Alt Left: Malcolm X on Gusanos (Worms) or Anti-Castro Cubans

I have to say that in a lot of ways, Malcolm really as a great man. Notice to the gusanos rioting now in Cuba. The people are not with them at all, trust me. Only 10,000 demonstrated all over the island. Most of them were young people, often teenagers, and some were marginal elements, often lumpens, typically criminals or those who refuse to work. There were some bourgeois elements in Havana.

In the town where the demonstrations originated, even there, they were not the majority. Much larger pro-government groups went out to confront he vendepatrias (countrysellers) at every demonstration. In the town where they claimed to take over the Young Communists headquarters, even there, their crowd of 200 was outnumbered by a crowd of 400.

There are very serious problems in Cuba, but 100% of them have to do with the blockade. The things that the contras want will not solve any problems and their heroes in the US and in the Latin American Right are the ones who caused all these problems in the first place. Cuba’s income has collapsed by 80% due to COVID. They have a very hard time importing much of anything due to the embargo and anything they do import has to go through third parties, etc. and the markups end up being considerable.

So Cuba is not able to engage with the world on a free trade basis at all. For instance, the electricity plants have not been maintained since 2014 because the embargo prevents the importation of spare parts. Cuba could not import any ventilators for COVID due to the blockade which covers all medicines and medical supplies and most foods, so they had to build their own.

This tiny country, blockaded by the whole world, was able to build their own ventilators. Cuba’s rate of saving hospitalized COVID patients is very high despite a serious shortage of drugs. The country has made five different COVID vaccines. The first, with an efficacy rate of 93%, has just been released for emergency use. Nevertheless, the epidemic is hitting them very hard and they have had to expand medical facilities because existing ones were not adequate to cover the problem.

But the new facilities and the overwhelming of the hospitals due to COVID overwhelmed the electricity system. The heat added to the strain. Workers came from all over the country and worked all week to get one substation running, but the temporary fixes usually only last for a month.

Food and medicine has collapsed because of the economic collapse and the embargo preventing Cuba from buying these things on the open market. You have to stand in line for hours for basic necessities. Furthermore, an opening of the economy to market conditions has resulted in a lifting of price controls. The result has been that prices have risen 3X. So you can see that moving towards capitalism caused inflation to skyrocket in Cuba.

Furthermore, most goods are now available only at special currency stores, but most people do not have access to that special currency. The regular currency stores are empty. The result has been that huge mafias have developed who buy things wholesale from the special currency stores and then resell them in the regular currency, but they are marked up by up to 3X. However, there are up to 500,000 of these criminals in Cuba now and there doesn’t seem to be much to do about them. The cops don’t even really try to stop them.

The truth is that since most people only have access to regular currency, the existence of these resellers and mafias seems to be inevitable as that is the only way that ordinary people can buy what they want. There are a lot of complaints about these special stores and the state currency manipulations that they are a result of, but the currency decisions seem to be based on sound, if rather capitalist, economics. I don’t know what can be done about the problem of these stores.

I really don’t know what the Cuban government could do to make any of the problems of the country go away. Can someone please tell me what the government should do to go about making even one of these problems they have better?

Most Cubans know capitalism up front, and they explicitly dislike the very idea of it. They don’t even like the US model. And the Latin American models of capitalism don’t like very enticing compared to what Cubans already have. Even the Dominican Republic, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and even Uruguay seem pretty awful compared to Cuba.

For one thing, there is almost no crime in Cuba and the drug use and sales rate is very low. There is almost no drug smuggling. There are no street gangs to speak of, nor are there any beggars in the streets.

During the decade when Nicaragua switched to capitalism, the roads were full of potholes and were nearly undriveable, children carried their chairs to school every day because the school had no chairs for the students, the streets were lined with dirty, hungry children and the first word out of their mouths was to ask you for a coin. Now that Ortega and the Sandinistas are back, all of that is gone. Nicaraguans have lived under both the Sandinistas and their capitalist rightwing enemies and they majority do not want the Right to come back into power any time soon. They have seen how the Right acts when they are in power.

If they let them back in, they will do the same thing all over again. The Venezuelans are the same way. The Right has only ever espoused dismantling every since achievement of the Chavistas. However, 70% of the population support the Chavista project and describe themselves as Chavistas. With a population of 70% Chavistas and an opposition that has pledged to dismantle the entire project, is there any wonder that the Chavistas win by ~70% every time? Why wouldn’t they?

