The Ahmad Arbery Case

I’m not sure if I have written about this case before, but in case I haven’t, this pretty much sums up my views about the case precisely. I feel that these good White men got railroaded. I watched the entire video and these White men were playing it by the book the whole time. They almost seemed like police officers in how closely they were following procedure.

The man in the back of the pickup truck had his gun pointed down at the ground. They simply said that they wanted to question him as he obviously had been caught in the midst of a crime.

If someone has a gun pointed at me and wants to question me, I think I’m going to stop and answer his questions lest he murder me! You have to obey the man with the gun! Otherwise you are a dead man. Arbery turned around, backtracked in a completely unnecessary way. He had been running past the truck and the White men didn’t do anything to stop him. They would have just followed him some more in their truck. So what?

Instead he backtracks, runs back to where he was before, and then confronts the man with the shotgun, who is playing it by the book entirely. He has his shotgun pointed at the ground the whole time! He never once lifts it up and points it at Arbery. Arbery charges the man with the shotgun and tries to wrestle the gun away from him. Look if I have a gun and you try to take that gun away from me, I believe I have a right to fire that gun in order to protect myself. If you take my gun away from me, you can murder me with it. No thanks.

But the White man didn’t even do that! Instead as Arbery was trying to wrestle the gun away from him, the White man was trying to keep it pointed at the ground the whole time. They got into a wrestling match over the gun and the gun discharged.

It looks like an accidental discharge but even if it were intentional, it would still be legal as the White man had a right to protect his life from the man taking his gun away from him which Arbery can then use to murder the White man. So it doesn’t matter if the White man killed him intentionally or not. When two people wrestle over a gun, the gun often goes off for one reason or another and the person trying to wrestle the gun away from the man with the gun often gets shot.

The other man was simply following in the car. They weren’t following this Black criminal to murder him with their guns as the media made it out.

Anyway, for all the rest of my views, just read below. If I were President, I would pardon all three of those White man. They got badly railroaded and the judge was totally prejudiced against the defendants and the trial was quite unfair as a result.

The whole idea of shopping around for prosecutors outside of you jurisdiction because the  one in your jurisdiction won’t take the case seems very dubious to me! If the prosecutor in your district won’t take the case, then you’re SOL. I guess maybe the state can take the case? Yes or no? The federal government may be able to take the case if they think it’s a civil rights violation, but I doubt it. Generally speaking, retrying a case under any new venue is double jeopardy and prosecutor shopping ought to be illegal.

The only thing I disagree with is the part where he says Whites should avoid Blacks as much as possible. I would say to avoid ghetto Blacks because nothing good ever happens once you get involved with them. I’ve gotten involved with them a number of times and in general, within one or two days, they stole from me in some way or other. You’re just going to get harmed if you get involved with those people.

From the Net:

Actually the case of the Satilla (Brunswick) Three is more deserving of not only intense scrutiny, but outright outrage over the selective prosecution, kangaroo court, compromised jury and race-baiting sideshow atmosphere with “civil-rights” types threatening violence if the Satilla (Brunswick) Three were not convicted.

The case of Amhad Arbery and the three (white) Satilla residents who are presently doing “hard time” for defending themselves is a prime example of prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy, which MUST be addressed and outlawed.

Arbery was a criminal POS who was casing construction sites for tools and other materials that he could steal and sell. He was observed at the same site previously on video as well. As there were break-ins and increased criminal activity, the three men were merely defending their neighborhood.

Arbery refused to be questioned which was within his right.

Arbery felt “disrespected” by being questioned and “doubled backed”, attacking the man with the shotgun.

Arbery attacked the man by pulling on the barrel of the shotgun causing it to fire. Anyone familiar with firearms knows that pulling on a barrel of a shotgun can cause it to fire. Arbery has that one fatal “flaw” that is present in all black DNA, the misperceived “shame” of being “disrespected” (even if no “disrespect” occurred) and the need to immediately “do something about it” (instant gratification).

The Satilla (Brunswick) Three did not pursue Arbery…Arbery pursued the Satilla (Brunswick) Three. In fact, they videoed the entire confrontation, proving that Arbery was the aggressor.

Arbery could (and should) have run off in any other direction, would not have been pursued, and would still be alive today. He chose to confront the man with the shotgun. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The original prosecutor refused to indict. The powers-that-be had to “shop” for a prosecutor who would take the case. It took three tries before they found one who would indict.

This is prosecutorial “double jeopardy” which must be addressed and outlawed nationwide. The way it stands now, what is stopping a prosecutor from one jurisdiction from indicting someone from another jurisdiction when a local prosecutor having legal jurisdiction refuses to indict? We are all in trouble if this is allowed to stand.

Also, the court was stacked against the White men just because they are White.

So-called “civil-rights icons”, Antifa and BLM types were in the courtroom, threatening violence if the “correct verdict” was not rendered.

The jury was also warned that there would be violence if they did not convict.

The “judge” was weak, went along with the threats and refused to run a proper court proceeding.

The judge would not allow Arbery’s past extensive criminal record or more recent trespassing at the same site into evidence. The mainstream media fanned the flames of racial hatred against whites, making Arbery out to be a mere “jogger”, (yeah, right). Who in their right mind jogs 20 miles from home in work boots?

The “mainstream media” stated that Arbery “was studying to be an electrician” and was merely observing construction sites…yeah, right. Arbery was looking for tools, copper wire or anything else of value to steal, that being his stock in trade as an “electrician”.

I pray that any appeals that the Satilla (Brunswick) Three place will be successful. Their prosecutorial double jeopardy and kangaroo court “trial” were both shitshow railroad jobs from the outset.

This is one case that is truly deserving of real “justice”.

I don’t blame ANY White person for not wanting to be around or deal with blacks.

As far as I am concerned, the Satilla (Brunswick) Three did society a favor by “taking out the garbage”. It’s a god-damned shame that they are paying for their self-defense with long prison sentences.

Summed it up very nicely.

What’s Behind the Bizarre Extreme US Support for Israel?

This post is a comment from this article by Philip Giraldi, Biden’s America Surrenders to War Criminal Netanyahu.

The comment attempts to explicate the rather bizarre extreme hold that the Jewish Lobby seems to have on the state. Why is our government almost fanatically pro-Israel?

The state is a lot more pro-Israel than the people and it is very important to note this. However, Americans really love Israel! That’s the thing that everyone leaves out. A poll just recently found that 7

The whole Anglosphere is pro-Israel: New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK. In the UK, it’s all down to a very wealthy Jewish Lobby that’s bought off the state.

I don’t know about what’s behind the strong support in the other countries. I’ve also never seen any polls on these or any other populations about their opinions of Israel. I know I saw a list of polls a while back with a list of European countries and figures for how many were pro-Israel and how many were pro-Palestine. I recall that I was shocked at how low the figures were across Europe. Europeans don’t like Israel much at all.

Two other countries, France and Germany, are also strong supporters of Israel. I don’t have a back story on either one, except that Germans are overcompensating for their extreme guilt over Nazism and the Holocaust by going overboard in the pro-Israel stance.

Speaking of which, when is Israel ever going to stop this blackmail money scam they’ve been running on Germans for their WW2 crimes. Germany has been paying reparations to Israel for decades now. Don’t you think it’s well past time to put an end to this? I’m sure they’ve paid up whatever they deserved to pay up. Until the German people demand it, the Jews will just keep on milking this gravy train forever. They will never voluntarily give it up just to be nice. I know what these people are like.


So you see, when politicians go pro-Israel, they’re only following public opinion. Going against Israel and certainly going pro-Israel is a loser stance for many politicians. So it’s not all about Jewish money having bought off and menaced the US government, although that is absolute fact. I’m just saying that the money trough isn’t the only reason politicians vote pro-Israel.

From the Net:

All this is due to the triangulation strangulation (strangulation of our culture) among these three elements:

Faux Western corporatist globalism.

Dumb American hegemon brutishness.

Israeli interests via the US Jewish Lobby.

This dynamic is upheld by huge ethnic tipping of the scales among both poles of the globalist leg of said triangulation strangulation. The poles are made up of billionaires on one side, and the top technocrats in each silo of technocratic cultural control on the other side.

These top technocrats all aspire to be billionaires themselves. Note that each pole uses the other for selfish purposes. Both poles consist of 2

There really is no other way to see it.

I like how he focused on the dumb American hegemonic brutish militarism aspect. Americans are bizarre like this. They think we have the best military in the world, we can kick anyone’s ass just like that, and Americans are proud of this disgusting arrogant mindset. Even liberal or centrist Democrats think like this.

I doubt if we have the best army in the world, but we certainly have the biggest defense budget. Which leads to another insane problem. Why do both parties including Leftists like Bernie Sanders, vote every year to increase the already insanely bloated US Defense Budget by some huge amount? This almost feels like a mental disorder to me.

And there’s nary a soul out there calling foul on this militarist crap. It’s a disgusting bipartisan militarism. It does indeed have a dumb or stupid character or more properly loutish character about it. And the US military has deep ties to Israel.

Adding in the US corporate factor was also nice. US arms corporations make a lot of money off of Israel. Israel and Israeli corporations have penetrated almost the entire US Homeland Security apparatus which to me seems utterly insane. Why don’t we just hand over the keys to the whole damn nation to that shitty little country?

Probably the entire US corporate apparatus is behind US support for Israel. For one a lot of the biggest companies (think social media) are run by Jews. For another a lot of US corporations are probably entwined with Israeli corporations somehow or other. Ever see any anti-Israel corporations or even high ranking executives? Of course not.

Bottom line is, sure the Jewish Lobby has bought off, extorted, and terrorized the government into doing its bidding on this one particular issue of  Middle East foreign policy.But that’s not the only factor behind extreme US support for Israel. There are plenty of other ingredients that go into making that foul dish. As with so many things, it does not just have one cause. Instead, it has many causes and they’re even hard to identify, unwrap, understand, and discover.

Please note that US Jews don’t control the government in any other way, so saying that the Jews are behind everything and certainly everything bad the government does is just crazy extreme or obsessive and conspiratorial antisemitism. Worse, it’s not even true.

This sort of “Jews control everything in society” as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion idea is nasty stuff. That’s pretty much what the Nazis in Germany said. It was one of the major reasons they went after the Jews.

The result was the murder of millions of completely innocent people: men, women, teens, little children, toddlers, elderly, and disabled people. They didn’t spare a soul. It was simply a massacre. Worse, I would call it an actual extermination like what happened in the Armenian or Rwandan genocides.

How Trump Was Corrupt

Actually the Democrats could have impeached Trump on other things because he was breaking the law and basically running a criminal enterprise out of White House from Day One. He was violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution from the day he stepped into his office.

That clause means the President absolutely cannot use his position to make money for himself in any way whatsoever. So if a President has a lot of stock in a company, he can’t do things to push the stock price up so he can get rich.

All Presidents in the past have always divested all of their money-making assets (note that this doesn’t include personal property like your home and car) or they put it all in a blind trust.

Divesting means if own a lot of stocks or other money making entities like businesses, resorts, hotels or other property you don’t live in, you have to sell all of that stuff or at least your share of it before you come into office.

So Trump have had to have sold all of his money making real estate or better yet, just resign his position in the company and sell his share of the it before he took office.

People might argue that it would be unfair to force Trump to sell of his money-making property, but if he sold it, he would end up with a huge pile of cash in his hand. On the other hand, the property keeps making money and the cash doesn’t unless you put it into CD’s or something like that.

With a blind trust, you can’t see what’s going on with your money, so there’s little motivation for corruption. Trump was doing favors for other countries in return for them letting him build casinos and resorts from the first month of the new government. The very crooked Ivanka was doing the same thing. She’s also loaded to the gills, by the way.

The “Biden Is Corrupt” Bullshit

I don’t believe in the “Biden family is corrupt” bullshit, and I’ve been studying it for a long time. There are simply no legitimate corruption allegations against Joe Biden. He plays it pretty fair and square as he’s an old school politician.

Hunter is a dirtbag and a wigger on steroids but is not involved in any corruption either. He’s only guilty of a stupid gun crime and cheating on his taxes. The first charge would not have been brought and the second charge would probably have been settled out of court were he not famous. The “Biden impeachment hearings” are 10

I’m disgusted by this crooked partisan bullshit. We really are a Goddamned banana republic now. The Democrats impeached Trump twice on absolutely valid charges. So the Republicans vowed to impeach the next Democratic president regardless of what he did or didn’t do! It was just paybacks and the Republican Party acting like a street gang in one of our cities. You know what they say on the street.

Paybacks are a bitch.

In other words, no matter how squeaky clean he was, they would find some way to impeach him anyway.

The US Is Now a Banana Republic

The Republican attempt to impeach Joe Biden when even they admit that they have no evidence that he did what they’re charging him with is corrupt as Hell, and it’s straight out of banana republics and African and Arab dictatorships. What they do in those countries is as soon as a new government, usually a rightwing one in Latin America, comes into power, the first thing they do is go after their political enemies in the opposing party.

In some cases as in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Colombia, the first thing the new rightwing government did was send out death squads to murder the opposition leaders and supporters. In the case of Guatemala and Colombia, they were still murdering them even decades later.

The message is clear. If you elect a leftwing government, it will be overthrown by a rightwing coup and then the new government will go after the leaders and supporters of the overthrown Left government. Sort of makes you not want to vote for the Left, huh?

In most cases they are not so murderous and instead they often try them on fake or politically motivated charges. They even imprison them.

In many cases, the lead figures of the opposition flee the country after the new party comes in. That’s what happened in Ecuador when this sleazy rightwinger pretending to be a socialist won. First thing he did was go after the leadership of the former Leftist Correa government, who all fled the country.

Erdogan is doing the same Third World crap in Turkey, but bizarrely, the majority of Turks are down with this. Turkey has been a pathological and very fascist country for a long time. Remember that phrase?

Turkey is the sick man of Europe.

There ya go.

It’s corrupt as Hell and it’s straight out of banana republics African dictatorship. What they do in those countries is as soon as a new government, usually a rightwing one in Latin America, come into power, the first thing they do is go after their political enemies in the opposing party. They often try them on fake or politically motivated charges. They even imprison them.

In many cases, the lead figures of the opposition flee the country after the new party comes in. That’s what happened in Ecuador when this sleazy rightwinger pretending to be a socialist won. First thing he did was go after the Leftist Correa figures, who all fled the country.

