di una nuova internazionale (1930-1935)’, Ponte, Vol. 36, No. 11-12 (1980), pp. 1316-31; Jean van Heijenoort, ‘How the Fourth International Was Conceived’, in Joseph Hansen, et. al, Leon Trotsky: The Man and His Work, (New York, 1969), p. 62; George Breitman and Bev Scott, eds., Writings of Leon Trotsky [1933-34], (New York, 1975), p. 10 (hereafter WLT [1933-34]).
4 ‘Tragediya nemetskogo proletariata’, Byullenten’ oppozitsii, (hereafter, BO) No. 34, pp. 7-11 (dated 14 March 1933); ‘KPG ili novaya partiya?’, Ibid., pp. 12-13 (dated 29 March 1933); ‘Krushenie germanskoi kompartii i zadachi oppozitsii’ Ibid., pp. 13-17 (dated 9 April 1933); ‘KPD or New York? (I)’, Writings of Leon Trotsky [1932-1933], New York, 1972 (hereafter WLT [1932-1933], pp. 137-9 (dated 12 March 1933: not the same article as ‘KPG ili novaya partiya?’ cited above).
5 ‘KPD or New Party? (I)’, WLT [1932-33], p. 137.
6 Ibid., p. 138.
7 BO, No. 34, p. 15.
8 ‘Nuzhno stroit’ zanovo kommunistcheskie partii i International’, BO, No. 36-37, p. 21. (dated 15 July 1933).
9 ‘Nel’zya bol’she ostavat’ sya v odnom “Internationale” so Stalinym, Manuil’skim, Lozovskim, i Ko’, BO, No. 36-37, p. 24. (dated 20 July 1933).
10 Ibid.
11 ‘Klassovaya priroda sovetskogo gosudarstava’, BO, No. 36-37, pp. 1-12 (dated 1 October 1933) In the Moscow purge trials of 1936-38, Prosecutor Vyshinsky would quote from this article as evidence that Trotsky advocated the violent overthrow of the Soviet government.
12 The editors of the Writings of Leon Trotsky see the 1 October article as a qualitative evolution in Trotsky’s thinking, see WLT [1933-34], p. 10, Jean van Heijenoort, however, correctly notes that the ‘perspective of reform was definitely abandoned’ in July. (‘How the Fourth International Was Conceived‘, op. cit. p. 62.)
13 Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast, op. cit. pp. 205-7.
14 ‘For New Communist Parties and the New International’, WLT [1933-34], pp. 26-27 (dated 27 July 1933).
15 See ‘The German Decision Against a New Party’, Writings of Leon Trotsky: Supplement (1929-1933), (New York, 1979). pp. 218-9 (dated 19 March 1933); ‘We Must Have a Decision on Germany’, Ibid., pp. 223-5 (dated 3 April 1933).
16 Sedov’s address book contained the exile addresses of Trotskyists in the USSR. Trotsky Papers, 15741. The Exile Correspondence section of the Trotsky Papers contains copies of such letters.
17 See Trotksy’s account of these difficult communications in The Dewey Commission, The Case of Leon Trotsky, (New York, 1937), pp. 128-32, 261-6, 271-3. This volume is the transcript of the 1937 Commission of Inquiry chaired by John Dewey which investigated the charges made against Trotsky at the 1933-37 Moscow show trials. Trotsky participated willingly in the inquiry.
18 Trotsky Papers, 15821. Unlike virtually all Trotsky’s other letters (including even the most sensitive) no copies of these remain in the Trotsky Papers. It seems likely that they have been removed from the Papers at some time.
Only the certified mail receipts remain. At his 1937 trial, Karl Radek testified that he had received a letter from Trotsky containing ‘terrorist instructions’, but we do not know whether this was the letter in question.
19 Trotsky Papers, 13095 and 10107. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library. See also Pierre Broue, ‘Trotsky et le bloc des oppositions de 1932’, Cahiers Leon Trotsky, No. 5, Jan.-Mar. 1980), pp. 5-37 for background on the bloc.
Included in file 13095 is a 1937 note from Trotsky’s secretary van Heijenoort which shows that Trotsky and Sedov were reminded of the bloc at the time of the 1937 Dewey Commission but withheld the matter from the inquiry.
20 Trotsky was always bitterly opposed to those who capitulated to Stalin or who recanted their opposition. He wrote such persons off completely.
21 Trotsky Papers, 13095. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library. Alec Nove has shown that while there were some differences, Trotsky’s critique of Stalin’s industrialisation and collectivisation plans resembled that of Bukharin and the right. (Nove, A Note on Trotsky and the “Left Opposition“, op. cit. pp. 576-84).
Indeed, Trotsky’s spirited defence of the smychka and rural market relations, his criticism of the ultra-leftist campaign against the kulaks, and his advocacy of planning on the basis of ‘real potentials’ were similar to the strictures of Bukharin’s ‘Notes of an Economist‘.