And Nicaragua is sending very few immigrants to the US. The Central American immigrants flooding “the misery, crime, violence, and poverty” of the region are all coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They are not coming from Nicaragua. There’s a reason for that. Also, Nicaragua has had very low rates of COVID cases and deaths, while at least Guatemala was utterly devastated by the disease.

It is true that there are contras in Cuba. It’s certainly not illegal to be a contra and they are quite easy to find. Contras represent ~14% of the population because that is how many people voted agains the last Constitution. The contras calling for a US fake humanitarian intervention and invasion are certainly much less than that.

Guaido, the Venezuelan contra, had 4% support last I heard. His project of sanctions and US invasion has 12% support. Sanctions themselves have only 18% support. The general opposition has ~27% support.

The Right has ruled Haiti since 1994 when Lavalas was overthrown by the US and Aristide was forced into exile. Aristide won 92% of the vote the last time he ran. That’s how many Haitians supported and support Lavalas. All of the US-installed regimes ever since have had the support of ~8% of the population.

The opposition in Nicaragua also has ~25%. The last poll had them at 23%. However, the position of the contras who tried to overthrow the government with a violent coup in 2018 has only 15% support. The latest poll shows Ortega winning 77%-23% against the opposition.

It is not true that the opposition is being forbidden from running. Some people who took money from the US to stage a violent attempt to overthrow the government have been arrested. Others have had their political privileges revoked for life. This is exactly what should happen to all of the Venezuelan coup-mongers, and some are already under house arrest or have been banned from politics for 15 years. None of these Nicaraguan coup plotters were candidates for any political party.

The US has been trying to insert these traitors in the political parties since 2018, but no party will take them. These are not politicians. They are not even associated with any political party. In fact, there are 17 different political parties running against the Sandinistas in the upcoming election. It’s perfectly legal to be in the opposition in Nicaragua. You only must follow the laws. As in Venezuela, the Nicaraguan contras are only ~25% of the population and they can never win at the ballot box, so they try to overthrow the government by force again.

The thing is that the contras in Cuba are all reactionaries. They wave American flags and they all want to go to neoliberalism. They are rioting because COVID is peaking in Cuba, but even there, Florida, a very wealthy capitalist state in the US, has had twice as many cases per capita and five times as many deaths per capita. In the Latin American countries that the US-flag waving mercenaries emulate, COVID death rates are 10, 20, and 50X higher than in the US.

Even in the “successful” Latin American countries like Chile, COVID has been disastrous. By the way, Chile is hardly a model for Latin America. The place is a disaster.

It’s not some groovy West European social democracy. There are no groovy West European social democracies in Latin America. The people who are trying to emulate just that are Maduro, Ortega, Correa, Fernandez, Lula, Morales, and the recent winner in Peru, Castillo – the ones who are being called Communist Pink Tide countries. An actual Communist is ahead in the polls in Chile and a moderate Leftist appears poised to win even in Colombia, the last holdout of the populist Right.

All of these people who have already served in power have either all been overthrown by the US or there have been attempts to overthrow them.

The US only tolerates hard Right regimes in Latin America. This has always been the case. Part of the problem is that Latin America never had Social Contracts as Europe did. The oligarchs and the Right have always been reactionary and fascist and are to this day.

In contrast, in Europe, the true reactionaries and fascists are all but defeated, and social democracy rules the day. Latin American style Rightists do not exist in Europe. The only thing close to that economically was in Eastern Europe in the Baltics, and these places failed horrifically with the 2008 Depression. Even Poland and the Czech Republic are not so rightwing as everyone thinks.

The most rightwing government in Europe is in the UK, and they are to the Left of the Democratic Party.

Republican Party-Latin American Right economics is unpopular all over the world.

I will grant that it is popular in a few places. It retains majority support in Colombia, but with the recent riots and the genocidal response of the regime to them, this seems to be ending. In Hong Kong and Singapore, two very wealthy more or less “fake states” – fake because these states cannot be replicated elsewhere – rightwing economics remains popular. However, the working classes in Hong Kong mostly support China and hate the rightwing government, and in Singapore, the main opposition party has Marxist roots.

The way of the world seems to be socialism or at least some kind of socialism, at the very least some variety of social democracy. Neoliberalism is disliked or even hated on most of the planet. Bottom line is nobody likes it and nobody wants it. In places where it gets polled as in Latin America, it has the support of 8-27% of the population, with an average of 26% support for the project in general which declines to 8-18% when it comes to the coup-mongering Right that calls for sanctions, violent coups and US interventions. This is the political demographic of the oligarchs and their supporters.