Erdogan is doing the same Third World crap in Turkey, but bizarrely, the majority of Turks are down with this. Turkey has been a pathological and very fascist country for a long time. Ataturkism was always a sort of secular fascism. Now Erdogan has introduced an Islamic fascism.

Sisi did something similar to the Muslim Brotherhood government figures after his coup. Their leader ended up dying in prison.

The Palestinians have been doing something similar. After Hamas won an election in the Gaza Strip in 2006, the first thing they did was go after the former PLO government. They killed a number of them, sometimes throwing them off rooftops and they put a lot of others in jail or prison.

Something similar is going on in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority throws Hamas members of people suspected of being pro-Hamas in jail, where they are typically beaten and tortured. By the way, Abbas’ PA won’t have an election in the West Bank in part because he might win. Actually, Marwan Bargouti of the PLO would probably win, but he’s in prison, so I don’t see how he would run the government.

It’s corrupt as Hell and it’s straight out of banana republics and African and Arab dictatorships. What they do in those countries is as soon as a new government, usually a rightwing one in Latin America, come into power, the first thing they do is go after their political enemies in the opposing party. They often try them on fake or politically motivated charges. They even imprison them.

In many cases, the lead figures of the opposition flee the country after the new party comes in. That’s what happened in Ecuador when this sleazy rightwinger pretending to be a socialist won. First thing he did was go after the leaders of the former Leftist Correa government, who all fled the country.

Trump is a Black Hole: A Detailed Analysis of the Frightening Rise of the Donald Trump Cult Phenomenon

Another superb comment from Francis Miville!

Trump is Far Right, Farthest Right for sure, but for an even more frightening reason than mere fascism. He is a political black hole into which even the pure light of Christian prayer gets sucked into without the ability to reach Heaven.

The USA up to Nixon’s time had followed a more or less rectilinear course in the direction of a certain progress. But from the 1970’s onwards the US started circling in an orbit.

That was at the time most baby-boomers were sold, as hippies and others, philosophies from India as supposedly much more advanced and progressive than the dream about indefinite progress that had up to then been quite mistakenly called American.

For the older generation, the news of our actual conquest of the Moon was proof that America had set up for eternity a technological standard that could no longer evolve and instead could only be subject to incremental betterments.

Though Nixon in his very gross way still stood for a very gross idea of progress, his infamous Southern Strategy marked the acceptance of the American trajectory as essentially circling, ever going back, around what was thought to be a star.

And it was not only a star but also the best star discovered by the HMS American Enterprise. But it was not a star at all. Although it appeared to shine orange bright, it was a black hole, lit only by the mass of matter from outer space crashing onto it.

With Reagan coming, the choice was made to make America supposedly great again, great as it was taught to have been before the New Deal. By this time the US mainstream media was slowly being converted outlet by outlet to the Chicago School of Economics.

That school of Economics presented itself as a return to the “sounder” economic conceptions that had reigned in the Anglo world up to the advent of the Russian Revolution.

But they refused to notice that even before there was such a thing as Marxism, with the US economy dominated by the slaving Southern economy, there were already various sorts of socialist ideals to be fought for even if that might take centuries.

Once more the impetus towards the “conservative revolution” came from the South, the land of Biblical fundamentalists and slave wages.

The Chicago School of Economics together with its associates first decreed that the science of Economics reigned supreme as theological not utilitarian as had been the case with Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. The End of the World was touted as a more worthwhile and realistic objective than the age of capitalism.

First of all, this school had properly noted that the US economy was circling around a black hole, not a star, and that it would one day engulf the whole planet. They posited that entire trajectory of American and more generally human progress had been towards orbiting that black hole, spiraling around ever narrower orbits as a way to obtain the kinetic energy to get the economy going.

That was right at the time Reaganomics was turning the US from the creditor nation that we had been a debtor, thriving only on its capacity to incur ever more debt by being too big to fail since it had in the US dollar a monopoly control of world currency defended by its imperial army.

The Republicans’ adversaries, the Democrats, were starting to freak out that nation’s fall into the black hole would come sooner than expected and would be mortal, though hopefully that would happen after the spoiled generation had enjoyed their pensions and died out.

But the only response the Democrats would provide was to cause the orbit to remain relatively static while slowing down the progressive narrowing of its orbit.

What needed instead was to get the out the orbit of the black hole back into to outer space at any cost ASAP via a strong component of central planning as had worked to win WWII against Japanese and German fascism. Those who shouted that message were dismissed as old school Stalinists and antisemitic Holocaust deniers.

The only debate allowed was between those who cried for faster spiraling down around the black hole to get increasing amounts of kinetic energy and those who hollered for a stationary orbit.

Finally came 9-11 and the choice was made to spiral down as fast as possible to make the economy buzz from the heat. At any rate the end of the world was to happen as predicted by the Bible, and Israel had to be supported in whatever they said and did.

The first big crash caused by this rapid spiral downwards towards the Black Hole’s occurred in 2008. It happened to be twinned to the fact that global warming was getting bad enough that people could no longer dismiss it or at least some of it.

The newly elected president Obama was asked to stabilize the planet’s as much as possible constant as possible not out of idealism but instead for the very survival of the

The black hole in the form of a person arrived in 2016. His name was Asshole Donald Trump, and he got elected in an unforeseen way supposedly by a frustrated and impoverished working class and rural populace. This was false.

The red (or orange in the case of the Trumpsters) states are those who rely on their natural resources instead of their labor force to try to avoid the ongoing world recession, although most of America’s money lies in the Blue States.

Interference in the election by Putin’s Russia was given as another reason for the Orange One’s ascension to the throne. This was also not true. Sure, there were Russian oligarchs involved in the election for sure, but they nearly all were of double Russian-Israeli nationality.

Hence the foreign head of state that contributed most to Trump’s mistaken glory was Netanyahu except that you are not allowed to make that remark, therefore you had to accuse Russia and Putin instead.

With the black hole’s event horizon being so near, black starry outer space has been diminishing in celestial surface to a smaller and smaller region of the visible firmament. Most people are attracted to the peach orange light emanating from the Extreme Right.

The event horizon will be crossed when the last patch of black starry space is left behind like the last vision of hope in the Divine Comedy‘s Inferno. That will happen if Trump or one of his more Machiavellian and charming partisans he might designate as successor; for instance, Fucker Carlson, is elected.

Why is Trump essentially a black hole? Because he attracts religious prayerful energy into his own person while being the most complete opposite of a religious person you can imagine. He redirects and sucks into his self all the light his crowd sends to the highest heavens in order to bask in it as if it were the sun in Mar el Lago.

He acts as this black hole object because his crowd continues to dote on his every word, and he is forgiven every fault, crime, social and political outrage, personality defect, and even act of treason by his entranced followers.

I am not condoning Biden’s government at all, except for one specific quality: there is no chance in Hell that Biden might become the object of a of personality cult. Every one of his supporters accepts him only as a lesser evil. In fact, he represents the last narrow circular orbit the nation can remain in before crossing the event horizon for good.

Now this alignment is heading for a showdown. Netanyahu has just started a genocide he is not ashamed to show up on TV not so much as to make Israel win a battle as kill vast numbers of civilians and children as a kind of Clockwork Orange reality show. His doesn’t care if he fails to win a single battle against Hamas.

His soldiers are not good at any battle except on consoles or when dealing with stripped civilians. But they serve their purpose as props in this fake war to appeal to the White fascists of the decadent West who are frustrated with mass immigration from Third World countries.

Now they can see the brown stand-ins for these getting at long last their comeuppance right on TV for all to see. This time, if fascism is unavoidable on the frustrated Whites’ part, Israel intends to play the massacring role in that all-out return to racism.

Trump is a fascist while also being Israel’s most devout servant in the US. That is not a paradox at all. During WWII Israel actually existed de facto. It was already a self-sustaining state on the verge of victoriously achieving its sovereignty except that it was fighting on the Axis‘ side against Britain. Let that sink in.

Later Israel would achieve a more formal independence in 1948 right at the exact moment the South African state of apartheid was being proudly declared. These two apartheid states quickly became the closest of allies. The kind of Calvinism practiced by the South African Whites is actually more a kind of rabid “Judaism for Warrior Jesus” than the most pro-Israel Christian fundamentalist church. They even both fought against imperial Britain.

In purely Machiavellian logic, Netanyahu, by committing what is actually a mass human sacrifice is also signing the political death warrant for his country.

Intelligent Israeli Jews who work in Israel’s Silicon Valley are now scrambling to get the Hell out. It is now abundantly clear that Israel has renounced any trace of democracy even for Jews only and is on a course where the only only two forces allowed any freedom of expression will be the military and the Jewish religious fundamentalists who are even worse than Iran’s Muslim version.

The the only democracy in the ME, my foot! It is both the most autocratic state of the ME as of now and the bitterest enemy of all democracy everywhere in the world. It is also realigning itself country back to its pre-birth when it was fighting alongside the Axis against the Allies.

If we are going to call Trump a fascist, we must realize that he is neither a Hitler nor even a Mussolini. In fact, he is much worse. Instead, he is a Mobutu, Bokassa or Duvalier “Black Republic” kind of fascist.

In that odd sense sense Trump is America’s first truly Black president as neither Clinton nor even Obama quite reach his heights. As a matter of fact all those Black Republic Presidents for Life were coincidentally Israel’s best clients especially for weaponry and special police training.

These Black Republic dictators have the essential characteristic of never fulfilling any of their promises to their people and instead do the geometrical opposite. We can see the similarity with Trump.

Trump promised to bring back decent salaries, especially in the Rust Belt. He brought back not one industrial job from overseas to the US, though he did return some from China to Mexico and other friendly nearby countries so as to bring them closer to US white-collar headquarters.

Trump promised to end American involvement in further wars. But on the contrary he attacked Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, and Venezuela. He militarily intervened in Brazil to get Bolsonaro elected, and he did his very best to start a world war against Iran. The reason Trumpsters sing the “no wars under Trump” praises is because all of his wars were defeats were hushed up and made to seem as if they did not exist.

Trump built a show-off wall as a cheap stunt for his voters. But a lot of cheap labor comes by truck or plane, and Trump greatly improved the transportation privileges for companies to call in the manpower they need by granting tax breaks to the higher bracket in the country. Trump is as real estate mogul, and he managed to pass many facilitating measures for rent extractors.

The reason why he came to be barred from Twitter is not what you imagine. In fact the reason was that his own groupies were starting to complain loudly on his Twitter site, especially noting that he had not fulfilled a single campaign promise. He phoned Twitter and asked them to close his account.

Last but not least, let us speak of the matter of “draining the swamp.”

Never forgive, never forget that the real brain trust Trump employed in his White House in order to disabuse the world of the voluntary Idiocracy he created was none other than Henry Kissinger, the ultimate Mister Swamp Person, who toiled for longer hours in the Oval Office than Trump did himself.

In fact, hiding behind a populist such as Trump to work his magic was Kissinger’s last Devil-given chance to fulfill his role in this world not withstanding the utter indecency of his mere personal presence in any role he might play in the state.

In particular, we can note Henry the K’s poorly known powerful role in the drafting and selling of the infamous Abraham Accords with ME leaders without the desires of any of their populations being taken into account.

Trump won’t make America great again because the word “again” in an American context can only mean the Antebellum South or at best the Gilded Age. The first “American dream” – this one having deep roots in the South – was simply the dream for a shrewd Southern commoner frustrated in not being an aristocrat to become a sort of faux version of one by building an even nicer mansion than most European chateaux via the labor of working slaves.

America as a futuristic social experiment was the only place in the West where one could hope to revive either slaving Antiquity or feudal lordship.

Trump’s main achievement would be to have America seen by the rest of the world as a giant African post-independence republic where the excessively intelligent or educated need not apply. Netanyahu has clearly implied in more than one speech that America should be treated like a cow to be milked to death to the point it is an empty husk gone with the wind.

Netanyahu is planning to align Israel with the Populist Right in the US and the rest of the West. It is not lost on Netanyahu that these are very same folks at greatest risk to turn antisemitic in “normal” fascist times. He simply doesn’t care.

Meanwhile, the horrified Center and Left in the West will be resigned to parties that are to be at least somewhat pro-Islamic on world affairs, this by default in response the anti-Muslim rightwing populism Trump and his like are mining.

The end result here will be the US being fractured. When a planet has been sucked for good into a black hole it refused to do anything to escape from, when it has passed then passed the event horizon, it will crumble into pieces. First two, then ten, hundreds, thousands of warring kingdoms, and later millions of fiefs that have no common language yet nevertheless recall Trump as a sort of supernatural being.

That scenario seems a little bit extreme, but Albert Pike envisioned that precise future as his sweet vengeance for the loss of the Civil War. After two world wars, the planned unwinnable third and longer world war between Jewish Zionists and their supporters and Muslims and theirs one would exhaust the West irretrievably and smash the American Union into medieval states.

The leadership of the ongoing modern world would then pass to a materialistic technocratic non-Western state like China, leading to another Cold War between it and a less rational and far more occult-minded civilization like India.

A truly amazing essay. So much thinking to chew over here.

A Primer on Guerrilla War, with an Aside about Gaza

Found on the Net:

I think this proceeds from a misunderstanding of what guerilla forces actually are.

They do not hide amongst the civilian population. They arise from the civilian population. Unlike regular soldiery which is also drawn from the civilian population, there are no typical organizational trappings or physical structures for guerillas.

Guerilla fighters arise typically when states mal-administer and oppress a civilian population. It’s become quite common from the 20th century for these guerilla forces to arise, because technological differences have made it often easy for one side to attack the regular forces of another, often from afar.

So nowadays there often arises a situation where a population is seriously oppressed but also denuded of the regular forces which they would have formed and used to respond to that kind of attack in the historical past.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the first reaction of powerful empires with these asymmetrical technologies was to treat the entire civilian population as the enemy and pummel them.

What they found is that this has two effects:

Firstly, it releases even more dangerous forces from the civilian population in question

This causes even more civilians to be mobilized into the guerillas.

They often have with a determination and fearlessness that eclipses what states with regular forces are capable of marshaling in response and utilize unexpected measures that render regular forces either ineffective or which causes moral injury to those regular forces. This injury has consequences both for their discipline in regular service and for their broader society when they return home.

Vietnam is an example of this. This is admittedly a later example from the USA, while European empires had already learned their lesson in their colonial possessions.

Secondly, exterminations of the civilian population in part or whole often not only end up consuming serious numbers of regular forces or at least consuming serious economic resources, but also provoke hostile combinations of remaining enemies that the oppressor had previously encountered or even successfully promoted and maintained in a divided or passive condition.

