Alt Left: Hierarchy as a Nonuniversal

Francis Miville: I have quite another way to state it: humanity is not a biological reality, let alone a cultural or spiritual one, it is a social construct, and that social construct has now proven wholly inadequate.

Race – imperfect, faulty, and often mendacious though it be, does have more often than not reliable statistical predictive value when you plan a journey through Haiti or Colombia for instance. Being informed that people in a certain spot are humans or not rather than Sasquatches is of no information.

Of course within that inadequate construct, for instance, paganism (that is to say any religion that doesn’t relate to Abraham as a key figure) individuals are absolutely unequal though trying to hierarchize them into superior and lesser are already overestimating by far the kinship.

Hierarchization presupposes an ordered set in Boolean mathematics, which ordered set humanity doesn’t form. It is a pure construct, not an universal, though universals do exist otherwise.

Interesting concept. I do agree that strict hierarchy is probably not a universal among humans even if it is among lower mammals. It doesn’t exist much below the mammal level among even lower creatures or it only makes sense in that the best males get to breed and the losers don’t as females among the lower species are as picky as mammals and humans if not more so.

Of course an understanding of race (and culture) preps you for a journey to Colombia or Haiti, though I have often wondered why the White + Indian mix in Latin America produced such a loutish and violent product. It doesn’t figure from either of the ingredients, and pure Indians down there are often quiet, passive, and quite nonviolent. But somehow when you mix them with Whites who are loud, active, and also nonviolent, it’s combustible?

That never made sense to me. Whatever is going on down there, it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a strict racial vantage.

But the strict hierarchy demanded of so many cultures like caste societies in Hinduism and serfdom among Whites and Asians is unnatural, as we are able to easily move away from it without any major problems or throwbacks. Look at China. China was feudal or semi-feudal before Mao. Mao tossed all that out with the flick of his fingers, and most were happy to be rid of it, as in these societies, most folks are not members of the top group and are in a sense then lorded over by the top dogs.

I agree that humans have a natural tendency towards hierarchy that is hard to get rid of.

In fact, it is impossible to get rid of it sensibly as some form of hierarchy is necessary and the lack of any hierarchy is just stupidity doomed to failure, and at any rate is simply replaced by other forms of hierarchy, typically redistributive ones as we saw in the CHAZ zone in Seattle set up by “non-hierachical” anarchists. Traditional hierarchy was replaced by Blacks lording it over Whites and becoming Black Brahmins while Whites were reduced to Dalithood.

Male hierarchy over women was not fair, so when women overthrew it and took over as they have here in the Anglosphere, they replaced this unfair system with the much fairer system of female hierarchy over men! As they say in heterosexual relationships, someone’s got to wear the pants. If the man doesn’t the women will take them from his dresser and put them on herself!

You can never really get rid of even base forms of human hierarchy or it would be very hard to. Instead, you simply turn the hourglass upside down and put the bottom on top and the top on the bottom. In other words, you cannot get rid of it entirely. At best you can simply reverse it!

Nevertheless, the grotesque forms of hierarchy beloved by conservatives and reactionaries of all stripes the world over are not necessary. We are not elephant seals last time I checked, though we may act like them too much to be comfortable.

We are still able to think things out and decide to be strictly hierarchical, and if so, to what extent. We humans are not slaves to our biology. At least theoretically we can still rise above it, and this is the main difference between us and the beasts, to which I include chimps. Unlike them, we are not slaves to our drives even if too many times we fall back on that because it’s easier than going against our natures.

Alt Left: Why Far Left Patriotards Can Be Seen as “Nazis” in a Sense

Interesting post from Francis Miville.

A supposedly Far Left White that sells himself as a White nationalist fulfills the definition in part of Nazism. A supposedly Far Left White that sells himself as a White nationalist fulfills the definition in part of Nazism. White nationalism is the elementary recipe for being a Nazi. That is what it takes to become one, and you don’t need anything more to be a full-fledged one.

A formerly conservative guy suddenly selling himself a White nationalist, well, that’s regrettable, but in the natural course of things, he will still be a more extremist kind of conservative that buttresses his argumentation with biological arguments, what all English Victorian Conservatives of note did.