See, for example, Trotksy’s ‘Problemy razvitiya SSSR’, BO, No. 22, pp. 1-15 and ‘Sovetskoe khozyaistvo v opasnosti’, BO, No. 31, pp. 2-13. (For another view which sees continuity in Trotsky’s critique from the 1920s to the 1930s see Day, Trotsky on the Problems of the Smychka.)
In the light of the apparent similarities between his and Bukharin’s critiques, Trotsky was anxious to maintain the separate identity of the Left Opposition. He wrote in 1932 that although ‘practical disagreements with the Right will hardly be revealed . . . it is intolerable to mix up the ranks and blunt the distinctions’. (WLT Supplement (1929-1933), p. 174).
In a secret letter to his son about the 1932 bloc, he warned Sedov not to ‘leave the field to the rights’ (Trotsky Papers, 13095). Despite Trotsky’s efforts, Moscow hard-liners were able to portray Trotsky as a scheming ‘unprincipled’ oppositionist and to denounce ‘Left-Right’ conspirators at the Moscow show trials.
22 Trotsky Papers, 13095 (excision of word in original document). Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library. Shortly thereafter, Trotsky wrote cryptically that ‘As far as the illegal organisation of the Bolshevik-Leninists is concerned, only the first steps have been taken toward its reorganisation.’ WLT [1932-33], p. 34.
23 Trotsky Papers, 4782. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library.
24 Trotsky Papers, 8114. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library. See also The Case of Leon Trotsky, pp. 274-5.
The editors of WLT claim that the letter was intended to help Wocks’ credibility among Russian Trotskyists in London, Writings of Leon Trotsky [1932], (New York, 1973), p. 328 but the archival copy contains a notation which shows that the letter’s intended destination was the USSR.
25 Trotsky Papers, 10248 and T-3485. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library.
26 Trotsky Papers, T-3522. Quoted by permission of the Houghton Library. See also WLT [1932-33] p. 141-3.
27 Hard-liners in the Moscow leadership must have noted and argued that Trotsky’s proposal that his “fraction” retain is distinctive programme after readmission to the party ran counter to Lenin’s famous 1921 ban on factions and factional platforms. (On Party Unity, adopted at the X Congress in 1921).
28 Without revealing his offer to Moscow, Trotsky wrote that ‘mutual criticism . . . may have a different character depending on the extent to which it is consciously prepared by both sides and in what organisational framework it takes place’. (‘Nuzhno chestnoe vnutripartiinoe soglashenie’, BO, No. 34, p. 31, dated 30 March 1933).
These cryptic remarks may have been published in order to prepare his followers for Moscow’s possible acceptance of Trotsky’s proposal to make criticism by the opposition conditional and restricted.
29 For an example of the more common ‘Open Letter’, see Trotsky Papers, T-3423.
30 Trotsky Papers, T-3522. Quoted by permission by the Houghton Library. On the last page of the July issue of Byullenten’ oppozitsii, Trotsky referred vaguely to the 15 March letter to the Politbureau.
While mentioning neither his offer to defer the opposition programme nor his May ‘Explanation’, Trotsky claimed somewhat inaccurately that the March letter simply repeated his long-standing offer to return to the Bolshevik party ‘under conditions guaranteeing us the right to defend our views’, see ‘Pochtovyi yashchik’, BO, No. 35, p. 22.
31 ‘Stalintsky prinimayut mery’, BO, No. 31, pp. 13-18 (dated 19 October 1932).
32 ‘Zino’ev i Kamenev’, BO, No. 35, pp. 23-24 (dated 23 May 1933).
33 ‘Zinoviev on the Party Regime’, WLT [1932-33]. p. 286 (dated 6 July 1933).
34 ‘Sovetskoe khozyaistvo v opasnosti!’, BO, No. 31, pp. 2-13 (dated 22 October 1932).
35 Nove, A Note on Trotsky, op. cit., p. 589.
36 Van Heijenoort (With Trotsky in Exile, pp. 93-102) maintains that Sedov’s close assistant Mark Zborowski (alias ‘Etienne’) was a Stalinist agent. NKVD defector Alexander Orlov in testimony before a US Senate hearing, also denounced Zborowski and provided detailed information.
See US Senate, Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act, Testimony of Alexander Orlov, Washington, D.C., 1962. Trotsky Papers, 15765 is a file on the suspected Stalinist agents in Trotsky’s entourage.
37 See Rex Winsbury, ‘Jacob Blumkin in Russia, 1892-1929’, History Today, Vol. 27, No. 11, 1977, pp. 712-18, and Deustcher, The Prophet Outcast, op. cit., pp. 84-8.
38 See J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938, (New York, 1985), Chapter 5 for a discussion of how the 1932 bloc might have influenced Soviet party politics in 1936.