Nazi Germany is an example of this.

For both of the above reasons, strong states have tried to encode laws against assaulting civilian populations because it always seems to engulf and defeat them for reasons each new generation of regular officers and politicians cannot grasp.

The behavior of the guerillas defies all of the enemy ‘s experience of how civilians think and behave in peaceful, wealthy environments, including how civilians react to policemen or soldiers when those policemen or soldiers threaten force, and how easily regular professional forces collapse once you destroy their material and commanding structures.

By contrast, guerillas never seem to collapse, and no matter how high the bodies mount there seems to be another fearless guerilla ready to die in order to deal damage to the oppressing side – even women and children are mobilised.

So the straightforward answer is, yes, Hamas guerillas “hide” in the population because populations naturally produce and host guerillas from their own number under conditions of oppression.

I should say the oppression to which I refer is the objective condition of Gaza. I’m not expressing a position on the political causes. I’m suggesting that guerillas arise from the objective conditions of oppression regardless of any political rights or wrongs of why those oppressive conditions may have arisen.

Israel is correct in how it analyses the entire Gazan population as being a collective threat with no real differentiation between civilian and fighter.

But its proposed solution always falls into one of the two follies I mention above. It will either pummel Gaza and release more dangerous forces or it will attempt extermination and unite the Arab world whilst alienating its Western liberal patron states.

Biden is busy trying to work them into only option 1 (pummeling) instead of option 2 (extermination), since the dangerous forces released under option 1 would overwhelm Israel alone, but it is still a manageable problem for Israel’s patrons collectively who can allocate more economic resources to reinforce Israel.

Option 2 would cause internal political problems for the patrons and possibly bring them into sudden confrontation with an uncowable Arab alliance, which is why they won’t allow it.

Agree completely.

American Christianity Is No Longer Proper Modern Christianity; Instead It Is Calvinism or Better Yet, Noachidism

Excellent piece by Francis Miville!

American “Christianity” should stop being called such. It should be called Biblical Zionism.

These people are Calvinists.

The biggest effort these so-called “Christian” denominations have always deployed against adversaries is against Catholics, and more generally against any Christian denomination older than Calvin and not considering Calvin as the first and only “real Christian” of the times he was born, the rest of the population being peasants to treat like animals unless they embarked on the right boat, preferably to America.

Actually, for all practical purposes, they are Noachides. In principle Noachidism forbids any form of Christianity as idolatrous. But that applies only in as much as one believes in the Holy Trinity, equating Jesus in a certain way with the one God.

But the Trinity hasn’t been a hot topic among Evangelicals and Born Agains for decades to say the least. If they let go of divine status for Jesus and make him into a perfect Zionist rabbi and nothing more whose real message was the ultimate in Jewish supremacism, there is no contradiction with them and any Noachide law or by-law.

American Calvinists have always been ordered to spit on Catholics the same way Jews do against Christians.

When I went to Israel, I met Jews who were proud to spit on all Christian sanctuaries they encountered.

But they made a big exception for sects as Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Bible Belt denominations that contributed to Reagan’s triumph in 1980. They considered these sects as imperfect but searching in the right direction, though many less intolerant Jews also think that the Catholic church since Vatican II has similar, in particular acknowledging the Jews as elder brothers in faith.

Noachidism is the same thing as Judaism except that there are only seven Laws among the Ten of the Decalogue.

They have laws against murder, theft, adultery, blasphemy and cruelty, as well as a stringent demand to believe in an intolerant monotheistic faith with a Jealous God admitting no other deities. The Decalogue commands the lack of other deities. Those Jews were part of the covenant passed between God and Israel only.

They also keep the Sabbath. Whether non-Jews are allowed to keep it too is controversial among rabbis. Half of them assert that the Sabbath was part and parcel of the expression of faith practiced by pre-Jewish Biblical characters. The other half assert that the only act of faith demanded from righteous non-Jews is to:

  • Work seven days a week for Jews.
  • Honor one’s parents together with legitimate elders and authorities.
  • Not bear false witness.

In other words Noachides can lie and are expected to lie and be lied to since their own speech has no value and they are never to be employed in any position where it could.

They can and should rebel against their parents and their ancestors because they are non-Jews and any respect to one’s ancestors would be tantamount to paganism. Similarly, nationalism one of the cultural activities outside Judaism banned as a form of prohibited paganism. Instead, they should labor full-time for Jewish interests.

From 1980 on, starting with Reagan, all US presidents implemented or reconstituted measures calling for the teaching of Noachidism to all non-Jewish US citizens at some time in the future.

Among the more powerful and incestuous adjucational circles of US Protestantism, Noachidism has been mandated for all freemasons as the zeroth degree of initiation and hence established Protestant religious leaders as seen as practicing masonry as their own peculiar and esoteric form of mysticism. Evidence for their practice of masonry is based on three things, being their

  • Insistence upon the work ethic at the expense of the practice of forms of meditation
  • Devaluation of all activities based on the pursuit of the truth, i.e. science and anything related to that, including the belief that there even is a valid form of universal truth, hence the “alternate facts” of the Trumpsters
  • Transmission of a strictly utilitarian American culture

For the Evangelical movement promoting these ideas, Reagan appeared on the scene as as a booster shot deriving from cultural mores resembling those of the pre-Roosevelt US.

Let us make no mistake about it: America in 1776 and 1791 was already a Jewish-subservient society, with the difference that these Jews were all Sephardic and concentrated around the Southern plantation economy.

America was by then opposed to the glorification of Anglo-Saxon tradition itself as part of the British heritage that they wanted to divorce themselves from, and that went as far as to prohibit the celebration of Christmas is many Southern states as a pagan custom. Instead, Christmas was supposed to be a working day.

Jews by then were

When they decided that came to see that the war was being lost, they migrated to New York City (An actual “neutral” port city in the conflict!) and hid their Jewish identity as much as possible in order to successfully involve themselves in international finance and export-import trade.

At the same time, they left the role of Cultural Jewry to the newer, poorer and often left-wing immigrant Jews who later came in large numbers to that very city, often fleeing pogroms around the Pale of Settlement in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

As I said, great piece!

Current Reading

First of all, have any of you read any of the following books or authors? If so, feel free to discuss.



Samuel Beckett: Molloy (one third) Classic. Modernism.

Joseph Conrad: Lord Jim (halfway) Classic. Psychological novel, Modernism, Impressionism, Neo-Romanticism.

Daphne Du Maurier: Rebecca (one tenth) Classic. Historical Fiction, Crime, Gothic, Mystery, Romance.

John Fante: Ask the Dust (one sixth) Classic. Psychological Realism.

Franz Kafka: The Trial (two-thirds) Classic. Modernism.

Elizabeth Hamilton: Translation of the Letters of a Hindu Rajah (one fifth) Epistolary Novel. Classic. Scottish Enlightenment. Difficult to read due to archaic language and style.

Robert Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land (one eighth) Classic. Science Fiction.

Khaled Hosseini: A Thousand Splendid Suns (halfway) Historical fiction, Realism.

Jack London, The Call of the Wild (one fifth) Classic.  American Realism, Naturalism.

Alan Paton: Cry, the Beloved Country (one tenth) Classic. Hard to characterize.

Tom Robbins: Still Life with Woodpecker: A Sort of Love Story (one fifth) Postmodernism.

Neal Stephenson: Termination Shock (three eighths) Science Fiction.

Robert Stone: A Flag for Sunrise (halfway) Naturalism.

John Updike: Towards the End of Time (one fifth) Science Fiction.

Various Authors: Six Great Modern Short Novels: William Faulkner, James Joyce, Herman Melville, Nikolay Gogol, Katherine Ann Porter, Glenway Wescott (one tenth) Classics.

Short Stories

John Irving: Trying to Save Peggy Steed (three quarters) Literary Criticism, Memoir.

Many Authors: French Stories (halfway) Classics.

Many Authors: The Modern Tradition (halfway) Classics.

Alice Munro: Too Much Happiness (halfway) Realism, Southern Ontario Gothic.

Alice Munro: Runaway: Stories (halfway) Realism, Southern Ontario Gothic.

Flannery O’Connor: A Good Man Is Hard To Find and Other Stories (halfway) Classic. Southern Gothic.

Joyce Carol Oates: Night-Side (halfway) Gothic, Pulp Fiction.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: Welcome to the Monkey House (one tenth) Classic. Postmodernism.

Combination Novellas and Short Stories

Flannery O’Connor: 3 By Flannery O’Connor: Wise Blood, A Good Man Is Hard to Find, The Violent Bear It Away (one fifth) (Classics). Southern Gothic


Loren Eiseley: The Night Country: Reflections of a Bonehunting Man (halfway) Nature Writing, Philosophy, Science, Anthropology.

Malcolm Gladwell: Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking (halfway) Psychology.

Adam Gopnik: Paris to the Moon (halfway) Memoir.

Barbara Kingsolver: High Tide in Houston: Essays from Now or Never (halfway) Hard to Classify.

Many Authors: The Norton Reader (?) Classics. Many themes.

Various Nonfiction

Edward Abbey: Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness (halfway) Classic. Environmentalism.

Edward Abbey: Down the River (halfway) Environmentalism.

Derek Bickerton: Language and Species (halfway) Difficult reading. Linguistics, Cognitive Science.

Temple Grandin: Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries through the Unique Perspective of Autism (?) Psychology.

Siddhartha Mukherjee: The Emperor of Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Medicine

Ralph Nader and Wesley Smith: No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (halfway) Law.

Doug Peacock: Grizzly Years: In Search of the American Wilderness (halfway) Environmentalism.

Combination Fiction, Nonfiction, and Poetry

George Murphy: The Key West Reader (one sixth) Several classic authors. Hard to categorize.


Simon Kierkegaard: Either/Or (one tenth) Classic. Existentialism. Extremely hard to read.

Frederich Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols (one fifth) Classic. Difficult but can be read. Existentialism, pessimism, realism.


Catallus: The Poems of Catallus (one fifth) Classic. Lyric Poetry, Neoteric.

Edgar Allen Poe: Complete Poems (over halfway) Classic. Gothic.


Emile Durkheim: The Division of Labor in Society (one sixth) Classic. Extremely hard to read. Structuralism.

Emile Durkeim: Suicide: A Study in Sociology (one tenth) Classic. Extremely hard to read. Structuralism.

Todd Gitlin: The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (one tenth) Memoir, Politics.


Carolina Maria de Jesus: Child of the Dark: The Diary of Carolina Maria de Jesus (one tenth) Classic. Sociology


Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx (one sixth) Political Science

Political Science

Cicero: Selected Political Speeches. (one sixth) Classic. Oratory.

Alexis de Toqueville: Memoir on Pauperism (halfway) Classic. Sociology, Social Programs.

Showan Khurshid: Knowledge Processing: Creativity and Politics: A Political Theory Based on Evolutionary Theory (one third) Evolutionary Political Theory.


Anthony Daniels: Coups and Cocaine: Journeys in South America (one sixth).

Dean Mahomet: The Travels of Dean Mahomet: An Eighteenth Century Journey through India (one sixth). Very difficult to read due to archaic language and style. Memoir.


Stephen Ambrose: Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagles Nest (one sixth) Classic. World War 2.

Richard Hofstadter and Micheal Wallace: American Violence: A Documentary History (one tenth) American political culture.

Tom Reiss: Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Christo (one third) 19th century French.


Arthur Miller: Death of a Salesman (one tenth) Classic. Tragedy.

As you can see, I am into a lot of different things.

In novels, I read impressionism, neo-romanticism, realism, naturalism, modernism, postmodernism, science fiction, psychological novels, historical fiction, crime, gothic, mystery, romance, psychological realism, postmodernism, epistolary novels, and Scottish Enlightenment.

In short stories, I read Southern Ontario gothic, gothic, pulp fiction, and postmodernism.

In essays, I read nature writing, philosophy, science, anthropology, and psychology.

In nonfiction, I read environmentalism, linguistics, cognitive science, and psychology.

In philosophy, I read existentialism, pessimism, and realism.

In poetry, I read neoteric, lyric poetry, and gothic.

In sociology, I read structuralism and politics.

In political science, I read oratory, evolutionary political theory, and social welfare.

In travel, I read South America and India.

In memoirs, I read politics, sociology, and travel.

In history, I read histories of World War 2, 19th Century France; and American political culture.

In theater, I read tragedy.

I think it’s good to have a wide variety of interests. If you wish to have a more restricted variety of interests and you are happy that way, I won’t begrudge you. I don’t think either option is preferable to the other.

You don’t have to do it of course, but I’m just giving you an example of one way you can structure your reading and intellectual life to have a very wide range of interests. Personally, I like to live this way. If it sounds appealing, go ahead and try it and see if you like it.

On the other hand, you run the risk of spreading yourself too thin and wearing too many hats in this age of super-specialization. I’m not sure there is a place nowadays for the Renaissance Man or as his detractors refer to him, the dilettante. And yes, I’ve been called both.

Of course, I have an extremely high IQ, and I wonder how many people with very high intelligence are like this too. I suspect that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to have a wider range of interests. After all, curiosity follows intelligence as it rises and probably as it falls too, though I don’t have any experience on that end. Is it the case that the lower someone’s intelligence is, the more incurious they are? I suspect it may be so.

Collective Farming, Feudalism, Adam Smith, and the Idiocy of Liberatarians

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: But in practice communal farming is serfdom. The farmers are forced to do it and can’t refuse, and they must meet production quotas just like in feudalism.

In feudalism, you were fucked. You hardly got to keep much of what you grew. Just a bit of it.

Collective farming is life on easy mode. Production quotas are never hard to reach. The whole problem with collective farming is people don’t work very hard.

Serfdom was Hell on Earth.

Collective farming is life as permanent vacation. Like the workers in the USSR used to say:

We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

And any job you have what boils down to a “production quota.”

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Regarding Adam Smith, most libertarians are too dumb to read his magnum opus.

Of course they’re total idiots but some Libertarians have it figured out, agree with Smith, and even say that the basic mechanism behind capitalism is one of the most evil ideas known to mankind: the ultimate in pure, utter, near-homicidal selfishness.

The smarter Libertarians say,

Yes, this is true, but the thing is that consumers and even workers can just take their business to the capitalists who act good and refuse to patronize the shits who follow the capitalist maxim to the letter.

Problem is this never works because in most cases, they’re all shits LOL. Anyway, a capitalist who tries to act decent is soon out of business, and the lowlifes following Smith’s maxim are outcompeting him.