But a Leftist turning a White nationalist is when the infantile disorder being a member of the Extreme Left turns into a terminal one. Of course, among the varieties of White Nationalism, I include Jewish nationalism, no matter if it is detected in a Jew or a self-fancying Jew than Jewish born-again Christian.

USSR patriotism was never based on Russian nationalism except for the love of the Russian language. Narodny was always an insult in Soviet parlance.

US patriotism, like it or not, is on the other hand and will always be based on White Anglo-Saxon nationalism, and whoever coming from the Far Left all of sudden discovers a passionate love for America is a Nazi, no matter whether he does it as a Jewish neocon, an Anglo neocon, or an Anglo anti-Semite.

My responses:

Francis Miville: White nationalism is the elementary recipe for being a Nazi.

I think he is correct on that one. I would edit it though to say that all Nazis are White Nationalists but all White Nationalists may not be Nazis. So White Nationalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a Nazi.

And indeed a conservative who becomes a White nationalist is indeed following the natural order of things, as the transition is a regular one even if most conservatives never become White nationalists.

And indeed, a conservative who becomes a White nationalist has indeed made a small shift – he is just a conservative now who has added biological determinism to his rightwing resume. It is interesting that all English Victorian Conservatives would be regarded as White nationalists or Nazis nowadays, but this just goes to show you how common “Nazi” arguments were not so long ago.

He is correct that Soviet nationalism was never about more than the love of the Russian language. I get so tired of hearing about how the philosophy in the USSR was one of Great Russian Nationalism put in under Stalin and how Russians were treated better than any other citizens and in fact, there was discrimination against non-Russians. This is completely untrue. Nevertheless, some White nationalists and a lot of Russophobes love this argument. The Russophobes whip it out to say, “The Soviets were racists!”

That’s bullshit. Anyone who says that has no understanding of nationality policy under the USSR. In fact, Belarus and Ukraine had higher incomes than Russia and the Baltics had higher incomes than any of them. Yep the Ukrainians and Balts who are not rabid Russophobes were actually treated better than Russians! In addition, the Ukrainian language and culture was always promoted in the USSR, early on in particular before Stalin, and then less so under Stalin but still with a concrete policy.

There still is no Great Russian nationalism under Putin either, another charge that gets trotted out all the time. People who say that don’t get Russian nationalism. True Russian nationalism has always and only been the nationalism of the Russian Empire, not Russia herself. And the Russian Empire has always been a multilingual, multicultural, and multi-religious empire.

Indeed some of the worst reactionary movements in Russian history such as the Black Hundreds of the early 1900’s, now derided as Nazis and fascists, were actually neither. They were always multicultural in all three respects. They supported the Russian language, Orthodox Christianity (though they were probably not anti-Islam), and especially Czarism as one crown to unite them all. So even the worst Russian “nationalists” were multiculturalists!

However, they were anti-Semites, but even many multicultural Russians sadly to not extend the olive branch to Jews. On the other hand though, Russian Jews hate Russians. There is probably no group of Jews who hate Gentiles as much as Russian Jews. They proudly drink Bloody Marys made with tomato juice and hail that they are drinking the blood of Russian Gentiles as they hoist their drinks in the air to cheer. So they affirm the Blood “Libel!” All I have to say is it takes two to tango and what goes around, comes around.

Alexander Dugin is half Ukrainian. Sergei Lavrov is half Armenian. General Shoigu is half Tuvan, another race altogether as Tuvans look like Mongolians. This is all perfectly natural and normal in Russia, and nobody cares a whit about any of this. Some of the greatest heroes of Russia have been, say, Tatars, and nobody cares about that either.

Russia, as a continuation of the Russian Empire, to this day encompasses all three types of multinationalism.

Russia is also an example of how multiculturalism can work – forcing minorities to in a sense become Ruritarians (Russians) while at the same time allowing them the full flower of their languages, cultures, and religions.

White or Great Russian nationalism is considered an aberration. Putin has outlawed most of the organizations. The leaders are imprisoned, fled the country, or went to ground. Russia’s not a fascist country, and it is surely not a Nazi country! Russophobes are lying snakes!