Time To Apologize For The Deicide?

In a comment on the We Killed Jesus and We are Proud Of It! post, a Colombian commenter says that I am wrong for suggesting that the Jews apologize for the Deicide:

Apologizing for Deicide? that’s outright moronic. Deicide charges were leveled against the Jews by the early Church fathers, who were conveniently oblivious to the fact that the very first Christians were Jews themselves. And were consistently used as an excuse to persecute the Jews in Europe for centuries. It sounds to me like a lame PC attempt to create a Jewish counterpart to white guilt.

Some of the usual arguments are laid out here. Jesus himself was Jew, and so were those who killed him, so the charge is absurd on its face.
However, Talmudic Judaism, or modern-day Judaism, is clearly the spiritual descendant of the Pharisees. It was the Pharisees and Phariseeism that Jesus and his disciples were fleeing in terror from. Recall the NT sections where the Disciples say, “The Jews are after us!” as they run and hide all over the Galilee.
Any honest Rabbi will tell you that they were hiding from the followers of the Pharisees. The same honest Rabbi will also tell you that Talmudic Judaism is the spiritual descendant of Phariseeism. In fact, a Conservative Rabbi admitted both of those things to me.
Super-Jews make a big deal about Christianity being de facto anti-Semitic by the very nature of the New Testament.
Making Christianity safe for the Abe Foxman crowd would mean excising the entire NT. That leaves Christians with the OT, at which time all of us Christians may as well just to convert to Judaism and get it over with. The fundamentalist Protestants are very Judeophilic, and we can see this in their fetishism of the decrepit and frankly Jewish Old Testament. In that sense, paradoxically, they are less Christian than an NT-only “Jesusist” like me.
In a way, the Super Jews are right. Let’s not kid ourselves. Jesus, as Reform a Jew as ever lived, came, said, “I’m the Messiah, and the Law is abrogated.” The law is the Hebraic Laws and Rules that the Jews live under.
In his revolutionary overturning of this archaic and reactionary code, Jesus offered a new code, one of Mercy. Mercy is clearly absent from much of the OT. The God of the OT is clearly not one of Mercy either; he’s a cruel and capricious fellow, but He’s the God of the Jews, so they can have him.
The God of the NT is a different fellow altogether. He’s forgiving and kind, and the fire and brimstone, the genocides, the wars, the ethnic cleansing, the leveling of cities with fire and turning humans into Dresden-like fried pillars – that’s all under the dam, past and gone.
The Jews were offered a choice – to follow the new Messiah or to be passed over. They didn’t follow him, so their religion was abrogated, and the torch was passed to the new religion, the Christianity. To us Christians, Judaism is old hat. At one time, sure, it was the law of the land all right, but we’ve since moved on.
To us, Judaism is spiritual roadkill. Sure it’s part of our heritage, but so was Homo Erectus. We’ve moved along now. There is no Judeo-Christian religion anymore than there is a Judeo-Muslim religion or an Islamo-Christian religion. They’re just not the same thing. Pat Robertson and all are on theological thin ice shilling for the Jews of Israel. Why not shill for the Hindus or the Muslims? It’s makes about as much sense theologically.
This leads us to Replacement Theology. I’m a follower of this. The Jews have been replaced by the Christians. Judaism has been replaced by Christianity. Further, the Jews no longer get Israel either. After the NT, the (Christian) Church is the New Israel. The Jews contract with that land was abrogated also. Sure, God gave the land to the Jews, but the NT abrogates that deed of title.
Another argument against the Deicide charge is leveled by Jews. Even if we did it, they say, it was a good thing, as the Deicide was necessary for the unfolding of Christianity. Well of course. But that’s not why I say apologizing is a good idea.