Evil always outcompetes good in capitalism. So evil is the basic driver behind innovation, plenty, wealth and all of the goodies we get with capitalism. It’s all paid for with the wages of a pure evil mindset.

Also, if the bad capitalists’ goods are cheaper than the good capitalists’ goods, you think consumers will punish the bad guys and burn a hole in their wallets? Pull the other one.

This “consumers will reward good businessmen and punish bad ones” is really groovy in theory. Problem is it never works, so it’s pointless. But Libertardians keep pushing it anyway.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: He also advocates for heavy taxation of addictive substances and state control of the currency.

Well, even Milton Friedman was a monetarist. Some ideas are just so sensible that even Libertardian idiots have to agree else lose all moral and intellectual integrity.

You are one of the few liberals who are aware Adam Smith has more in common with social democracy than he does with libertarianism.

Well, I’ve actually read him! Probably few liberals have bothered. Chomsky praises him too. That’s where I got a lot of my info about him. It also shows that Chomsky’s Leftism has true integrity.

Libertarians think Ayn Rand is Adam Smith. LOL.

Yeah, the Libertarian intellectual landscape is pretty barren. A moonscape really. They’re all just hacks and ideologues. None of their theories or propositions even make sense economically. I like them on social liberties though.

Am I Autistic? Do I Have Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

People keep insisting that I must be autistic, online people that is. No one real life does, thought a lot of people think I’m really weird and even apparently dangerous and scary (LOL!).

In our modern society, “weird” = autistic. It’s not so. Lots of people are weird and the vast majority of them are not autists.

I even checked up on my old therapist and he said there’s no way on Earth I have that.

I also asked him if I had Narcissistic PD, as people on the Net keep insisting I have that too. He said there’s no way I have that. Instead, he said I have “high self-esteem,” which he said is usually thought of as a marker of good mental health.

No man likes to admit this. But deny it all you want. You know it’s true.

I kept throwing out all these other diagnoses like psychotic disorders and personality disorders and he said I didn’t have any of them. Look around on the Internet. Most everyone out there, basically my enemies, insists that I am profoundly mentally ill or deeply disturbed on some level. Most people think I’m sick on some criminal level like a psychopath. That I have personality disorders is a given.

But I don’t have any of those things. I’m not nuts. I have no personality disorders at all. I don’t have Antisocial Personality Disorder, nor am I psychopathic or sociopathic. And of course I’m not psychotic or seriously disturbed in any way.

No, “Narcissism”, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and “High Self-Esteem” Are Not the Same Thing

Every shithead on the Internet thinks he knows what “narcissism” is. After all, it’s the topic du jour. We’re all 15 minutes of fame rockstars now with social media and whatnot. Problem is almost none of these boneheads save the ones that are truly looking into the issue (and some of them are excellent!) have any idea of what they’re talking about.

“Narcissism” nowadays is junk speech, a junk word. It’s floating about the Idiocracy like smog and stings the eyes about as much. Sure, there’s a lot of it about (hence it’s on the tongue-tips), but that doesn’t mean most have the slightest idea of what it is.

One therapist said I didn’t have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. NPD is, in a word, pathological narcissism. If you’re a “narcissist” then you have pathological narcissism or NPD. Problem here is we are all narcissists! We are all narcissistic! We’d clearly be dead without it. You don’t put yourself first and you’re gone soon enough. At some point, altruism is simply suicidal.

He also said that narcissism is simply another word for self-esteem. I like that, and I agree! I you have low self-esteem, you have low narcissism. If you have adequate self-esteem, you have adequate narcissism. If you have high self-esteem, you have high narcissism.

And he noted that high self-esteem or high narcissism is generally seen as a sign of good mental health. But even if you have high narcissism, you are not considered to be either narcissistic or a narcissist! Because those terms are only applied to those who have too much of a good thing, that good thing being narcissism.

One of my first therapists kept talking about “egotism” but he kept shrugging his shoulder and saying, “So what? You’re an egotist. What’s wrong with that?” He had a huge ego himself so I think he was talking about himself there too.

I had an ex-girlfriend who kept mentioning “ego” when talking about me.

I had another recent girlfriend who shook her head and said:

You know, I often think about complimenting you to boost your ego, but then I look at you (the size of your ego), and I think that wouldn’t be a good idea.

In other words, complimenting me would be just throwing more fuel on the ego brush fire. Why help out an arsonist?

Around the same time, I had another girlfriend who referring to me as “self-impressed.” She didn’t like it either. Like, at all. Thing was I didn’t care. If I was self-impressed, fine, so be it. If my girlfriend hated it, fine, so be it. If she might leave me over it, no problem, see ya babe.

I guess they’re all talking about the same thing here. Sure, high self esteem is a marker of good mental health, fine. On the other hand, most folks probably don’t have it (though Blacks do in spades – sorry for the joke woketards).

And folks with high self-esteem – otherwise known as “big egos” –  can definitely seem a bit much to say the least to other people. They think we’re too big for our britches. There’s also this idea of,

What in God’s name have you accomplished in life to be deserving of such an inflated self-opinion?

The answer in many cases is nothing, though many of us have good jobs, fame, money, status or at least a history of success in some area of life. There’s usually some serious factual achievement, beyond what most accomplish, behind that fat ego. A big tree needs good soil to grow. Plant it in shallow rocky junk and it stunts, twists, and never achieves greatness.

Women, often older women, seem in particular to be put off by big male egos. I’ve seen them literally lunge backwards on meeting me. It’s not that I’m ugly or offensive. I think it’s just the force field of my ego just takes them aback. Their reactions are:

What the Hell?

If there’s a man with her of the same age, a lot of the time he sees and accepts it on some level that maybe there’s something behind it or at least it’s incurable. At worst he’s indifferent and thinks it’s harmless.

Most men have a grudging respect for a big male ego. After all, Man World is a land of endlessly jousting egos. All of us males are at war from teenage on. For stuff, money, pride, status, recognition, accolades, women, fame, you name it. The enemies? Why, the other guys of course.

Feminists Say All Men Hate Women – Are They Right?

Well, like with everything else, feminists are mostly not correct but neither are they completely wrong.

Here’s the problem with your ex-girlfriends and I assume ex-wives. They know you too well. The woman who loves you looks at you through a microscope and figures you all out, everything about you, right, wrong, and indifferent. Good, bad, and ugly. The whole nine yards.

Women with Cluster B traits, especially Borderlines, are excellent at this and clinical studies are even proving this. The problem is that your girlfriend tells you what you are really like, who you really are. Which, in a lot of cases, is quite contradictory to the probably-fake blown-up images so many of us have about ourselves. A girlfriend once told me I was a “little bit” evil. I’d never want to admit that either, but dammit, she’s right. Emphasis on the little bit! Not that that’s a bad thing for a man.

I’d never thought of myself as “conservative” or “serious” until a Borderline girlfriend insisted I was. I’m not happy a recent girlfriend told me I am passive because I know how much women hate passive men. But I guess all those things are just true.

Feminists keep saying all men hate women. Well, most women hate us men on some level provided they’ve had enough experiences with our crap selves. I think most men are ambivalent about women. I’ve met a number of men who’ve had sex with a lot of women, say over 100 women and girls. They were all pretty cynical about women and I suppose a feminist might call them misogynists. Most Chads are the same way. You might say they know women too well.

The problem here is that most men probably have had girlfriends or wives who know them inside and out, all their warts, the whole nine yards, you name it. And of course they’ve all told these men all these true things about themselves that they don’t want to believe.

The problem with our loved ones is we have nothing to hide from them, and in society, after all, we only survive via obfuscation, concealment, and deceit. But we are laid bare with our women. And I think on some level we really hate them for knowing those things about us, our eternal shames that we cover with the silliest of lies, the basic fakery and inadequacy of our petty existence.

So if you ever hear a feminist insist that “men hate women,” this is what it means. Not what she thinks it means, but on the other hand, like most ideologues, she’s not completely wrong.

Pursuing this further, I think most men hate their family members, their own kids too, not just their girlfriends and wives. Your kids know you too well too, at least once they get to a certain age. They see through all your crap and all the bullshit facades you put up to see your pride through another day. They see all your fakes, frauds, and horrendous faults.

You want to know why family members scream at each other, and, yes, of course even hate each other, pretty regularly, even when they also love each other very deeply? It’s for this reason. They’ve got all your secrets and you know they do and you can’t take them away. You have to be yourself in front of them no matter how hard you try to fool them, they see through it all. The shame is unbearable, especially for a man. Hence we rage at our loved ones like typhoons and the next day, fall to our knees and love each other more than we love ourselves.

It’s the shame, baby.

When OCD Looks Like a Psychotic Disorder

The problem is that when OCD gets really bad, they can actually appear psychotic. Emphasis on the appear. I had a therapist who basically told me that was going on with me when I saw him. I’m far better now but if I go off these damned pills, I swear I’m going to be back in that way-out space. By the way, that sort of severe OCD is not pleasant at all. It’s a 24-7 nightmare with no hope in sight. You’re always trying to make it go away and nothing ever works.

I’ve had some clients like this, and it took a bit of figuring out over the phone, but no way were they psychotic. They were even getting perceptual distortions too, but lots of people get that stuff, and just because you have some weird perceptual stuff going on, it doesn’t mean you’re psychotic.

The key is insight.

A psychotic person has perceptual abberations but they think they’re real. If you’re getting perceptual distortions and you’re not psychotic, your attitude will be,

Jesus Christ! I’m getting perceptual distortions! I hate this shit! It seems crazy! Make it go away!

And yeah I’ve been there, sorry to say. But not for over 30 years.

Also, all of my “psychotic” perceptual stuff including some really weird thought processes that could easily be diagnosed as delusions but were not and have in fact been after the fact vanished on an SSRI antidepressant and if you’re actually psychotic, that won’t happen. You’ll need to take an antipsychotic. I have “psychotic” diagnoses based on what I told clinicians after the fact but when I checked with the man who saw me at the time, he said they were wrong.

I’ve had some OCD clients where I had a really hard time figuring out if they were psychotic or not.

One was afraid of take showers because she thought there were “demon eggs” in the shower water. Upon questioning, she didn’t really believe it; she just thought it might be true, and she was terrified that it might be true. And she jumped in the shower anyway. A psychotic person would never do that!

She was also getting some really weird ideational stuff with thoughts being transmitted out of her brain to and from electrical sockets in the wall. She didn’t really believe that either, but once again, she was scared it might be true.

Curiously, there is an OCD Psychosis, and this is a rather typical delusion that they have: transference of identities or thoughts, often via electrical appliances and wall sockets!

She was only 15 and I told her she need to get a handle on this real quick before it got even worse. I also told her she had a very serious case since it was hitting so hard at such a young age.

I’ve actually had a number of OCD’ers present to me diagnosed by psychiatrists with various psychotic diagnoses (Schizoaffective Disorder was a favorite) with “delusions” and “hallucinations.”

I quickly figured out that the “delusions” were fake, and so were the “hallucinations.”

In one case, a young man had all sorts of weird perceptual stuff going on in the context of OCD that I was genuinely baffled about whether he was psychotic or not. But he didn’t give off the “feel” of psychosis, if you catch my drift. We are talking intuition here.

Medicine is as intuitive as it is logical and don’t let any MD tell you otherwise.

I eventually reassured him enough that his anxiety levels went way down. Oddly enough, as his anxiety levels collapsed, the “psychotic” perceptual disorders faded too! So anxiety can literally cause perceptual aberrations that look very much like a psychosis!

Any of you readers, if you suffer from this illness, feel free to email me as a work as a peer counselor for OCD’ers. I have had people coming from all over the world to work with me, and I’ve been called an expert by psychiatrists. I’ve worked hundreds of hours with hundreds of clients for over a decade. Very reasonable rates. 

On Marx, His Theories, Personality, and Life, with an Aside about Great Men with Crap Personalities

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: For the record, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital Vol 1 and 2 but never 3.

I will be honest. I have a very, very low opinion of Marx’s ideas and his person, beautiful prose notwithstanding. He definitely was a brilliant man but I think his conclusions in DK are garbage. I am a capitalist after all.

Yes, but you realize that in the past, most capitalist economics professors praised him to the skies. For a very long time he was required reading to get an Economics degree and even the most ardent professors assigned. Now they happened to think his conclusions about capitalism being doomed, etc. were wrong, and others took issue with the Labor Theory of Value, which I think is a bad argument because of course it’s correct.

You realize also that Marx praised capitalism to the skies, right? He just thought it was an unworkable and ultimately immoral system that would inevitably collapse due to its own contradictions.

There has never been a more immaculate description of capitalism that Marx’s in Capital. It’s simply never been equaled.

The problem was with Marx’s solutions to the very serious problems of capitalism. A lot of people think his proposed solutions haven’t worked very well and in fact they didn’t even work as well as capitalism.

I think the complaint is that socialism is moral but it doesn’t work, while capitalism is immoral and even evil if you put it on a triple beam scale and weight it out like a pound of dope. The bad outweighs the good.

In that sense though, capitalism is immoral or evil, but at least it works and socialism is morally proper and good, but it doesn’t work. I actually do not object to an analysis like this, and I’m a Leftist!

As far as criticisms of Marx’s person go, well, that doesn’t count! We don’t judge great men by whether or not they had shit personalities, else we’d have to bin all our heroes! We’d have to settle for good men who accomplished little once we threw out the shits who rocked the world. We can praise the cantankerous, confounding fucks, the very intellectual terrorists themselves, who set off earthquakes in thought and art. Look at Jesus, Marx, and Freud. Jews and revolutionaries all. They’ve left us long ago, but the world has not stopped shaking!

They were not well liked and one even got executed for his capital crimes. The next was a boisterous and irritable shit, the last a literal fraud who actually engaged in scientific fraud by faking his own studies. But an argument is that all great men commit frauds like that. It’s almost a marker for genius.

None of this matters though because their intellectual and spiritual rebellions were so profound that they reverberate with us yet.

And the greatest writer of all, a playwright named William Shakespeare, who has not yet been equaled in half a millennia, was a positively horrible person, a wealthy, stingy, miser who wouldn’t give his neighbors a dime while they starved in a winter famine, who hounded his creditors mercilessly for every nickel he loaned them.

But as my mother told me when I brought this up to her:

Well, that’s fine. Shakespeare was an awful person. But it doesn’t matter because that’s not why we read Shakespeare.