It’s possible that Jewish nationalism can be a form of White nationalism, although it also includes Mizrahi or Arab Jews, who are quite dark if not as dark as Arabs since they never bred in with Blacks.

US patriotism, like it or not, is on the other hand and will always be based on White Anglo-Saxon nationalism

Certainly it has traditionally been true and that is why so many non-Whites reject US Patriotardism – they see it as hostile to their identities. I think the election of Trump showed US nationalism was still White Euro-American Nationalism, though a lot of Hispanics and some Blacks have now donned the tunics of MAGA nationalism and in doing so, they have become de facto Whites the same way a Brazilian Black becomes “White” merely by making a lot of money as a soccer star.

The phenomenon of “social race” a la Latin America has probably now spread to the US, though it was probably always here in a sense.

Alt Left: The Problem with Literary Criticism: It’s Postmodernism, or, Worse, Postcolonianlism

Postmodern prose has long had a tendency to be remarkably unintelligible. Writers have been accused of writing in a secret code available only the “elect” – those in their profession who are able to understand it, and resembling an actual language in that respect.

Postcolonialism is just one of the bastard children of postmodernism and like the rest of the brood, has a marked tendency to be hard to understand. A controversy about this has broken out in the lit crit field itself, with Edward Said and some others accusing the people in this field of being unintelligible. In particular, as they are supposed to be writing towards an audience of “subalterns” as Gyati Spivak famously put it, these subalterns themselves with hardly understand this new writing.

Subalterns are the oppressed, meaning all of those groups that have been rendered oppressed or victims by the Cultural Left. I’m quite happy that so many of these writers are on the Left – we could use more writers – but critics have noted that the downtrodden folks, who often tend to have lower incomes and education levels as opposed to the oppressors, will definitely not be able to read the writing that takes them as its subject.

And after all, postcolonial writers do seem to writing from the point of view of the various oppressed groups around the world. The fact that their own targeted audience probably cannot make heads or tails out of this prose is regarded as a serious flaw in Postcolonialism.

To make it worse, postmodernists tend to have a variety of folks as the heroes of the field such as Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Jean-François Lyotard, Pierre-Félix Guttari, Gilles Deleuze, Hélène Cixous, Slavoj Žižek, and the rest of the mostly-French intellectuals (all are French except for  Žižek) who have sprung up in the last 40 years.

Much ink has been spilled about these folks, usually along the lines that their writing is seriously unintelligible and is perhaps intended to be this way. The problem here is that postmodernism and postcolonial literary criticism tends to use a lot of philosophy in their prose and they are always quoting from the folks mumblers above, who in fact could be regarded as their heroes.

They are known as the French Obscurantists. Derrida, Lyotard and Zizek are philosophers, Lacan and Guttarri are psychoanalysts, and Cixous is a writer. Lacan was known as being a grifter and a fraud, and I doubt if his theories are worth much. Nevertheless, his muddled thinking has sponsored its own school unfathomable nonsense called Lacanism. On the other hand, Derrida and Žižek are noted for their incomprehensibility. The same has been said about Cixous and in particular about Guttarri and Deleuze.

Psychoanalysis has been largely (but not completely!) trashed in the US as nonsensical theory that isn’t even true and probably even worse, isn’t even wrong! However, France and even the rest of the Continent continue to be in the grip of this junk science, which I’m quite sure even Freud would have disavowed if he came back to life.

As a matter of fact, if this were to happen, I think Freud would become a psychiatrist with a heavy focus on the neurological, genetics, and meds, while still relegating room for therapy. But even there I think he would trash psychoanalysis as BS and instead would probably gotten on board with cognitive and behavior therapy, which at least has a scientific track record of working better than placebo.

Anyway the French were always said to be – and probably were – better thinkers than we provincial Americans, and this has probably been true up until recently. The fact, that France and the Continent in general is still in the grips of psychoanalytical BS when we’re not is pretty pathetic when one considers that the French have always bested us in high-level thinking and now we provincial Americans are making sense and they aren’t.