It’s minority now and appears to be minority for quite some time into the future. Economic conservatism and conservatism in general believe in rule by the aristocracy or oligarchy. Liberalism by contrast means rule by democracy or rule by the people. As the aristocrats, oligarchs and their supporters are always a minority – 25-30% seems to be a good ballpark figure, they generally hate democracy and tend to rely on antidemocratic means of getting in and staying in power.

Alt Left: Rural Land Reforms: An Overview

What’s odd is that imperialism went along with land reforms in a lot of other places such as Europe and the Middle East. All of the Middle East has done a land reform.

That was one thing the wave of Arab nationalist leaders who came to power in 1950-1970 did right away, including the Baath in Iraq and Syria, Yemen, Nasser in Egypt, the FLN in Algeria, Tunisia, and Qaddafi in Libya.

I believe there was some type of land reform done in Palestine too. If you read Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian Leftist, in the 1930’s, he talked about how terribly exploited the Arab fellahin or peasants were in Palestine.

If you went to Yemen in the 1960’s, there was a portrait of Nasser in every house.

I’m not sure if a land reform was ever done in Morocco. It’s been ruled by a fairly rightwing king for a long time.

A land reform was probably done in Lebanon, but I don’t have details. Likewise with Jordan.

Nothing grows in the Gulf anyway, so there’s no need for a reform.

I’m not sure about Sudan or Mauritania, but I doubt much grows in Mauritania except date palms.

In all of these places, land reform was a very easy sell for whatever reason, probably because neoliberal capitalism seems to be antithetical to Islam itself. The feudal lords of the former Ottoman Empire had tried to justify feudalism on the basis that in the Koran it says something like, “Some are rich and some are poor, and this is a natural thing” but that never went over too well.

The idea that in an Islamic country, the rich Muslims were viciously exploit the poor Muslims is nearly haram on its face. You just can’t do that. All Muslims are part of the ummah. All the Muslim men are your brothers and all the Muslim women are your sisters. Also individualism never made it to any part of the Muslim World other than the Hindu variety in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but that’s not really the same radical individualism that we have in the West. It’s just an ancient caste based system.

The first thing the Communists did in Eastern Europe was to do a land reform. You will never hear it here in the West, but until 1960, the Communist regimes in the East were very popular with industrial workers and also with the peasants.

In most of the world, peasants and rural dwellers are leftwingers. This is even the case in Western Europe in France.

The US is odd in that it’s farmers are so reactionary. That goes against the usual trend.

Yes, farmers are said to be conservatives, but that usually just means social conservatism. In most of the world, peasants are literally Alt Left: left on economics and right on social and cultural issues.

A land reform was definitely done in Iran.

Obviously one was done in the USSR, and the large landowners have not yet consolidated themselves in the former USSR, mostly because everybody hates them. Large landowners have taken over some of the state farms in Russia, but for whatever reason, they are not very productive. In fact, many of the state farms are still in existence. I am not sure what sort of arrangement they have now.

50% of the food in the Russia comes from small farms, typically grown on dachas. Dachas were vacation homes that were given to all Soviet workers. They were also given a bit of land, enough to grow some crops on. After 1991, all workers were allowed to keep their dachas and small plots. This was a great idea because most of the produce in Russia is coming right off of these farms.

After World War 2, the US supported land reforms in some places as a way of heading off a Communist threat. This is one great thing about the Communists. So many great steps of social progress were only done out of fear or terror that if these were not done, the Communists would take over. Now that that threat is gone, one wonders what motivation the oligarchs have to give up anything.

In particular, land reforms were done in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They went over very easily. And in fact, the subsequent economic growth occurred right on the back of these reforms. There is a good argument that you can never develop a proper economy without first doing a land reform.

First of all, you need to get rid of the problem of rural poverty.

Second of all, you need to feed your own people. Large landowners in these countries typically grow food for export or simply fallow the land and keep it as an income base or a source of wealth.

When crops are grown for export, there is a problem in that the nation does not grow enough food to feed its people. This is a problem in Cuba and Venezuela right now, and it should not be. These are very fertile countries and there is no need to import food, but they have gotten hooked on some sort of “crack” of importing their food for whatever reason, possibly because most of their farmland was being used to grow crops for export.

When a nation can feed itself, this means it can feed its urban workers. This is extremely important and it is part of the reason that Stalin went at such breakneck speed in his collectivization. He had to feed his urban workers so he could industrialize because even back then, he was looking into the future and seeing that he was going to have to fight Hitler.