In other words, all that silver prose singing off the pages straight up to the clouds blows that crap personality right out of the water and renders it as irrelevant as the boisterous, classless, trashy, drunken, fist-swinging, lewd, vulgar lumpen venues where his cheap plays were performed as lowbrow common man entertainment, the 16th Century entertainment of drive-min movies or straight to video cinematic junk.

It’s a bit sad but if you are truly a great man, you get to be a complete asshole and no one cares!

Marx’s was a very unpleasant person, fought with everyone, could not get along with anyone, was cantankerous, irascible, and combative, was very radical and not about to compromise a thing. However, he and Engels seemed to have gotten on pretty well.

Personally, he was a pretty “dirty” man who lived and worked nearly in filth, as visitors to his study noted.

I read a recent short piece by a writer who had interviewed him in his study and it was pretty jarring. The constant cigar smoke in the room was the least of it. But a lot of writers are total slobs. Ever seen a photo of a writer’s study? Typically a Godawful mess. A lot of artists are pretty messy too. These people are reaching for the stars, dammit, painting and writing out the highest intellectual aspirations of our people! You think they have time for petty lower-human stuff like cleaning house? Pshaw!

On the other hand, he was a very good husband to his loving wife and he was an excellent father to his children. I don’t buy arguments that say he failed on both of those accounts.

As far as the “Marx never worked a day in his life” bullshit, well, that’s just capitalist shit-talking.

He was a journalist! He worked as a journalist for many years, writing for papers all over Europe. Problem was it didn’t pay well. And then he was just a writer who wrote great books. Ever heard of a starving writer? Well, there was Marx. Eventually he attracted the attention of another writer, the wealthy industrialist traitor to his class Frederick Engels, and Engels gave a him a writer’s stipend do he could leave behind day jobs and just write full-time.

He eventually got into trouble with the law and had the German police after him everywhere he went, so he had to leave Germany for France and the UK. He was also a political activist who worked tirelessly setting up political parties, committees, and whatnot and hobnobbing endlessly in political jaunting with other radical political types. If you’ve noticed a lot of political activist types don’t make a lot of money either.

Are Feudalism and Communism the Same Thing? Are Collective Farming and Collective Farming Work Feudal?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I say feudalism is communism because it is in practice though not in theory. Collective farming and factory work is very feudal in character.

Feudalism grossly exploits the farmers, whereas communism aims to give them their fair share and the best result that the society can possibly give to them.

Factory work is probably not feudal. Read Marx. Under communism, factory workers are not exploited and are gifted with the greatest material gifts that society can afford to give them. There was no factory work under feudalism.

So we are talking about two systems, one in which workers and peasants are exploited to the ultimate and another in which the system tries to give them the greatest rewards it can possibly gift them. A huge contradiction right there.

Colllective farming is feudal? Well, did the peasants farm their lands communally?

There are societies right now who volunteer to farm their lands communally, and it works very well.

I read about one recently who speak a minority language in NE India. They’ve simply decided that farming their lands communally is the way to go. Further, though they have small homes for themselves, they have few personal possessions. They think this is all fine and dandy.n Everything works quite smoothly, and of course they grow rice given their locale. Rice is ready and suited for communal farming as nearly no other crop is. But everyone gets plenty of food and does all right. No one is starving. Work refusal or laziness, a classic problem in such enterprises, does not exist. Perhaps they threaten to throw you out of the community if you don’t work.

Really most primitive agricultural societies have long operated on a more or less communal method.

Amerindian society and most primitive culture was described by Marx as “primitive communism.” Sure, you had chiefs and their wives who were “wealthy” in that they had a bit more than everyone else, but the differences were not great. In my region here among the Indians of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, mostly it boiled down to the chief’s wife having a particularly impressive display of shell beads traded from the coast. Whoop tee doo. Primitive communism works quite well in cultures like this, but once you start getting an actual developed and heavily populated culture, things start getting a lot more complex.

Factory work began with capitalism or better yet, vice versa as capitalism itself was created by getting rid of feudalism, in particular the benign sort of feudalism that allowed for a Commons, the existence of which wasn’t really feudal at all. At any rate the dominant economic relation was nevertheless feudal, only much more benign in England (there was no UK at that time as the non-English parts were all separate entities). The Commons were crown lands but they were hardly policed.

Before 1400, the people simply lived in the Commons before 1400 where they farmed their own lands and owned their own livestock. They lived in small villages where the most powerful man was probably the local priest, though he had little money or land. Some people had skills like weaving or metalsmithing or whatnot, and they sold their labor power to other workers for a wage, which is communism or socialism right there. Instead of feudalism to which it is generally assigned, it was more a system of primitive communism than anything else.

Anyone with a choice would rather be a king on the Commons with your own land, home, animals, etc. than a slave in a factory, so the fencing of the Commons to force peasants off their lands and render them homeless was done by the English state in order to jump start capitalism. There are many quotes from historical politicians on the necessity of forcing the peasants off of their lands in order to impoverish and proletarianize (same thing) them.

And in our present day, in places like Colombia and India, rightwing politicians continue to argue that the local peasants must be thrown off their more or less collective lands for the development of any sort of capitalism to take place. In Colombia, a continuing process, the throwing off the peasants off the lands so the rich can take them over to raise cattle, is ongoing for decades. The peasants retaliated by forming “Marxist armies.”

A similar process took place in Guatemala and El Salvador where the peasants also formed “Marxist rebel armies,” and continues to this day in Paraguay, Brazil, and even Venezuela. In all places it was and is accompanied by a lot of violence and murder of peasant farmers. In Paraguay the peasants have taken up arms as Marxist rebels associated with FARC.

In India, the peasants are being violently thrown off their farmed forest lands to make way for the mining of minerals. As usual the peasants have taken up arms as “Maoist rebels.”

During the Salvadoran Civil War, one peasant woman stated that her choice was to either join the Marxist rebels or starve to death.

Are you starting to see why these rural based “Marxist rebel armies” even form in the first place Duh! It’s all about land, baby! Land and food.

In The Genesis of Capital Marx talks about how in the US West, smallholders were thrown off their lands by the state which gave them the lands in the first place. Their lands were then given to the railroads. The similar logic here was to throw the smallholders off the land forcibly proletarianize them in order to jump start capitalism.

Contrary to capitalist fanboys, some homesteader in the US West with his small farm, rifle for hunting game, small shed for dry goods in the winter, wife maybe sewing clothes or brother blacksmithing or making chairs, both for their neighbors for money, is not a capitalist. We on the Left say these are workers selling their labor power to other workers, and of course it’s a form of socialist or communist economic relations.

Once the people were forced off the Commons by its fencing in the 1400’s, they were immiserated and were now a captive labor force that was forced to either sell its labor power to the local factories or die. People left their farms and crowded into small cities where they lived in the most terrible poverty. They had lived much better as small householders. They were now the captive labor force that capitalism demands, and they either had to go work in the local factories or suffer in the worst imisseration.

So they worked in factories under the worst conditions which all capitalists to this day ferociously defend. You will never find a capitalist who opposes the early work conditions in those factories. Not one. If they do, they’re not really a capitalist and instead they are a socialist.

All of this is laid out quite grotesquely in The Genesis of Capital by Marx, a document which is actually part of his work Das Kapital. The former is not really difficult reading, and I recommend that everyone read this work if you can handle it.

I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t read Marx. Marx really ought to be essential reading for any conservative unless you want to be an ostrich. Know your enemy, right?

It stands without argument that Marx should be read by anyone daring to call themselves a member of the Left, and really more liberals and even shitlibs ought to read him. I don’t understand why more liberals don’t read Marx, but maybe they are afraid of what they might find there and they might have to rethink their lousy views. My father was a shitlib of the worst variety, though his heart was in the right place like most such confused folks. I read him one sentence out of Marx, and he declared that it was the most beautiful, perfect prose.

Really anyone serious about capitalism ought to read Marx. Marx’s analysis of capitalism is immaculate and, like Shakespeare’s literature, has not yet be equaled to this day. Sure, he condemned it but he also praised it to the skies.

Worse, how can you claim to know the slightest thing about capitalism without reading Marx? Does not compute. You can read Austrians and whatnot, but they’re all fraudsters, con artists, and liars. But even they read their Marx! Hayek was no one before he picked up Marx and started tearing it apart.

Most capitalist fanboys nowadays are economic illiterates.

Even Adam Smith himself was the most vicious critic of the very same capitalism he advocated for. He insisted that unregulated capitalism – the capitalism of the Right worldwide and of course the Republican Party – was one of the worst evils known to mankind! His very own words. He stated that the thought process underlying unregulated capitalism was:

Everything for me and nothing for anybody else!

Zero-sum game, thy offspring is capitalism.

Sure it’s the law of the jungle, and I guess it works great for some mountain lions and grizzly bears, but even they have to be a bit social. A male grizzly bear can hardly murder his mate, and a female must care for her cubs and is relatively social beyond that. So human capitalists are worse than the most vicious apex predators – grizzly bears and mountain lions!

Anyway, Smith stated that without serious regulation by the state, the “pure evil” mindset behind all capitalist accumulation was simply the barbarism that Rosa Luxemburg decried.

How many Republican capitalist fanboys know that their hero Adam Smith so savagely abused the ideological system they long ago sold their cheap souls for? Any? One?

(((Ayn Randists))), (((Objectivists))), and other dotards, like the rest of the (((Rothbardian))) and (((Friedmanite))) frauds, are all liars, intellectually dishonest moral cowards who only care about who signed the checks they take to the bank.

Adam Smith was a real man, not a bought and paid for whore. He shines so far above his followers as the sun in the sky drowns out a mere spotlight. Further, he had intellectual integrity and courage, rare traits nowadays when most folks’ intellectual “output” is determined by whoever signed the checks. In other words, most modern “intellectuals have no real “output” at all save from whatever line they are paid to propagate. Truly, the modern age is one of intellectual whoredom uber alles, and most public intellectuals are the brain trust equivalent of “intellectual porn stars,” selling their labor time to the highest bidder.

Money is the root of all evil.

Jesus Christ.

He said it 2,000 years ago, but has he ever been proved wrong in the interim? Of course not. Even your grandmother would probably admit to that were she not excessively compromised by dollar signs.

Trump, National Socialism, Immigration, and His Psychiatric Diagnosis

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Do You think national socialism is a natural human tendency?

Of course! Nazism was no aberration. That’s the scary thing. Fascism and even Nazism are baked right into the human tendency.

Read Trotsky on fascism. Some of the finest work ever done on the subject. Trotsky says the fascist is simply “the ordinary man on the streets,” or “the shirtless ones” as Peron put it. The fascist is the “regular guy,” and perhaps the fascist is also the “regular gal” too.

The middle classes are profoundly susceptible to fascism and even workers can go in for it. Look at Italy. Mussolini was a Marxist and his blackshirts were regular workers. Then in a couple of years, Mussolini did a u-turn and became a “pro-worker” corporatist and his worker blackshirts were in the streets beating up peasants and workers.

Keep in mind that Mussolini came into power in the 1920’s when there was a serious threat of Left revolution in Italy. Workers and peasants were literally marching in the streets in 1921. Look into the histories of the Italian immigrants to the US at this time and find out the conditions they were fleeing in Sicily and Southern Italy at that time. The poverty in the rural area was real bad, an outrage really!

Another great thing Trotsky said was that fascism was a last ditch attempt of the capitalists and the  ruling class to save their money, stuff, and privileges due to a serious threat from the Left.

And indeed, we are in such a state here in the US. There is an actual threat to the bourgeois from the Left that is probably greater than at any time since FDR. The workers of America, increasingly, feel they have nothing to lose but their leggings. No one is going anywhere with an anchor in place, whether internal or external. There will be only inertia and frustrated rage. Any boiling pot will blow its lid given enough time. It’s a law of physics, dammit.

They don’t have a majority yet, but the bourgeois can definitely see the dark clouds forming ominously on the horizon, eager to pelt the skies with angry rain. They shudder to hear the grumbling, thundering roar, recoil from the terror lightning splitting the sky.

A spectre is haunting America, whether people want to believe it or not. The bourgeois can see it even if no one else can. No one ever said the ruling class was stupid. They know a threat when they see it. I’ll give them that at least.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I suppose it could be but I don’t see any socialism in Trump’s agenda.

The thing is, Nazi type fascism or “national socialism” is really socialist at all! And of course national socialism or Nazi type fascism can probably unfold in any society, possibly provided it’s homogenous enough.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: In any case, Polar Bear is right, the main stream media and Left’s Trump Derangement Syndrome is quite pathetic.

I have been watching the mainstream liberal news on MSNBC. When they talk about Trump they are mostly correct.

I don’t think it’s pathetic, but I sort of get what you are saying. They’re all just nodding their heads and repeating after each other. However, many recent news shows about Trump’s threat to democracy have been right on the nose. Of course, I absolutely despise Trump and his horrible movement but I don’t want to get in on the TDS stuff and turn into an anti-Trump raver. They’re all for the Nazis in Ukraine anyway. They all hate Russia and China, and they’re all the worst sort of woketards. They’re hard to take.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I think he is more of a run-of-the-mill American rightwinger who is simply being honest about his opinion on the “Immigrant Question”.

He’s much more authoritarian that a typical rightwinger.

Trump doesn’t even make sense on immigration. He hired illegals himself for many years. He just pushes the illegal alien bullshit because it gives him votes.

Exactly how many employer’s workplaces did he raid for illegals? Oh that’s right. Zero! Tell me again how this guy’s out to crack down on illegal immigration?

It’s all fake. He knows that all Republicans love that cheap illegal behavior, and he won’t do a thing to crack down on that.

I have more respect for DeSantis because he actually did something about illegals by instituting some real ID thing in the workplace. It was such a severe restriction that illegals have been pouring out of Florida like ants in a rainstorm. Trump never dared do anything like that.

I knew Trump was a hypocrite on immigration when he said he wanted to increase the number of legal immigrants! So he’s not really against mass immigration at all! He’s drinking the Koolaid like all the rest of them.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: RL, could you do a hit piece on Trump detailing specifically what you think is wrong with his enacted (2016-2020) and proposed (2024 to the end of the Fourth Reich) policies? All I read are ad hominems, but no news outlet or commentary, not even this blog, really get to the point of why they think he is so bad, save he hates immigrants. I am anti-immigrant myself so this is a plus for me.

I get that as a Leftist you would not like rightwing policies, but Trump had been a life-long Democrat up until 2012.