However, Cixous also writes stuff that looks a lot like fiction. It’s pretty deep stuff, but it’s understandable. I dipped into ~pages of The Enchanted Clock. I can see why people could not make heads or tails of it, but I actually rather liked it. I was surprised to read an excerpt from Guttari and Deleuze’s magnum opuses – I forget which one of Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, and Capitalism and Schizophrenia (which has as dumb of a title for a book as these things get) it was cobbled from, but I was shocked that I was able to completely understand it.

On the other hand, it is only now, in my 60’s, that I can finally understand Nietzsche. I can also understand some Hegel and even a bit of Kant (who probably didn’t even understand himself). Surprisingly, Sartre was worse than all of them, but of a 12 page chapter, I did understand half a page or so.

Prior to this decade, I was never able to make any sense out of any of these philosophers. This is why I don’t buy it when people say that intelligence peaks at 23. Sure, fluid intelligence peaks, but crystallized intelligence, which is what I am talking about here, can keep rising into the 50’s 60’s (in my case) and even 70’s and 80’s. This type of intelligence is “what you know” and is linked to the hoary concept of wisdom.

Fluid intelligence on the other hand is a measure of how fast your brain works and it miraculously peaks at the same time that the number of brain cells in your head. But I’m sure it must be a coincidence as there’s no link between head size and intelligence, right? This is why classical musicians and mathematicians tend to peak young and then gradually slow down as they age. I’ve also noticed that rock bands tend to peak young too.

Few bands are still making good music into their 40’s.  And the three greatest novels of the last 200 years were written by three men – one 32, one 37, and the other 40. I’ve also noticed along these same lines that novelists tend to do their best work when they are rather young and as they age, the quality of their work often declines.

Of course this is not always the case, but it’s something I noted. Hence, novels and classical/rock music are  all strongly linked creativity. Creativity is not dependent on crystallize intelligence and in fact, it probably even gets in the way of it. Instead, creativity may be more linked to fluid intelligence or the size of your brain.

 

Schizophrenia As a Deteriorating Disorder

An example of schizophrenic speech:

Financial service senses worries of 35 whirlpools below sound 1846, 45, 44, A.D. Augusta City treasury, Richmond County treasury, United States Treasury of Mississippi River flood area. Gentlemen will you come to…and idenafy none minastrative body that receives the life generated by fourth patented generative below sound.

Further arrange financial credit for same. Would like two bedrooms at up town Hotel and convenient to roof garden. Until you gentlemen decide further what my occupation is you may as well announce me as comforting 35 whirlpools below sound. May you gentlemen have gray eyes and thick bones as the flat sense minastrated are very valuable in idenafying me.

Surely not all schizophrenic speech is like this, which can be called “word salad,” but it can definitely look this way, especially in chronic schizophrenia or chronic paranoid schizophrenia. You can actually watch peoples’ prose declining as they get more ill and deteriorate over time, and after all, schizophrenia is known to be a deteriorating condition, at least for the first five years anyway.

I had a friend who was ill but not too ill, and he definitely had OCD and schizophrenia, which was a nightmare from a diagnostic perspective. It was really hard to parse out one from the other and especially to decide if he just had OCD or if he had schizophrenia + OCD, which is a new disorder called “schizo-obsessive disorder.”

This man definitely looked a lot like the description of this illness, especially with the prominent Scheiderinian symptoms that he had. He also seemed to have a fairly loose and not tight hold on his delusions and hallucinations, which is quite odd if not impossible with schizophrenia.

Worse still, I discovered that he was hiding psychotic symptoms from me. This is known to happen with some schizophrenics. It’s not that they don’t believe in them but instead that they figure out after a while that if they start saying certain things that are going on with them, they remember that in the past, every time they talked about this stuff, they got bundled up and hauled off to the hospital, so after a while, they start hiding symptoms.

Apparently the TV was talking to him and sending him special messages. This is an extremely common schizophrenic experience. For instance, if the TV says it’s going to rain today, that’s really a secret message being sent directly him in code that really means, say, “It’s time for him to go to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes.” On further questioning, he revealed that the TV was actually literally telling him these things and that they were very real. He chalked them up to this mysterious synchronicity stuff.