The Jewish religion, in particular the Orthodox, has traditionally taken the position that Jesus was a Jewish heretic who was tried in a Jewish court, convicted, and received appropriate punishment. The Talmud is full of hostile references to Jesus. It’s true that Jesus was a Jew, but it’s also true that Talmudic Judaism is the spiritual heir to the Pharisees.
The Jews want it both ways. According to their religion, they state that Jewish was a Jewish heretic who was tried by the Jews and got what he deserved. Then, to the Gentiles, they deny this. Some Orthodox are honest and say, “Hey, we did kill him, and it was a good thing!” This happens quite a bit in Israel, by the way. The usual response of the other Jews is the typical, “Are you trying to start a pogrom?” screeching.
I don’t really care. What’s done is done. But I think it is grossly unfair for the Jews to demand that other religions like the Catholics amend their anti-Jewish teachings while at the same time, the Jews refuse to amend their anti-Christian teachings. But then, it’s just typical Jewish hypocrisy du jour. Hypocrisy goes with Jews like lox goes with cream cheese. Jewish hypocrisy is related to Jewish hyperethnocentrism in that all nationalists are hypocrites. Think about it.
Sure it’s dumb to hold folks responsible for something their ancestors did 2000 years ago, but if the Jews are still crowing about it (the Orthodox are) and if the Jewish religion still stubbornly states, “We did it and what about it?”, an apology certainly makes sense.
As a philosemite, in a way I’m interested in what’s good for the Jews. One thing that’s bad for the Jews is anti-Semitism. My position is that Jews promoting anti-Semitism is bad for the Jews, so don’t do it, Jews. It is in this sense that I advocate an apology and some official amending of Judaism (Is that even possible?) as the Jews demanded of the Pope at Vatican II in 1965.

One Lance One Cyst

[wpvideo lPymBw0E]
This post has been translated into Italian as Un Bisturi Una Cisti (traduzione in italiano) and into French as Un Bistouri Un Kyste (en Français).
This video is really gross!
I think it’s just a medical video. Looks like it was shot in a doctor’s office. It simply shows the lancing of some horrible cyst – boil – zit or whatever it is. From the looks of it, it appears to be a sebaceous cyst.
I love to pop me a zit or two, even in middle age. I know it’s supposed to leave scars, but honestly, it hardly ever does, especially if your hands are clean, you’re just out of the shower,  and the zit is ready to blow.
This thing in the movie is like the Most Evil Zit That Ever Was. The sucker just goes on and on and seems to have eternal life or something. Just when you think the doc’s finally got the last of it, this damn Zit Christ up and resurrects to fight once again.
For all you who bitch about me posting this crap, I’m posting this in the furtherance of medical science, so there.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Spot the Script 2

Repost from the old blog. Spot the language. Text of an unknown language, plus clues. Answer in the comments.

のような観測衛星プログラムで見ると、大きなカギ十字にみえる~! と

Obviously, this is a Northeast Asian script, but which one? And for which language? I’m not going to give you any clues at all, since there are not that many choices here, and even one clue easily gives it away. There are a few large NE Asian languages that have scripts that look something like this, but in general, a practiced eye can tell them apart. Or at least I can.
This is way too easy.
Once again, from a link to a certain popular video on this site. This nation is extremely wired up and I have received vast numbers of hits from this land for this post.
I also love their women, but that’s another matter altogether.

Spot the Script 1

Repost from the old blog. Spot the language. Text of an unknown language, plus clues. Answer in the comments.