Yeah, I could do that. He’s such a catastrophe. Trump is just a walking train wreck and clown car combined. I was appalled during the entirety of his administration. Every week or month he violated some other norm in some outrageous way and did something that no other president had ever done.

I’d have to look into it though.

The main thing is that Trump is dangerously mentally ill, and that right there makes him unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.

The diagnosis is Malignant Narcissism. These people are also called Narcissistic Psychopaths. I know a lot about it. In a word, it is “the personality of the dictator.” It is one of the worst personality disorders, and it is typically thought to be impossible to treat as the person is so far gone that there’s nothing that can be done with them except keep them away from money, power, and other people as much as possible.

It’s thought that some of the killer dictators of the 20th Century (some include Mao and Stalin in this category) had a personality disorder like this. I’m not sure which other ones might have. The theory is that people with this disorder once in power have been known to persecute and even kill a lot of people.

If I were to work with Trump clinically as a counselor (though he would never hire me), I would regard him as a psychiatric emergency! This guy’s like a runaway train on a track and you’re just watching it wondering when it’s going to hit something.

I would grab him and sit him down and the first thing I would ask him are two questions?

  • Number One: Who do you love?
  • Number Two: Who hurt you?

Any superb clinician, were they to see Trump, first of all ought to regard him as a psychiatric emergency once they get a handle on him.

At once treatment starts, they really ought to grab him right away and sit him down and ask him those two questions before they ask him anything else.

This is how you do it. This is how you start off therapy with a Trump type.

If you want to get to the bottom of what’s really going on with Trump in terms of psychopathology, look to those two questions right there. Those questions are, first and foremost, what he’s all about.

One of Marx’s Greatest Contributions: Under Capitalist, the Ruling Class Creates and Then Reproduces the Actual Culture of the Country

These are the two deadly ways that capitalists destroy any capitalist country.

First by transforming an economic process, capitalism, into a political process, at which it disastrously fails.

Second, by taking over the media hence controlling the mind of the working people of the country and turning them all into capitalist fanboys and in effect creating culture itself.

It was very much elaborated upon by the great Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks written when Mussolini imprisoned in the 1920’s. He talked about how the bourgeois creates what he called “cultural hegemony” in capitalist countries. That is, of course there are competing cultures out there, but the capitalists with their money power, transformation of economics into politics and especially monopolization of the media (and entertainment?) end up edging out or overwhelming all of the competing cultural narratives, hence the notion of hegemony.

Note that Marx said that under capitalism, the culture of any country is the culture of the bourgeois or ruling class. This is probably one of Marx’s most brilliant observations. Under capitalism you end up with vast numbers of workers and maybe even peasants who adopt the culture of the ruling class for themselves. Though it fits like an ill-fitting suit one one is always trying to shrug off one’s shoulders, the workers, due to actual false consciousness, think it fits just fine! An Emperor’s New Clothes scenario.

The culture of the ruling class in any country may well suit the bourgeois just fine (I won’t argue with that) but it’s toxic for anyone else other than the upper middle class who make their beds with the capitalists, even though the bourgeois typically don’t give them their fair share either.

In this class we also find the supremely deluded folks called white collar workers who refuse unions out of a sense of superiority over the blue collar crowd, who they see as inferiors, men in dungarees and lunch pails. For an office worker to join a union means he transforms himself into one of those lunch pail guys he feels superior too, so that’s a climb down he won’t take.

Highly paid workers like tech workers also ally with the capitalists who nowadays are reaming them as hard as any worker has ever been fucked. Yet they’re all capitalist fanboys to a man, and their screeds against immigration and Indian workers are economically and politically incoherent, typically rants against “the Left” (who are trying to help these moronic ingrates) and “Communism and socialism” (LOL).

Supposedly the capitalists who are reaming them so expertly are all socialists and communists (LOL), so by voting out the left socialist and commie corporate exploiters, everything will go back to fine and dandy.

That these workers are supremely confused is clear. They know they’re being fucked. It’s only obvious. And it’s clear who’s fucking them. But somehow due to the size of their paychecks, they can’t see that it’s the fact that their oppressors are capitalists that is the cause of all of their misery. So they thrash about tilting their lances at this odd windmill and that, in a pathetic joke of a war, making all sorts of angry noise and almost no sense. A sound and fury scenario, in other words.

This also shows how one’s privileged economic status actually prevents rational thinking about one’s own condition. It’s almost as if the more money a worker makes, the less he can make sense about his socioeconomic condition. The money’s getting in the way or the frontal lobes.

The Worst Person You Can Elect as President of a Country Is a Businessman

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I find that attempts to put him in jail to prevent him from running to be a bigger threat to our democracy than any of his potential executive orders.

He broke more laws that I can count. He’s the worst president we’ve ever had by far and he’s by far the most criminal president at least in my lifetime. Few presidents in the past willfully broke as many laws as he did. He broke a lot of those laws as a businessman though, and businessmen are crooks anyway, especially the wealthy ones.

The two previously most corrupt presidents? Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

Both businessmen!

Electing a businessman as president is one of the worst things any country could ever do. There’s a time and a place for business for sure, but the presidency is the last place you want any businessman to be. Really all business types should be kept out of national politics or at least the executive branch. They just ruin everything and they’re all unbelievably corrupt once they get into government. Ordinary public servants who are not businessmen are corrupt enough, but businessmen are on a whole other level.

What are businessmen good for? How about making stuff? Like, real stuff. I’m not talking, FIRE, finance, insurance, real estate and all that parasitic BS? Tell me one thing those people make, and dwellings don’t count because they don’t build those things for humans to live in within their means but instead only as a particularly sleazy investment vehicle or gambling casino in the sky.

Particularly sleazy because you are making money off the ability or more properly the inability for people to put a decent roof over their head. See those homeless clogging our cities? Want to blame someone? Blame the real estate parasites, especially the banksters (finance sector parasites). They’re getting rich by throwing those humans out of their very own dwellings! Sickos!

Businessmen are good for making real stuff, as in widgets, that humans use and need. Not for making robots and machines to replace humans and put real people in unemployment lines, immiseration, or the streets. Not AI insanity to replace every human creative or thinking profession with unbelievably stupid machines, as dumb as rocks if truth be told.

Stuff. You know, widgets. Things. Especially useful thing. Like, stuff people need. To a lesser extent, stuff people want.

Keep the businessmen the Hell out politics. Capitalism is a tool for the development of the productive forces and that’s it! It’s not a form of Politics as in most capitalist societies, and there lies the problem with capitalism right there – the transformation of widget makers into an actual form of Politics itself. The only real politics in most capitalist countries is Capitalism. All else is dross.

That’s why I like what the Chinese are doing. That’s why China is not a capitalist country. Notice how the Chinese keep the capitalists out of politics. Instead the country is run by the CP, a non-capitalist and actual socialist and in fact, anti-capitalist organization prepared to restrain the profits of the capitalists at any time they see fit.

The Chinese have also done another ingenious thing. They’ve kept the capitalists out of the media! Capitalists are not allowed to own any media organs in China.

An Analysis of Adolf Hitler, Including a Psychiatric Diagnosis

We come now to the mental health of Adolf Hitler. Although a lot of people say he was perfectly sane, just evil (this was previously my own notion), a very good case has been made that Hitler had Antisocial Personality Disorder. That is, he was either a sociopath or a psychopath. I’m thinking possibly the former and not the latter as he had deep feelings about environmentalism, animal rights (he was a vegetarian) and he even enacted some excellent legislation along those lines.

Keep in mind that not everything Hitler did was wrong or even evil. He definitely did some good things for his people and even his society. It’s more that the bad vastly outweighs the good.

He was very kind to his pets and he was good to Eva. Further, while a homeless starving artist in Vienna in the teens, he did not display psychopathic behavior, nor was he a behavioral problem at school. Nor was his behavior all that psychopathic even in the 20’s, as he got along pretty well with his fellow plotters in his cohort. This all argues against a “born evil” diagnosis of psychopathy in favor of an “environmentally created evil” diagnosis of sociopathy.

There has also been an excellent argument made that Hitler suffered from Paranoid Personality Disorder. Not Paranoia or Delusional Disorder, as he was clearly not psychotic no matter what Jews or anyone else says.

Jews have gone on and on about all sorts of sexual pathologies of Hitler. I don’t know why they do this. Isn’t his documented behavior bad enough? But Jews or maybe humans in general feel the need to not only black and white everything but also to pile it on. So the Jews pile it on with Hitler.

He’s been accused of being a celibate or asexual, gay, and having weird sexual perversions, especially coprophilia (shit-loving) or corprophagia (shit-eating). There’s no truth to any of this Jewish bullshit. Why can’t they leave well enough alone!

Hitler’s sex life has been well documented, and he was apparently quite normal in his relations with his wife or lover Eva. He was neither over- nor undersexed and he was not a womanizer. Apparently he was very close to a younger teenage niece as a very young man, but that was pretty typical for his time and space. There are accusations that Hitler had gay sex or was even a gay prostitute while he was a homeless artist in Vienna in the teens, but that doesn’t seem well-documented.

He was just a typical starving artist like so many decent folks. Further, at this time, he wasn’t even much of an antisemite. Vienna was of course wildly antisemitic at the Fin de Siecle. Whole books have been written on this subject. This was climate in which self-hating Jew Otto Weinberger and the great Jewish psychiatrist Sigmund Freud grew up in. Many of the popular newspapers in the city were wildly antisemitic.

Hitler was socially normal and had quite a few friends and acquaintances. He stayed in flophouses like many homeless folks do. He sold his paintings to art stores to survive. He regularly ate and drank in restaurants and cafes with his friends. Many were huge antisemites and Hitler was known to have complained about this:

What the Hell you want to bitch about Jews all the time for? What’s wrong with Jewish people anyway? I don’t get you guys.

Apparently Hitler thought Viennese antisemitism was boring, petty, pointless, and silly. He didn’t see what the fuss was over Jews.

Jews and their allies make a big deal over Hitler being a “failed artist” but once again, it’s just Jews black and whiting and piling on as usual.

Guess what? Most artists are “failed artists.” Guess what else? Most writers are “failed writers.” Including your truly apparently. Guess what else? Most musicians are “failed musicians.” Everybody wants to be an artist, but there are but a few slots allotted for fame and money, so by the law of averages and the logic of the footrace, most, say 90-9

Hitler’s art is much-maligned by his silly haters piling on. I don’t like his human figures much, but his landscapes and in particular his architecture are both pretty nice! He was quite a decent artist, as decent as most any other “failed artist” out there.

So what happened to Hitler? Looks like he got wounded in the war (by poison gas?) and this drove him completely insane.

He wound up entangled with the Freikorps who were bitter ex-soldiers looking for someone to blame for Germany’s loss in the war. They settled on the Jews and made up a lie about the Jews “stabbing them in the back,” which wasn’t true. Recall how rightwingers use the same “stab in the back” lie about how the Left gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the Vietnam War and lost the war for us? It’s a pretty typical though rather nasty psychological mechanism for populations who lose wars.

On the other hand, you can also just have a revolution if you lose a war, like the Russians did.

The Freikorps turned into what boiled down to a brownshirt streetfighting gang who waged streetfights with Communists and socialists all through the 1920’s. By the early 20’s and the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler was already pretty gone into antisemitism. However, Hitler must not be seen in isolation, nor should the Holocaust be blamed solely on him. Let’s get real. Hitler’s Jewish psychosis was shared by many of his countrymen and sadly it become quite common in other places ion particular in Eastern Europe. Hitler could not have done it alone! He had plenty of friends and collaborators to help him along!

The Classic Defenses of the Woman: Denial and “Selective Forgetting”

You mean they are great at believing that nonsense is true and that obvious facts are clearly false? Yeah.

The classic defense of the woman is denial.

Remembering that will go a long ways towards understanding women!

The other classic female defense is fantasy. The woman is a dreamer. Take away a woman’s dreams and she may not have much to live for anymore.

Women also use what I call selective forgetting. I have no idea if they truly forget this stuff, but they seem to have a knack for “forgetting” things they said or did, especially those that might seem shameful, especially in a sexual sense.

Men do this too but among men you see it a lot more with more disordered and less healthy men. Healthy men don’t do a lot of literal forgetting AFAICT. They might yell at you for bringing up something they said or did that they don’t want to remember, but I haven’t seen a lot of men saying I never said that or I never did that. Unless it’s a legal matter of course, but then they have good reason, and in those cases, they’re obviously just lying. If you notice though you will see that Trump does this a lot. Like I’ve said before, he’s a most unhealthy man.

With women and unhealthy men, you get the definite impression that they have literally forgotten that they did or said all this stuff they don’t wish to remember. It’s quite odd really and I think it must be some sort of defense that they’re obviously not aware of.

Men do a lot of malicious lying but that’s because we’re just more comfortable with evil behavior than women are. Women still see themselves as sugar and spice and everything nice and often don’t want to see themselves as evil. Women who wantonly go in for downright evil, male-type behaviors are pretty bad women indeed! Often extroverts and tend to be Cluster B types. Avoid them like the plague, boys!

Women’s lying takes a more innocent form of denial and selective forgetting because that’s sort of a nice, “innocent” way or lying if you want to put it that way. I appreciate the fact that women tend to recoil at pure evil behaviors. They are not just the fairer and more sensitive but also the nicer sex, let’s get real. Not that an incel ever sees this side of them, but there are definitely some luxuries that come with being gifted as a Chad.

Yeah, women can be absolutely horrible to you, but even those women are probably pretty nice to you most of the time.

It’s just that you remember the truly wicked stuff that they said and did to you, even if they were only like that

If emasculating behavior does that to a pacifist like me, imagine what it does to the average male psycho. Women don’t know what they’re messing with. They play with matches and call it a lark. Then they scream and cry foul when they get burned. But what happens when you play with matches anyway? You start fires. And when you are a firestarter, you might just get burned yourself. Be careful with the games you play! Some games are dead serious.

Why on Earth Are US Fundamentalist Christians Rooting for Genocidal Talmudism in Israel?!

Polar Bear: Americans have become more Jewish than Jews themselves.

I’ve been saying this for a long time now. Americans are a “Jewish” people. By that I mean “Jewish in spirit.” I dated an Iranian Assyrian woman recently for a short while. I said the US was a Christian country and she laughed at me:

No, this is not a Christian country. America is a Jewish country. All you care about is money.

It’s not necessarily an antisemitic remark. Karl Marx himself said as much.