He also talked a lot about synchronicity and referred to himself experiencing many incidents of this nature. Problem is that there really are no incidents of this nature, and if you are experiencing this all the time, you are quite possibly psychotic, and you may indeed have schizophrenia.

For instance, he told me that he was at a party once, and he said something to the guy next to him and then whatever he said started getting passed around from one person to the person next to them in exactly the way he had said it. He could follow the conversation transiting the room in this extremely weird manner.

If this actually happened, of course, it would be quite extraordinary! I concluded that it didn’t happen. But his brain was such that he was literally experiencing this conversation going around the room from one person to the next, and he swore it really happened.

Sure, in his mind it happened, but since he experienced it as a direct experience the same we experience our own direct experiences, he believed quite reasonably that it obviously occurred. I wasn’t buying it and chalked it up to a psychotic symptom that is actually quite frighteningly common in schizophrenics.

Also, he had surely experienced a schizophrenic episode at around age 18, which is about the right age for a first episode of this disorder. It had lasted for 1 1/2 years and he had been hospitalized at some time during this episode. He also told me that he had no insight whatsoever when this was happening. He described it as “like a dream.” Thing is that if someone had schizophrenia between ages 18-20, it’s highly unlikely to “just go away” after that.

He was also experiencing the very Schneiderian symptom of hearing his own thoughts out loud in the room with his ears so that your thoughts seem like they are just as real as the real words you hear people speak every day. This is called thought broadcasting.

He told me that he was afraid that people on the bus could hear his thoughts. He tried to brush this off as “just OCD,” and he said that the thoughts in his head were so loud that he feared they were being broadcast out into the bus. As such, he had quit riding the bus.

However, no OCD person is ever going to say that their thoughts are so loud that they fear others can hear them. OCD’ers are quite able to differentiate between thoughts and voices at all times. In addition the OCD’er would probably just continue to rid the bus anyway. I figured he was disguising psychotic symptoms from me.

Also, he was apparently hearing voices. He was experiencing the next door neighbors saying bad things about him, as he could hear it through the walls. Most apartments nowadays have thick enough walls that there’s no way you can hear people talking on the other side. Just forget it.

He said they neighbors were saying that they thought he was a pedophile. Well, perhaps they were saying that, but there was no way that he could hear it through the wall if they were. When he remarked on this, his parents bundled him up and took him to the hospital where he was kept for a little while.

He thought this was grossly unfair as he insisted that the neighbors were absolutely saying this and that this could be heard through the wall. I’m sure that’s what he experienced but that doesn’t mean that that was what was really happening. I figured he was hearing voices.

He kept writing me back for a bit, and then I didn’t hear from him for 2-3 years. When he recontacted me then, he had declined so seriously that there was no real way to carry on a conversation with him. Although at first glance it looked like “racing thoughts,” I’m not sure how that plays out graphically in writing, and I doubt if most typical Bipolar types talk that nutty. It looked a lot like rapid jumping from one subject to the other.

Anyway, he had surely declined very badly over 2-3 years, and this was quite typical of schizophrenia in the early stages and not typical of all of OCD, which usually doesn’t present with a gradual deterioration of symptoms or at least not one that could be so easily recognized in writing. Even extremely ill OCD’ers don’t deteriorate like that, and their written communications typically make complete sense even when they are severely ill. I know this because I have had some extremely ill clients who nevertheless had prose that was very clear and coherent.

ls Literary Criticism Nonsense and Gibberish or Is There Something Intelligent Being Said There?

So, is literary criticism nonsense and gibberish or is there something of value being said there? Here are some sites you can browse through if you want to check out what the field is like.

Pynchon Notes

Orbit

C21 Literature: Journal of 21st Century Writing

Just open up an issue and look at the articles in there. Find a title that interests you, open it in pdf (or read it online) and see if you can figure what the Hell anyone is talking about. It’s heavy duty writing and I find a lot of it very hard to understand.

So, is it nonsense and gibberish or is there something intelligent being said there?

 

 

Anyone Read Literary Criticism?