I’m not quite sure why, but no country seems to be able to properly industrialize and develop as long as the problem of rural poverty exists.

And once you are feeding your own people, you have solved a lot of other problems. Money that would be wasted importing inferior food from the West, especially the US, can now be spent on actual development of a national economy. The elimination of rural poverty gets rid of a constant revolutionary bur in the side of the state.

The US has always opposed land reform in Latin America because large US corporations are usually involved in growing foods for export down there. See Dole Pineapple in Guatemala. We want all of their agricultural land to go for export crops so US corporations can grow those crops or make money importing them. And we do not want them to grow their own food. That way there won’t be so much land for export crops which we need to make money off of.

Also, we want them to spend all of their food money importing lousy processed food from the US. So we make money on food both ways – importing food from crops grown for export to the US and in exporting processed food to the Latin America. This processed food is not very good for you and it is implicated in a lot of health problems in these places.

This is why the US opposes most efforts at land reform in the Americas.

An exception was made in El Salvador. After 200,000 people died, the US and the Salvadoran oligarchs were forced to the negotiating table and a land reform was one of the first things they pushed. I recall a piece written soon afterwards where the reporter went out to the rural areas and interviewed recipients of the land reform. They basically said, “Well, at least we can eat now. It wasn’t like that before.”

In semi-feudal countries, there is debt bondage whereby large landowners rent out their land to sharecroppers or peasants who never seem to get out of debt. This is a very primitive form of development.

The Philippines is notable that there has never been a land reform. And of course they have a vicious Communist insurgency.

Nor has there been one in Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Paraguay, Honduras, or Argentina. The first five countries are horribly screwed up. Colombia and Paraguay have active armed leftwing guerrillas, and Guatemala did for many years. Haiti is a disaster. Honduras has a vicious rightwing dictatorship that has murdered over 1,000 people.

Argentina is mostly urbanized, but the landed rural elite still runs the country. Any talk at all of land reform or even taxation of large estates as was done recently under Christine Fernandez, and the ruling class starts making ominous threats of a coup. I assume something similar is going on in Uruguay. Those countries are urbanized though, so large landownership is not such a problem.

I’m not sure if there has ever been a land reform in Brazil, but there is no dearth of large landowners.

The fact that Colombia, Guatemala, and Haiti are so backwards is largely because there has never been a land reform.

The land reform was incomplete in Venezuela.

It is interesting that every country that fails to do a land reform seems to end up with a Communist or Leftist insurgency at some point or another. It’s almost without fail. This goes to show you that most Communist insurgencies in the Third World are over the most basic things dating all the way back to French Revolution: land and bread (food).

As far as land reforms go, they were done in Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru.

I’m not sure about Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Jamaica, Belize, the Guyanas, Chile, and most of the Caribbean.

And I’m not sure if one ever got done in the Dominican Republic after Bosch.

In El Salvador, 200,000 had to die in order for a land reform to take place. Roberto D’Aubission, the godfather of the Salvadoran death squads and the most favored visitor at the US Embassy, once said that “We will have to kill 200,000 people in order to prevent socialism in El Salvador.” What he meant by socialism was land reform.

It is notable that no land reform was ever done in India, nor in Pakistan or even Bangladesh. I had a friend whose parents were large feudal landowners in Pakistan who rented out land to farmers who ended up in debt peonage. In 1986, 14 million people a year were dying of starvation related diseases in the capitalist world. Most of that was in South Asia in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Most of these deaths were attributed to the problem of the private ownership of land.

There is a problem with the private ownership of land. In the US, we think this is sacrosanct, but on a worldwide basis, it doesn’t work very well. What do you need all that land for? What do you need more than, say, an acre and a house? Nothing, unless you are a farmer.

In China, all land is owned by the state. All homeowners lease the land, often on 100 year leases. I’m not sure how it works in the countryside.

In Mexico, much of the land is owned by the state also, a product of the land reform that occurred after the Revolution. One of the major demands of the Revolution was land reform. Pre-revolution, most peasants usually lived like serfs. The state land in Mexico is called ejidos.

If you ever can’t make it in the city, if you become unemployed or homeless, you can always go out to the countryside and take up residence in an ejido, which are something like communal lands that are formed by the group that makes up the ejido. You join this group, work the land, and get a share of the crop. At least you have enough food to eat. So in Mexico the ejidos are a stopgap measure.