She was also an Israel-hater and it’s possible that she may have been a bit of an antisemite. Sadly, antisemitism is pretty common in that part of the world, and it’s not just the Muslims who partake in it. Middle Eastern Christians are well known for not being extremely fond of Jews, though calling them vicious or hardcore antisemites in many cases is a bit of a reach.

I did meet one Syrian Christian who was a hardcore raving obsessive and conspiratorial antisemite though. It would be more correct to say that they’re not wild about Jews. This isn’t real uncommon in that part of the world for whatever reason. Armenia is an extremely antisemitic country and I have no idea why that is. And few people know that Greece is very antisemitic.

Perhaps there is a problem with Orthodox Christianity and antisemitism because both of these groups are Orthodox. Certainly the Russian Orthodox Church has had a troubled history with the Jews, however, under Putin, the leaders of the Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities of Russia are all united under Putinism and there is little religious strife between the groups. Putin himself has excellent relations with the leaders of all three of these Abrahamic religions.

And a lot of Middle Eastern Christians are hardline Israel-haters. US Christians can’t seem to figure that out.

She had a point. Like Hell this is a Christian country. Get real.

Sadly, the Christian spirit I’m afraid is quite different from the Jewish spirit, so I think this idea that Americans are true Christians are ridiculous. Why are real Christians rooting for Talmudic barbarism in Israel? Or rooting for Talmudism anywhere on Earth for that matter.

For better or for worse, Talmudism, especially the Orthodox or fundamentalist brand, is contradictory to Christianity. In fact, they make no bones about saying this themselves. This sort of Judaism might be seen as the “anti-Christianity.” Talmudism is much more anti-Christian than Islam at least in theory.

Now I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. What do I know? Maybe Christianity blows and Judaism is so much better. Honest Guy makes a case that Christianity sucks, but Christians have persecuted his people for a long time, so perhaps he has a bias. Certainly the hard Right form of Christianity we have here in the US leaves me awful cold as a very secular Christian.

I guess my point is that whether or not Judaism is correct about Christianity (and perhaps it is), the truth is that Talmudic Judaism is in utter opposition to Christianity, and there are many quotes in their books that lay this out for all to see. In many places, their books say that Christians are their worst enemies. Certainly we haven’t been real nice to them in the past.

But I guess my point here is that seeing how hostile Talmudism is towards Christianity, why on Earth are all of these US Christians falling all over themselves to worship people who sadly boil down to some of their worst enemies? I’m not getting it.

Marx’s “On the Jewish Question”: An Analysis

It’s considered an antisemitic slander to say Jews worship money, but Marx said as much in, On the Jewish Question* when he said the religion of the Jews was…”a religion of hucksterism.”

Apparently he said that Judaism was just capitalism with money as a worship object. On the other hand, Marx didn’t like any other religion either and let’s face it, he was Jewish himself and his own father was a rabbi! I would not call Marx an antisemite. He was too sophisticated for that, and anyway, I’m quite sure he was aware of anti-Jewish prejudice in his native Germany and I doubt if he wanted to go over to the side of his enemies.

*On the Jewish Question, by Karl Marx. Below my comments are in quote marks:

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest (capitalism). What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering (capitalism). What is his worldly God? Money (capitalism).

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money (capitalism), consequently from practical, real Judaism (capitalism), would be the self-emancipation of our time. (We would emancipate ourselves from capitalism)

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering (capitalism), and therefore the possibility of huckstering (capitalism), would make the Jew (capitalism) impossible. His religious consciousness  (capitalism) would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.

On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

(The project of the Jew is to emancipate himself from practical Judaism – capitalism – and in so doing, he also works to liberate the human race in the same way. And he liberates himself and humanity from capitalism alienation.)

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time (capitalism), an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level (a highly developed state of capitalism which is quite toxic), at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

A lot of people think this is an antisemitic text but I doubt if it is. Marx was an opponent of capitalism, and Jews were ardent practitioners of such at the time, that’s for sure.

He’s simply equating Judaism with capitalism and saying the Jewish religion is just capitalism or the worship of money. Fair enough.

Go ask a lot of Jews how their family pressured them to “succeed” (as in make a ton of money) and you might not get a lot of argument.

A lot of Jews are angry about the materialism of Jewish culture. I was on a Jewish Defense League forum once and there were many poor and even homeless Jews on there who were not happy at all about this aspect of their culture. They all said that their families treated them horribly for not being successful in a financial sense. A lot of them were quite bitter about this. I doubt if JDL Jews are antisemites!

I actually think this is a very sophisticated text.

In order to be liberated, the Jew must emancipate himself from his enslavement in Judaism (capitalism). And in order for society to become emancipated, society itself must liberate itself from Judaism (capitalism).

Big deal, huh? So what’s the fuss?

That seems to be all he’s getting at. This is very deep essay that makes very  complex arguments that is quite hard to read and understand and it’s pretty hard to figure out exactly what he’s getting at. I have a feeling it might be easily misunderstood.

You can read it over here and see if you agree with me. Maybe you will and maybe you won’t but I think the “antisemitic” panic over this piece is just silly. Just more Jewish paranoia.

Is Trump a Nazi (Racist Fascist) or Just a Fascist (Mussolinist)?

Honest Guy: Donald Trump is indeed the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler though obviously his main targets are not Jews but POC, Muslims, Mexicans etc. etc. and virtually anyone else humane and possessing a moral conscience. The “people” who still support him today are by any definition Nazi apologists/enablers.

I think he reminds me more of Mussolini than Hitler. He’s not mean enough to be actually Hitlerian, though I understand that Mein Kampf is one of his favorite books despite his Judeophilia.

I guess I disagree a bit with my comrade Honest Guy here. I don’t think Trump is an actual Nazi or Hitler type or racist fascist of the 1930’s variety, though in a way, I get where he is coming from. He’s definitely a fascist though! And not just of the Latin American Right variety.

Look at how he’s going after immigrants. Classic 1930’s fascism!

The Latin American Right (in general) couldn’t give two shits about immigrants.

But a particular sort of Dominican racist fascism has long opposed Haitian immigrants to the Dominican Republic on the grounds that they’re a bunch of n_rs. Dominicans are pretty Black themselves, although they are a pretty mixed race people, much more mixed than US Blacks. But as you can see, they consider themselves honorary Whites and see Haitians as a bunch of n-rs.

A similar dynamic is probably in play with the mulatto elite in Haiti, who probably see themselves as honorary Whites.

Probably something similar is going on in Sudan and Mauritania where Arabized lighter-skinned Blacks see themselves as honorary Whites and literally enslave and massacre actual Black people, who are just as Muslim as they are. Obviously the purer Blacks are just a bunch of n-rs to these Arab Blacks.

It’s interesting how a lot of lighter skinned Blacks more or less identify as the equivalent of White while n-rizing the purer Blacks and even genociding and enslaving them.

The Latin American Right is all about class war, rule by the White Right rich, and hatred and oppression of the poor, workers, and everyone who isn’t rich. Obviously this has been the agenda of the Republican Party from Day One, though they do rope in the upper middle class, but they often get roped in with the Latin American Right model too. Eliminationist rhetoric is said to be classical fascist, but the Latin American Right has always used eliminationist rhetoric towards the Left.

I guess Honest Guy and I differ just a bit. He says Trump is an odd sort of Judeophilic Nazi (racist fascist). I’m not sure I will go quite that far. I will say he’s a fascist though. That’s obvious! And his followers are clearly supporting fascism whether they think they are or not.

Honest Guy’s point is interesting though, and I will look into the weird “Nazi” element of Trump some more.

Trump did use some “Nazi” type language when he referred to immigrants as “poisoning the blood of the nation.” This is classic volkisch blood and soil nationalism (though that’s odd right there in an American melting pot context). The references to immigrants or non-nationals (those defined as outside the nation) as “poison” or “toxins” of the “blood” = blood and soil of the volkisch nation is classical 1930’s racist fascism or Nazism if you will.

Honest Guy also makes an interesting point that “Nazis” (racist fascists) can indeed be Judeophilic. Or even Jewish I might add. Look at Israel.

National Socialism can unfold in any society. The Jews are not immune to natural human tendencies.

Delusion, Believing Bullshit, and Dismissing Obvious Truths Are Luxuries of Only the Most Intelligent Creatures

Have you noticed that people dismiss absolutely true facts that do not line up with their emotional bullshit? Every single fact that makes their “bad guys” look good in any way is false and is labeled as “propaganda.” People really are not interested in knowing the facts about any emotional issue.

Does it make my side look good? It it true, no matter how false it is.

Does it make the other side look good? It is false and propaganda, no matter how true it is.

This is the way the vast majority of “rational humans” go about acting like “rational higher mammals.”

I actually think lower mammals are a lot more rational than humans are. Think of your average lower mammal like a dog or a cat. How many of them voluntarily choose to believe complete bullshit that is obviously false due to some emotional need to do so. I don’t think these critters do that very much. So lower mammals are actually far more rational than human beings!

Their only limitation is that they’re not very intelligent. The problem is that as they get more intelligent, they will start to gain the ability to dismiss obvious truths that conflict with their worldviews while believing complete bullshit that feeds into their values. So as you see, as we mammals get increasingly intelligent, we also become, probably inevitably, far more irrational.

On the other hand, stupider lower mammals don’t have the luxury of refusing to believe obvious truths and swallowing obvious lies whole. Think if a cat tried to do that. A cat is crossing the street and sees a car speeding towards it. Using human thinking, it would say, “That car speeding towards me is something I really do not want to believe is there, so I’m going to say it’s not there.” And then get run over.

See what I mean? As critters get dumber and dumber, they lose the luxury of believing nonsense and dismissing obvious fact. It’s simply too dangerous. Delusion is probably a luxury of the highly intelligent. Incidentally, have you noticed that only humans even have the ability to go psychotic? Cats and dogs are basically “too stupid to go nuts.” The ability to go completely insane is probably a luxury of only the most intelligent of creatures.

More Judeo-Bolshevik, Etc. Anticommunism and Antisemitism

The commenter below is from He’s an antisemite and an anti-Communist, and the combination almost always adds to something like “Nazi,” sorry folks. It just does.

Once you get on the Bolshevik Jews murdered 25 million Christians bullshit, you’re straight off into pure Nazism. Face it. And almost all rightwing antisemitism and now in some cases Muslim antisemitism is starting to tread down this soddy road too. You need to hand in your “I’m not an antisemite” card right away.

Interestingly, almost all hardcore antisemites play the Judeo-Bolshevik card, though I haven’t heard any Arab Communists doing so, not that Arab Communists are not antisemites because the Palestinian Communists I knew were absolutely antisemites!

Commenter: Why did the Bolsheviks, as early as 1919, passed a law prohibiting antisemitism while practice of religion was forbidden; because they viewed being Jewish as a race.

Religion wasn’t forbidden.

Russians had had a lot of serious problems with antisemitism. Let’s face it, though almost all of the pogroms were in Ukraine, Moldova, or what is now Poland. The hated Czarists had been very antisemitic. I don’t agree with killing minors, especially kids, but prior to their execution, the Czar’s family would stay up at night reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the whole family! Nasty people!

Westerners who went to Russia during the Civil War were shocked at what they saw as the preposterous, over the top antisemitism of the Czarist Whites. Keep in mind that this was at a time when antisemitism was pretty normal in US politics. After all, it was the era of Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent. The antisemitism of the Soviet Whites had a very, Protocols-like, “Jews control the world” feel about it. As I noted, even American reporters thought it was preposterous and bizarre.

So outlawing antisemitism was one of the earliest moves of the early Bolsheviks. Lenin gave a famous speech about how antisemitism was against the working class. Antisemites will argue that Lenin was Jewish, but he was only 1/4 Jewish, and that doesn’t count. We are getting into “there’s a little Jew in every German” territory here, and it’s just silly.

The Soviets attacked the Jewish religion as much as Christianity.

Aren’t the Bolsheviks responsible for at least 25 million Christian deaths? Ah, the insane anti-Communist lie again.

LOL! Nope. Even if you call Stalin a Bolshevik, you can’t get to that figure. It’s 2.5 million dead in peacetime from 1926-1954, and that leaves out the real Bolsheviks, whose count was much lower. That’s the final figure.

The “X million Christians murdered by Bolsheviks” figure is bizarre and a fake because frankly, just about everyone in Russia was an Orthodox Christian except for

Also, a lot of Russians, especially workers and peasants, started abandoning their religion as Communism moved on, so calling all of those people Christians is a misnomer. Also a lot the murdered were Communists (de facto atheists) themselves and many were also Jews and Muslims, especially later on for all three under Stalin.

Also, those killings prior to 1926 probably had mass support. Many of them were in the context of the Civil War anyway where both sides were massacring each other, including civilians on both sides.

The vast majority of the workers and peasants in the USSR supported the Reds from the Civil War on.

Most of those who didn’t took off by 1924 or surrendered after the war. Many of the people opposed to the Bolsheviks were the rich like Nabokov’s deeply reactionary wealthy family, who hightailed it to Paris. Note that the Russian upper class had been Francophones for a very long time. Note the long sections in War and Peace dealing with the ruling class written in French. This was part of a “Westernizing” tendency among the Russian ruling class starting with Peter the Great’s opening to the West even earlier.

About the “Bolshevik Jew” BS: in 1917, 7

Most Russian Jewish Communists left their religion and probably their ethnic identification behind. Trotsky would not admit to being Jewish. He stated he was an “ex-Jew.” This guy was killing people for his tribe?

In addition, the “Bolshevik Jew” line is straight up Nazism of the most pure variety.

The pogroms were real but the Jews were the perpetrators while the Christians the victims.

Huh? The anti-Jewish pogroms ended in 1924, I believe. The Reds put a stop to that once and for all. And you wonder why Russian Jews supported Communism? There ya go.

There were “pogroms” against “Christians” being perpetrated by Russian Jews? What kind of BS is this? What persecution of dissidents there were in the early USSR did not have an ethnic character. They were going after traitors, not “Christians,” and just about everyone was a “Christian” anyway, so what’s the point?

My passed-away uncle and godfather who was a Christian spent 18 months in a Russian internment camp when we was 19 years old during WWII, being a young Polish National. We know how horrible it must have been because he never whispered a word about it… never. Because he never whispered a word about it… never.

This was not a fabrication, wasn’t a construct, wasn’t a lie as his silence was the proof to it. And which strands of DNA did his tormentors carry in their blood, I ask you the question.”