Η Δημοκρατια , αυτη η Δημοκρατια που θελουν μερικοι να καταργησουν, ευτυχως για ολους μας δουλευει αρκετα καλα. Οταν λοιπον ενα βιβλιο προαγει τον μισος και τον ρατσισμο παραβαινει τους νομους του κρατους και πολυ καλα κανει και δικαζεται ο συγραφεας του.
Οι φασιστες καινε τα βιβλια που δεν τους αρεσουν. Με συνοπτικες διαδικασιες .Την ειδαμε πολλες φορες την σκηνη. Συμετειχε και η νομαρχαρα μας.
Σηκωσαν κεφαλι τα φασισταρια. Τα εκτρωματα της κοινωνιας. Οι ανθρωποι που δεν εχουν ιερο και οσιο. Αυτοι που ολη η Ευρωπη τους θεωρει καταπτυστους και επικινδυνους. Αυτοι που αιματοκυλισαν ολο σχεδον τον κοσμο. Τα χαμερπη ανθρωπαρια που μονο κατα αγελες και εν κρυπτω επιβαλουν με την βια τις αποψεις τους. Οι ρατσιστες που εχουν την εντυπωση οτι ειναι ανωτερη φυλη και αυτο τους δινει το δικαιωμα να εγκληματουν κατα της ανθροπωτητας.
Μας συγχωρείς φίλε apd, φίλη σου είναι η ευαίσθητη καλλιτέχνις (sic); Τη θίξαμε;
Κάποια εφημεριδα είχε γράψει οτι το ολο περιστατικό ήταν στημένο, οτι τηλεφώνησαν στους μπάτσους εκ των έσω και μετά καλέσαν τα ΜΜΕ για να γινει τζέρτζελο. ‘Αλλα αν μας το ζητας εσύ να το ερευνήσουμε το θέμα. ‘Οποια στοιχεία συλλέξουμε θα τα στείλουμε μετά πακέτο στον εισαγγελέα.
Α, και που ‘σαι apd, το νόημα του μηνύματος πάλι δεν ήταν αυτό. Αλλά έχεις μια μοναδική ικανότητα εκεί που βυθίζεται το πλοίο να σε ενοχλεί η τσίμπλα που έχεις στο ματι. Εύγε.
Φοβερά τα στοιχεία σου. Όσο και η κριτική σου…
(Χώρια που δεν καταλαβαίνεις ότι το να έχουν τις σημαίες στη συγκέντρωση του Καραμανλή είναι ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ η αποθέωση των “ηθικών” αξιών.)
για να καταλάβουν οι διάφοροι υποστηρικτές και βλάκες που ψήφισαν ΛΑ.Ο.Σ, τις συνέπειες που ενδεχόμενα θα έχουν οι πράξεις τους, ας δούνε τα ανδραγαθήματα των νεοναζί στην Ρωσία.
Πρόσφατα αποκαλύφθηκε βίντεο όπου ρώσος νεοναζί αποκεφαλίζει νεαρό σκουρόχρωμο μη ρώσο. Τέτοια εγκλήματα στην Ρωσία από νεοναζί είναι συχνά
Το λινκ για το βίντεο είναι εδώ
Προσοχή είναι αποκρουστικό θέαμα, μην το κλικάρετε αν δεν μπορείτε να το αντέξετε
Το γεγονός της εισόδου της ελληνικής ακροδεξιάς στην ελληνική βουλή πιθανά θα μας επιφυλάσσει τέτοια δεινά και εδώ, μια και η προπαγάνδιση των εμετικών ιδεών τους, η κάλυψη και προπαγάνδιση βίαιων πράξεων από νεοναζί θα έχουν και επίσημους απολογητές, η ΝΔ θα πιέζεται να υιοθετεί ακροδεξιές θέσεις κοκ
Το δικαστήριο θα κρίνει αν το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο, προσβάλει μια συγκεκριμένη μερίδα ανθρώπων και προτρέπει προς τέλεση παράνομων πράξεων. Δε θα κρίνει το ιστορικό κομμάτι που έτσι και αλλιώς έχει κριθεί εδώ και δεκαετίες.
Οι ρεβιζιονιστές τύπου Πλεύρη και Φορισόν απλά προσπαθούν να αναθεωρήσουν την ιστορία για να ξεχάσουμε το παρελθόν και να να μη μπορέσουμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα εγκλήματα που έρχονται, ίσως βέβαια και να το κάνουν για το ντορό και τα κέρδη (67€ έχει το Εβραίοι – Ολη η Αλήθεια), αν και αμφιβάλω γιατί συνήθως ο ρεβιζιονισμός πάει χέρι-χέρι με ακραίες πολιτικές θέσεις και προπαγάνδα.
Οταν μια κοινωνια ειναι πολυφωνικη, μεσα απ’τα πολλα που μπορει να ακουσει καποιος, εχει 2 επιλογες.
1) Να αρχισει να κατακρινει οτι του φαινεται ηλιθιο, ανηθικο, φασιστικο, οπισθοδρομικο, αρνητικο κτλ.
2) Να αρχισει να ενσωματωνει οτι του φαινεται θετικο.
Το δευτερο ειναι σαφως πιο εποικοδομητικο. Ακομα και οι Πλευρηδες, ακροαριστεροι, τρομοκρατες, εξωκοινοβουλευτικοι κτλ εχουν μια οπτικη που σε καποια σημεια οχι μονο ειναι σωστη αλλα δινουν τη σφαιρικοτητα αποψης που λειπει απο τη mainstream κοσμοθεαση. Αυτο δε σημαινει φυσικα οτι καποιος θα συμφωνησει με ολους – μονο οτι θα παρει επιλεκτικα τα στοιχεια που επωφελουν στον εμπλουτισμο της οπτικης του γωνιας.
Σε επιπεδο κοινοβουλιου, δεν βλεπω γιατι η θεσμοθετημενη πολυφωνια ειναι κατι κακο. Αντιθετα, θα ηθελα να παψει το πλαφον του 3% ωστε να μπουν και τα μικροτερα κομματα για να δουμε τι εχουν να πουν και αυτοι. Αν ειναι ακραιοι, so be it. Καλυτερα να τον εχεις στο κοινοβουλιο να ξεδινει, παρα να γινει ενοπλος ανταρτης πολεων ή η 2η κουκλουξκλαν.