Jesus, this must be some of the hardest humanities-related stuff to read. Literary criticism is part of the Humanities, which includes sociology, anthropology, history, psychology, linguistics, performing arts – theater, film – visual arts – art and photography – philosophy, classics, law, theology, musicology, dance, and the awful “studies” fields like Black, Latino, Queer, Gender (feminism), etc. Studies. Of those, I’ve read sociology, anthropology, history, psychology, linguistics,

The “Studies” fields are worthless and ridiculous.

Sociology, psychology, anthropology, law, and history journals are actually rather straightforward and easy to read. I’ve read lots of all of them.

Linguistics can be very hard to understand even by someone with a major in like me.

I’ve never read a theater journal.

I’ve read film criticism but not for some time now. I always thought it was hard to read, but lately it seems a lot easier. It’s fairly straightforward.

I always thought art criticism was awful and could never make heads or tails out of it.

Classics can probably be very hard to understand, but I’ve little if any in their journals.

Law journals are actually quite straightforward and easy to understand for some reason, but then law is supposed to be logical, so it adds up. I’m reading a law journal article right now. It’s about 70 pages. It is remarkably easy for me to understand for whatever reason.

Never read any theology, dance, or musicology journals. I’m not sure these even exist. Rock criticism is pretty easy to read. I’ve looked at some theology discussion on the Web and while it’s weighty, it’s not really hard to understand.

Philosophy is just awful. I haven’t even dipped into their journals, but the major authors are nearly impenetrable. This is actually worse than literary criticism.

Now we get to literary criticism. It’s been critiqued as so hard to understand that it’s ridiculous, empty of meaning, pointless, silly, and a waste of time. I’ve read a lot of this stuff, and none of that is really true. Actually, it’s quite sensible and viable and a lot of extremely high-level thinking goes into it. I think there’s something of value being said in most of their articles even though it might be hard to understand.

If any of you out there think literary criticism or at least its modern version is nothing but nonsensical gibberish, please feel free to chime in. Because I’m afraid it can definitely read that way. A lot of that stuff is almost impenetrable.

I’m a Thomas Pynchon fan. Speaking of hard to understand! Nevertheless, I love his stuff no matter how hard it is to figure out what he’s trying to say. It’s like reading James Joyce. He can be pretty hard to figure out too. I used to read Pynchon Notes, the journal devoted to his work. Nice journal. Pynchon Notes was supplanted a few years later by Robert LindsayPosted on Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment on Anyone Read Literary Criticism?

Alt Left: Many US Jews, especially Young Jews, Are Disassociating Themselves from Israel

More Hitlerian bigotry conflating right-wing Zionists with every single Jew on the face of the earth.

I think leftwing anti-Israel people in the West and Global South seem to go to great lengths to condemn Zionism and Zionist Jews when they attack Israel and make a big deal about saying that Jews and Zionists are not part of a closed set. There are definitely some who go over the line though and there actually were a lot of folks in the UK Labor Party who were guilty of shading over into raw antisemitism.

On the other hand, 8

Anti-Israel folks in the Global South, particular Muslims, do often conflate Jews with Israel. Many Arabs do the same thing, but they often flat out say that they hate Jews and Israel. I knew a Middle Eastern Christian woman who said this to me.

Some far Right types in the West do the same thing, but most of them are simply silent or even neutral in the conflict, often saying that they hate Arabs and Jews equally. And there are many folks on the far right who say that apartheid fascist Israel is their model for a future White nationalist state. That certainly does not make Israel look good.

I think the commenter is correct that a lot of people conflate rightwing Zionists with every Jew in the Diaspora. This is the only group that has been in charge there for a long time now. In fact, I think most Israelis are rightwingers and now even fascists. You can argue that Arab terrorism has driven them to this extreme, but to me, that’s no excuse.

New polls coming out are showing that 25-3

In particular, many young Jews are simply disgusted with Israel and are distancing themselves from the country. They’re not so much anti-Israel as that they are simply disassociating themselves from the country in disgust. I’m really proud of these American Jews for taking this humane stand, and I know it must be very hard for them to say these things. These Western Jews are very brave, humane, and principled people.