Who on Earth this “Polish national” got rounded up by the Red Army after the war is a mystery to me. You sure this Pole didn’t have anything to do with the Nazis. An awful lot of Poles collaborated, you know.

You are demonizing the folks who run these camps while running interference for Germans. Let’s see who was worse.

  • Of the Germans sent to Russian camps, 1
  • Of the Russians sent to German camps, 8

I told this statistic to my Russia-hating brother who was on the “Soviets murdered all their German POW’s” bullshit, and he dismissed it immediately. He said it was “Russian propaganda.” Maybe so, but it also happens to be true. Similarly, this same brother labels anything that makes Palestinians look like anything other than total monsters “Hamas propaganda.”

A Few Asides about Current US Political Party Politics

Polar Bear: I never thought of Trump as a fascist on the level of Latin American fascists, which’s quite fascist indeed.

He’s a far rightwing authoritarian, basically a dictator or wannabe dictator. How on Earth is that not like a Latin American rightwinger? That’s exactly what they are like? I’m not getting it. How do you figure he’s not one of them?

Polar Bear: Yes, he’s not as racial as a black or brownshirt.

Yes, he’s not a 1930’s style racist fascist or Nazi. Or as nationalist I might add. He’s not really for some racially pure state with assimilation of all minorities.

Polar Bear: I actually think the cultutal Left is more racial, sexist, ageist, etc. right now.

Not in the same sense. They’re more like radical Communists than fascists.

I’m against the murder of the innocent gal too but note how old White cis gendered heterosexual men are seen as evil in nature. This is the backwards thinking of the cultural left.

Sure but is that really the same as the racist abuse Whites have dished out to minorities? I’m thinking no.

Polar Bear: I guess Colorado Supreme Court says Trump can’t run.

Obviously this decision is absolutely correct. Of course he fomented a rebellion against the US government and he tried to overthrow the government. The Constitution says if you do that, you can’t run for President. The decision was 10

However, my brother is very worried about it as he says that now the Republicans are just going to start doing this to us. They’re going to start saying that we Democrats are fomenting rebellions to overthrow the government and they are going to try to throw our candidates off the ballot on that basis. He also said the Supreme Court is going to overturn this decision, which is really too bad.

Politics basically look like Trump haters and Trump lovers.

That’s exactly what this idiocy called US politics is.

The Left almost seems leaderless, likely sticking with Biden even.

Correct. And Biden looks like a serious loser.

Seems late in the game to support Trump too.

People are with him. Most Americans are with him, so we Americans are definitely fascists.

I actually believe the racial fascists had more integrity. Hitler, for all his faults, seemed to love his people.

It’s hard to praise one of the world’s worst mass murderers, but the nationalist fascists and Nazi types of the War Years did love their people, however narrowly defined, I will give them that!

However, they labeled so many people as outside of the nation that they ended up killing a lot of their own people. And they murdered a lot of their own opposition. Further, they were so vicious and murderous that in many nations, a good portion of the country took up arms against the racist fascists, and the Nazis ended up killing a lot of those people too. In quite a few countries, the Nazis were so horrible that all they did was set off civil wars quite quickly that raged throughout the war.

These people like Trump don’t even love their country. Like the Latin American Right who ran every country they ruled into the ground, he cares only about money, his class, and all out class war against the lower classes. The racist fascists of the War Years at least were not classist, I will give them that.

Many old folks say it’s the craziest time they’ve lived in.

It’s probably the weirdest and nuttiest US politics I’ve lived in. And I lived through the 60’s, the Vietnam War, Watergate, etc.

I prefer social conservatives right now because they seem less crazy and backwards.

Yeah, but they’re all with Trump and the Republicans, so I can’t get down with them at all.

Rebellion against Nazism in SE Europe, the Western USSR, Czechia, and Slovenia

In places like Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece (as you can see, these are mostly in SE Europe), the main theme of WW 2 was civil war virtually from the time of Nazi occupation until the end of the war.

You can argue that something similar happened in France.

In Ukraine and Belarus, the main theme once again was civil war.

So it looks like racist fascism or Nazism had a lot of trouble in the USSR, SE Europe, and the southwest of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The USSR had many Jews and the country had treated them very well. The new nation waged war on antisemitism and many of the workers and peasants were cured of the disorder. Many Jews were good Communists who worked for the people.

In Slovenia and Czechia, the Nazis engaged in a lot of ethnic cleansing and moving populations around based on racial classifications and that did not go over well. The Czechs were seen as Slavs are were supposed to be dealt with per Generalplan Ost.

Probably the same with Slovenians, except for some who were seen as Germanized. But they split the Slovenian population racially, cleansed some people to make way for a subgroup of Germans, and split the country with Italy, who also cleansed a lot of Slovenians from their end. Bottom line is Slovenians started rebelling pretty quickly.

In SE Europe, the Jews of Albania, Greece, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bulgaria were Sephardic Jews. The Sephardics had long been very well integrated with their local cultures, hence antisemitism levels were low in these places since the Middle Ages. There were also Sephardics in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Turkey, the Caucasus, etc.

Some include North Africa among Sephardics, but it is better to see them as Mizrachis or better yet Maghrebi Jews.

The Jews of the Arab World are also called Sephardics sometimes, but they are better seen as Mizrachis.

There is probably not a good word for the Jews of the East in places like India, China, and Uzbekistan.

It is true that in terms of rites, all of the Jews of those places tended to use Sephardic as opposed to Ashkenazi rites.

Basically, Sephardics came from Spain and Portugal. and with the Reconquista, many were thrown out of Spain and headed to the countries in Southern and SE Europe that I described earlier. However, this exodus has been much overblown by hysterical Jews and their allies. Maybe 2

Is Radical Islam (Whatever That Means) Nazism?

R. Toney Brooks, PhD: Radical Islam is Nazism – both have a genocidal goal to exterminate the Jews. Period. The German Nazis sought efficiency, as all things German do. Radical Islam takes things a step further; their intent is both genocidal and apocalyptic.

Creating chaos and killing Jews will hasten the return of their Mahdi, a savior figure. Unlike Nazism, they approach genocide with (inefficient) barbarism and blood lust. They were absolutely gleeful over killing so many civilians (Jews), including children, and they always will be.

Me: What is radical Islam? None of the major Arab resistance groups – Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc., the Shia resistance in Syria, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Syria, or Iran have as their goal the extermination of all of the Jews on Earth. If that is so, why don’t the Iranians start with the Jews in their own country – Iran? There are 6,500 Jews there and they are quite happy.

Bashar Assad and his father protected the Jews of Syria very closely. In fact, for many years, they were not allowed to leave the country!

Saddam was also very good to the Jews and protected them very well. The Iraqi Shia have the same view as Iran, as do the Houthis and Hezbollah.

The Tunisian government is going to considerable lengths to protect its Jews.

Bahrain has welcomes a group of Jews who wish to settle in their country and will even built a synagogue for them.

There are reportedly 2,500 hidden or converso Jews in Saudi Arabia. Nobody bothers them.

Algeria has been encouraging its Jews to return. There are now 400 Jews in Algeria.

Morocco protects its Jews well.

Turkey does a good job of protecting its Jews.

There are a fair number of Jews in the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq, and they are well protected.

There is a significant Jewish community in Dagestan, and they are in general left alone.

There are Palestinian Jews who identify as Palestinians and live in refugee camps in Lebanon. Nobody ever bothers them. There are 400-500 Samaritans living in the West Bank. They are left quite alone. Samaritans are considered to be Jews. There have been a number of Western leftwing Jews who have gone to live in

Not one of these groups have ever stated as their mission the extermination of all of the Jews on Earth. The only people who talk like that are the groups that the US and Israel support like Al Qaeda and ISIS, however, both of these groups are closely allied with the US and especially Israel.

I’ve been on the most extreme of their bulletin boards and discussion groups for years. It’s quite rare that you here anyone saying kill all the Jews in Israel, and when you do, it’s often a neo-Nazi White person. In contrast, even the most radical Arabs and Muslims simply state that all of the Jews in Israel have to leave. They will put them all on boats and planes and make them leave. That’s terrible, but it’s not genocide.

The agenda of the Nazis was exterminationist. That of the Muslims and Arabs is not, and anyway, neither one poses an existential threat even to the Jews of Israel. Very few Jews have been killed by these groups above even in 75 years of war.

I am on a very antisemitic Telegram channel run by an Iraqi Shia who talks about the Mahdi coming a lot. He never talks about killing all the Jews as a prerequisite. In fact, he never talks about killing all the Jews even in Israel. Actually, he has specifically stated that he does not support that and instead he just says they all have to leave.

The Nazis were full of barbarism and blood lust. Read a book about them sometime. The Nazis also delighted in murdering Jews. And these Genocide Jews in Israel seem to be quite gleeful in murdering Palestinian babies, kids, and pregnant women.

This line you are pushing is Jewish fear porn. They’re always screaming that everyone’s on the verge of exterminating them. It’s almost always BS and it’s just the boy who cried wolf and Chicken Little yelling about the sky collapsing. The Jews are full of it. Jews are victim addicts and will almost kill to prevent their sense of victimhood being taken away from them. Nothing is more precious to the Jew than that.

You’ve fallen for a load of nonsense.

R. Toney Brooks, PhD: This is your space and out of respect I will not challenge your points save to quote from a Hadith considered authentic by Sunni Muslims, who attribute this quote to Muhammad.

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews. When the Jew will hide behind stones and trees, the stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”

Me: Yes, this is correct, but this only refers theoretically to some End Times, which to me will obviously never happen. So we are talking about some event far off in the future that obviously is never going to happen. This isn’t a very nice fantasy but obviously they’re not talking about anything they are going to do right now.

Anyway, a very radical form of Islam, Caliphate Islam, coexisted quite well with Jews for 1,300 years. Yes there was some fighting a few pogroms here and there, but they never exterminated the Jews in any of those countries to the best of my knowledge.

The type of Islam that existed from 700-1900 was much more radical than most anything that existed since, and they didn’t even massacre the Jews. In fact, they allowed them to live amongst them for 1,300 years and they never got around to killing them all in even one country!

How does your argument make sense?

This is just fear porn. If you’re talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS, indeed, they are not good for the Jews.

The Taliban are about as radical Islam as you can get. In fact, they even call themselves an Emirate of Afghanistan, a Caliphate term. However, two Jews lived for 10-15 years under the Taliban with very few problems. The Taliban pretty much left them alone and all of their neighbors liked them.

They put them in jail a few times for fortune telling because that was against the law. If the Taliban couldn’t even kill two Jews who lived with them for over a decade, what is this BS about “radical Islam is going to exterminate the Jews.” When is this extermination supposed to start anyway?

Americans Are a Deeply Reactionary and Fascist People


There’s no other conclusion. Donald Trump is the most rightwing president the US has ever had. And the American people not only support him (5

So the American people in 2023 are the most rightwing and reactionary as they’ve even been in their entire history. Show me one president who was more rightwing than Trump, taking into account his times? I can’t think of one. At any rate, Trump is by far the most reactionary president since 1900.

All of the talk in the media is nonsense. There’s barely any left in the US, and what’s there is simply a minority. The majority of Americans remain wildly reactionary, more rightwing than at any time in since the start of the 20th Century.

Furthermore, Trump is worse than a reactionary. He’s actually an out and out fascist. Furthermore, the Republican Party in general, while moving towards fascism for a long time now, is now an openly fascist political party. And as Americans support Trump by 5-8 points over his centrist opponent, Americans themselves are now an objectively fascist people. Let that sink in for a moment. It’s possible that the Never-Trumpers are not objectively fascist. However, they are also extremeley undemocratic and authoritarian.

The US type of fascism is along the model of a third world rightwing dictatorship that we saw in the Cold War. It does not look like the 1930’s Mussolini and Hitler versions of fascism and racist fascism flowered in Europe during this period.

Trump is a fascist of the Latin American rightwing authoritarian type. Although this is not classic 1930’s fascism, one definition of fascism that we on the Left use that is that any rightwing authoritarian government in the last 100 years is basically a fascist government. Can you show me a rightwing authoritarian government somewhere where this would not apply.

The model here is the typical Latin American and Third World dictatorship we saw so much of during the Cold War and before in Guatemala under many governments until recently, Haiti since 1993, Dominican Republic under Trujillo, El Salvador until very recently, Nicaragua under Somoza and before, Honduras under the military coup, Colombia under every government since World War 2, Chile under Pinochet, Guyana after Cheddi Jagan was ousted, and Cuba under Batista and before.

We also saw it in Peru under Fujimori and the new government, Brazil after the 1964 coup and under Bolsonaro, Argentina and Uruguay under the generals, Paraguay under Stroessner and recently, Ecuador under Lenin Moreno and the new government, and Bolivia under Banzer.

In the rest of the world, we saw governments like this in the Philippines until the present day, in Indonesia under Suharto, in Vietnam under various governments from 1954-1975, and in Iran under the Shah, in Morocco under King Hassan, in Turkey under various military-linked governments including Erdogan’s Islamist rightwing authoritarian regime.

They also existed in Zaire under Mobutu, Liberia under Samuel Doe, South Africa under the apartheid regimes, Pakistan under Zia, Burma under the military government, Taiwan and South Korea under various rightwing dictatorships, including Syngman Rhee in South Korea and Chang Kai Shek in Taiwan.

The modern “illiberal democracies” in Poland and Hungary may also be a good model, however, neither country is for the rich and against the poor as Trump is. Instead, they are both populist regimes who support the majority, including the workers.

The various dictatorships in Africa, the Arab World, the Stans, Belarus and possibly Russia don’t really apply because they aren’t really rightwing. In fact, they tend to be more on the left. Anyway, they are often popular and in general, they are not against the majority of population. In other words, they are popular or populist dictatorships.

However, Trump’s government would be a far rightwing popular or populist government, which isn’t typically seen among recent or Cold War models although they existed in South Korea, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, and Taiwan and exist today in Poland and Hungary.

The Republican Party is a fascist political party along the lines that we have seen in rightwing authoritarian Latin American governments recently. Donald Trump is absolutely a fascist. Americans support Trump, so Americans are fascists at this moment in time. And if you support Trump, bottom line is you are a fascist. After all anyone who supports fascists is a fascist himself.

I would say that if you are very much opposed to fascism in most of its obviously existing and most noxious forms, including the various models of rightwing authoritarian anti-populist, anti-people, and anti-worker governments in the Third World, you really need to oppose Donald Trump and the Republican Party.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)