This one is so easy. On top of that, like a moron, I will give you a ton of hints.
Maybe the script is European or maybe it is non-European.
Democrats, philosophers, professional warriors, physicians and playwrights, pederasty and intergender non-coital friendships, allegories and caves, colonels and coups, Camelot and shipping magnates, logic and dialogs, blood feuds and sodomy, November 17 and 1968.
There, now you’ve got it for sure, assuming you did not spot the script right off.
I was looking for a Romanization of this script, but I am not sure it even exists.

Spot the Language 19

Repost from the old blog. Spot the language. Text of an unknown language, plus clues. Answer in the comments.

Максим (Кроха) практически не скрывал своих противоестественных страстей. Никого не стесняясь, он заходил к очередному любовнику и принимался за черное дело. Свидетель такого цирка, оттого ушедший из МП, тогда неосторожно заглянул в помещение и, увидев, чем занимается правящий архиерей, сказал:
– Паскуда, хотя бы панагию снял…В свое время еще существовавший Совет по делам религий был обезкуражен многочисленными неблаговидными выходками одного Члена Синода. Поводом послужило несколько письменных заявлений уборщицы. Суть заключалась в следующем.
– У меня – строгий рабочий день,- сообщала глупая тетка.- В 19.00 я оканчиваю работу и ухожу домой. По трудовому договору я обязана до этого сделать мокрую уборку в помещении. А я захожу в митрополичий кабинет – а они там безобразят.
– Как это? – испуганно интересовались чиновники.
– А так,- не сдавалась представительница пролетариата.- Они друг дружку употребляют прямо на письменном столе и мешают уборке. Я им говорю: «Кончайте быстрее. Мне надо убираться и уходить». А они – ни в какую, только сопят. Ну, я их мокрой тряпкой попыталась разогнать. Так они мне стали угрожать увольнением. Я так это дело не оставлю!..
Но особенно хорошо:
Вспомнилась мне, когда-то прочитанная стенограмма одного заседания в обкоме КПСС, кажется, Волынской области. Там что-то сильно требовались зоотехники, скотники, доярки и т.д. Речь шла, если помню правильно, о селе Торчине. Но каков официальный ответ местного партийного руководителя:
– Зоотехникiв немаэ. Абу пип, абу милиционэр. Скотникiв тэж немаэ…
И вот так везде – абу пип, абу милиционэр, а скотникiв немаэ.