Alt Left: Death to the West

I’m starting to really, really hate the West. I actually believe that the West is evil and even Satanic. Putin was right that the West is Satanic. I am now refusing to support the West and in fact I think it needs to be destroyed in its present formation.

My motto is death to the West. It is very hard for me to say this as I have been a Westerner my whole life. My entire being, lifestyle, way of thinking and preferential culture is Western. Leaving the West psychologically is almost the equivalent of chopping off my arm. That’s a terrible thing to do, but in this case I am willing to bite the bullet and do it.

As an alternative, I support most of the Global South other than fascist states like India.

And the West lies as much as a pathological liar. The West blew up that pipeline, the worst act of environmental terrorism ever committed, and then they lied and accused Russia of doing it.

All Western countries have nixed investigations into the bombing, and some have made investigations that revealed nothing. So the entire West is covering for a crime of the US. The entire West is pretty much just the slaves of the Americans, who in my opinion are Satanic.

Note that the West supports all fascists and Nazis in the Global South. NATO supported fascists and Nazis during the entire Cold War. The US supported nearly all fascists and Nazis, including fascist and Nazi insurgents everywhere on Earth. The US supported many coups that supported fascists and Nazis taking power, even in the West itself, see Greece and Ukraine for example.

Since the US and now the EU have always supported every fascist and Nazi government, opposition, and insurgents in the Global South, is it proper to call the US and the EU fascist and Nazi? I would say it is. Suppose you vote for a fascist or Nazi government. Would the voter be a fascist or a Nazi? It’s hard to say. Certainly they would be fascist or Nazi supporters. I think you can also make the case that if you vote for fascists or Nazis, that that makes you a fascist or Nazi right there. Even nonvoting supporters could probably be called fascists and Nazis on that basis.

Using this logic, I think we can make a strong case that the US and EU are fascist and Nazi formations, or at least they support fascism and Nazism in the Third World. Indeed the Republican Party is now a fascist formation. Pro-West fascists now rule in Turkey, Italy, and Poland. All are NATO members.  The US and EU supports all of these fascist states to the hilt, so we can see that the US and EU even support fascism in Europe!

In a series of posts to follow, I will lay out how the US, NATO, and now the EU have supported fascism in the Global South and even Europe itself ever since the war ended. Originally this was done with the excuse that the Cold War necessitated it. This was my liberal Democrat father’s excuse.

He did say that we had done many bad things as a result of the Cold War. I will say that he definitely condemned the US fascist coup cooked up by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. I will give him credit for that at least.

But in many other cases, he supported fascist formations in the Global South or at least refused to condemn them. This is one reason I hate liberals and liberal Democrats so. They’ve supported every fascist and Nazi government in Europe and the Global South. They’ve also supported every fascist and Nazi movement and state in the Global South.

Although the Cold War was used as an excuse, the truth is that after the Cold War ended, not a single thing changed and the US and later EU continued supporting fascists and Nazis in the Global South. There was a lot more to it than just the Cold War, which was just used by the West as a facade.

The real reason for all of this fascist and Nazi support in the West was a Total War on the Left, which was done because Western corporations operating in the South demanded it. No one hates the Left more than Nazis or fascists, so the West has used them as pawns to get rid of hated Left governments, some of which were shockingly mild, all over the Global South.

Since they always support fascists and Nazis, I think we can say that all liberals and liberal Democrats are really fascists and Nazis themselves. Generally you can’t see the fascism/Nazism, but in every liberal, it’s a thin layer of pro-democracy and human rights that is easily stripped off when push comes to shove, all the cards are on the table, and everybody’s doubling down. Basically, scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

This is because liberals support capitalism and Western corporations who demand fascist and Nazi governments in the Global South. When we see how easily capitalist countries go fascist or Nazi with any threat from the Left, it’s obvious most capitalists are fascists and Nazis when push comes to shove. The fact the capitalism so easily goes fascist and in fact, we can say that capitalism itself has tendency to lead to fascism is an excellent reason for being anti-capitalist or at least to oppose capitalism in its present model.

Alt Left: Benny Morris Was Right

From here.