To mother! Mother! Holy Mother! Glory to Mother!
It was 1910-1914. It was before King-Crane already, yet the cruel imperialists were already carving up and feasting on Arab lands, and Mother sat down to eat. Dining on Ottoman’s choice cuts as she had always lustily dreamed. The hate, the hate for Ottoman, the burning hate.
Well, no man will stand for being eaten alive, and in Ottoman’s mansion, a great mutiny arose with the finest of his sons, the Young Men. There was a rising on the Bosporus, and they had murder in their eyes.
Little did history realize the significance of those days, the rise of the Young Men, that it would lead to a war that shattered all things, the Great Imperialist Slaughter as the Left snorted amid heaves, half a decade hence. Who today yet connects the two tremors? Ah, but it is true. The war, the war, the maddest of all the horrible wars, a war for no reason!
It was 1914 and it was 1915 and it was war, the worst war the world pretended it had ever seen.
Mother was beaten and nearly died at Tannenburg and Masurim Lakes as a Hun went mad.
Mother crawled back scrambling to the Hinterland, where no man could ever beat her for good. With her, a 100,000 man Czech Legion, traitors to a one, rallying to the cry of their own flesh and blood. There was war in Galice, in the Pallid Lands. There, in a Sallow Land, the fight stalemated for years, and a million of Mother’s sons never did breathe again.
Brusilov, in 1916, opened the door, and Mother grabbed the tallest Carpathian peaks. In reaching for the sky, a million more sons were trampled dead. At home there were riots and frustration with the dying, the long dying and the sadness of the dying. The monarch toppled, and the people dreamed that they ruled. It was March 1917, and the world was shaking.
Mother was dragged to Brest-Livotsk, raging and snarling all the way and clawing with her nails. At gunpoint, she signed, and they cruelly hacked away her flesh. “Mother! Holy Mother!” the people cried, as they always did in this cruel enraptured land.
“For land! For bread! for peace!” the wild peasant crowds longed and roared, and revolution shook the land. In Red and White, the blood ran across the wheezing land for years.
Wrangel and Denikin grabbed the South, and Kolchak grabbed the East. 40,000 Czechs, turncoats in the Great War, changed colors again, and the rails were seized.
It was 1921, we were at a seaport, just the two of us. We watched in terror, you and me, as the sailors raged and burned, and 400 brave ones fell. We ran from the flames and the soldiers’ bullets mowing down men.
Agile and adaptive as a snake, from privation, the state went to NEP and won the bloody war. The people had no food, they shrunk, huddled and then died, and no one knew how many starved, but starving was a normal way here, like the endless forests and the mean frozen dirt.
Everyone from other lands pitched in on the fight, everyone against Mother, as usual, but in the end the People prevailed as the peasants cheered. To this day, the Ruling Class of the World trembles with rage at this horrible blow.
The saga of Mother, the strange, sad, terrible and beautiful saga of Mother, so proud but so backwards and full of rage, like a wild woman living in the woods with her head held high, does not end here, but here we shall end our tale.
Even today, she rises again, and no one can figure her out.
Those wily Eastern ways and the eternal resentment of the West. The icy wind blows, she throws back another hard drink and listens to her great composers. The bookshelves heave with her authors, the greatest lettermen that walked on soil. Her pride and her pain and her rage. She tosses back another drink as the wind howls.
It is late, she is beautiful, blond and blue yet alone again, and she rages at the snowy drifts fighting her sills. Mother is horny and she wants sex again and again, wants the world, wants to do the world, and the men are all drinking again, drinking and singing, drinking and fighting, drinking and sleeping. There is death everywhere, but there always is and always was, as death is part of Mother as dear as her very heart.
She will rise again.
Like her or not, always respect Mother. The way you respect a Grizzly Bear. Imperious yet crippled, she demands you look her in the eye and give her her due.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)