The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed Benny Morris, one of the Israeli “new historians” who in the 1980s used Zionist sources to validate Palestinian accounts of the Nakba – the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 during which Zionist militias perpetrated rapes, arbitrary murders and dozens of massacres.

Morris explained that David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister – like Meir, a pillar of the nominally secular, left-wing Labor Party – personally directed the deliberate “transfer” of the Palestinian people from much of their homeland.

“Ben-Gurion was a transferist,” Morris explained. “He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.”

“I don’t hear you condemning him,” the Haaretz interviewer told Morris.

“Ben-Gurion was right,” Morris responded. “If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”

But for Morris, Ben-Gurion’s mistake is that he did not do enough ethnic cleansing.

“If he [Ben-Gurion] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job,” Morris asserted.

“I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types,” Morris said. “But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River.”

“It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake,” Morris added. “If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.”

No one who calls themselves a Zionist, whether on the “left” or the far-right, can fundamentally disagree with Morris.

That’s why no one who calls themselves a Zionist supports the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

I’m strongly anti-Israel and I think the Zionist project needs to be halted and eventually disbanded in its hardcore form. I don’t have issue with a moderate Zionism that simply says that Jews can go live in Israel and its a Jewish homeland but they don’t have a right to uproot or discriminate against the Arabs. This is not a common form of Zionism as all existing forms boil down to uprooting the Arabs and having Jews take their place.

Morris is said to be genocidal in this question. Be that as it may, I can’t argue that he’s wrong. If Ben-Gurion would have ethnically cleansed all of the Arabs in Israel and conquered the West Bank from Jordan and uprooted all of the Arabs from there too, this would have solved a lot of the Arab problem at least on a local level.

There would still be Palestinian guerrillas infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Sinai, Syria, and Lebanon, but these borders are presently well protected and infiltration are rare. All of the Arab-Israeli wars would still probably have ensued because these were launched from countries outside of Israel like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. Ugly and even evil conclusions aren’t necessarily false on their face. They may be correct and still morally wrong. People don’t seem to get that.

The article is via Electric Intifada. I don’t mind these guys. They call for a one-state solution. I’d like to point out that none of the armed groups seem to be calling for this other than the PFLP and the DFLP.

The Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade is the illegal armed wing of Fatah. Fatah gave up its weapons and became a political party. It now ruled the West Bank. Fatah is on record as supporting a two state solution, as is the DFLP. Off the record, Fatah officials say they support a two state solution as an initial positive step in resolving the Palestinian Question, so it seems like they don’t see two states as an end but more of a starting point.

The AAMB is made up of Fatah members who rejected the disarmament and took up arms. The Fatah party doesn’t really help this group at all, that is the political party no longer has an official armed wing that it supports. However, the AAMB makes a lot of anti-Semitic statements along the line that followers of the Jewish religion have no place in their country.

The position of Hamas on the Jews in Palestine is unknown, as is that of Islamic Jihad. 10 years ago, an IJ leader said the Jews could say but they would have to live under Islamic law. Two years ago a top Hamas leader stated that Jews have always lived in Palestine with Arabs, and the presence of Jews in Palestine per se was not an issue.

Nevertheless, the position of the PFLP bases I read is that all the Jews need to leave. I strongly oppose this position.

One Palestinian on Twitter recently said that realistically after a referendum and a single state was created in Palestine (including Israel), 9

The Jews lie when they say there are no Jews in the West Bank. There are 550 Samaritans residing in the West Bank and they cause absolutely zero problems nor is there a single dram of oppression or discrimination against them. Although the question is controversial the best analysis of these people is that they are indeed Jews, albeit of an odd variety. They are very religious people akin to religious Arabs, so the two group share a strong religious view.

I spoke to an Orthodox Jew once who supported Israel. The conversation went on for a bit until he told me that he could live with Hamas as they were just as religious as he and his fellow Orthodox. The idea was that two extremely religious groups could live together due to their passionate religiosity. That hasn’t worked out real well in India though, nor did it work in Yemen. He said his real enemies were secular Jews and that Hamas was a potential ally!

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)