In China too, if you can’t make it in the city, you can always go back to the rural areas, take up residence, and work the land. At least you will have enough to food to eat. It is illegal to be homeless in China. If you are homeless, the police pick you up and put you in shelters, which are something like college dorms. They also encourage you to go back to the countryside if you have relatives back there. In recent years, many people have moved from the countryside to the cities to make more money. Those that don’t make it can always move back to the farm.

There was debate a while back about privatizing state land, but it ran aground on the idea that the state ownership of land was necessary as a stopgap measure in the event of urban poverty. In addition, state ownership of land has prevented the development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been adamant that the  development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy must be prevented at all costs. Once they develop, they are sort of like an infection in that they soon spread and take over society. The CCP has billionaire party members who are members of the People’s Assembly.

Guess what these “Communists” are advocating for? Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy. I think this goes to show you that billionaires are the same everywhere. Whether in a Communist or capitalist country, a rightwing or leftwing country, billionaires always have precisely the same class interests that barely vary at all. It’s usually something like this:

Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy.

This goes to show that class interests of various classes are nearly a  law in a mathematical sense and not even a theory of social science. This was what Marx was getting at when he spoke of the laws of economics. They are so predictable that we can almost class them with the laws, theorems, and corollaries of mathematics instead of the typical “true for now” theories of most of the sciences.

I have a feeling that a Hell of a lot more things are laws, too, especially in terms of basic human behavior. So many of these things seem almost unchangeable. Of course they would never apply to everyone, but it’s pretty obvious that they are general tendencies.

Alt Left: “The Macroeconomics of Economic Populism in Latin America,” by Rudiger Dornbush and Sebastian Edwards

I didn’t actually read the book, but James Schipper did. Below I will quote from an article from NACLA that critiques the book well.

James Schipper: Perón came back from exile, and then won the election with a landslide. Unless the Argentines are complete political idiots, this demonstrates that he tried to accomplish something for the masses. Ordinary voters may not understand much about economics, but they usually sense who is on their side and who is not.

The US, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia are three Anglosphere countries that keep voting for rightwing economics despite themselves. The masses have been harmed by neoliberalism in all of these countries, but every four years, they march off and vote for it again. I think part of the problem is that ordinary people are voting against mass immigration and other leftwing stupidities in all of these countries. They don’t realize that neoliberalism comes as an add-on to anti-immigrant policies in the Anglosphere. Voters in the Anglosphere are political idiots.

You can see why people keep voting for the Chavistas in Venezuela. Sure, the economy is a mess, but no one blames the government. 70% of the population openly state that they are Chavistas. Things may be bad now but they know that the opposition is not their friend! This is why they keep voting for Ortega in Nicaragua, Lukashenko in Belarus, and Putin in Russia. These guys are on their side, and the voters can figure that out.

James Schipper: Many years ago, I read a book called The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, in which it is explained how leftist populists in LA, despite their unquestioned commitment to improving the economic lot of the poorest segment of the population, often fail because they overreach.

Wikipedia has an article called Macroeconomic Populism, which explains briefly how overambitious economic populism can backfire.

I would agree that acting too fast too soon isn’t a great idea and a slower approach might work better. But we don’t see a lot of cases of economic stupidity like this nowadays in Latin America.

Yes, I think that book is not good. One man worked for the World Bank. Their basic attitude is “Don’t rely on government to try to fix economic problems and help the poor. It fails every time.” In other words, it’s hopeless. Massive inequality a problem? Sure. What to do? Nothing! Because everything you do is going to fail. I dunno.

Here is a critique of the book:

https://nacla.org/news/2012/4/20/latin-america-unravels-populist-putdown

The book is referred to in this book review of another book as “an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.”

From the article.

Rudiger Dornbush, and Sebastian Edwards, two University of Chicago-trained economists.

See? They were both trained at the University of Chicago. That’s the home of Milton Friedman, neoliberalism, the Chicago Boyz, the neoliberal whiz kids who caused so much destruction all over the world, especially in Latin America. UoC/Friedmanite economics doesn’t work. Period. It causes massive inequality, significant gains for the top 20% and a serious drop in income for the bottom 80%. This is exactly what happened from 1980-1992 under Reagan-Bush. Sure, if you are in the top 20%, I would say neoliberal economics is the way to go. But if you’re not, it’s economic suicide.

They complain about D and E’s portrayal of Chile:

The most astonishing example of the book’s studied ignorance happens to be one of the most indisputable and well-documented examples of U.S. intervention: Chile.

According to Chapter 7 of Dornbush and Edwards’ book, written by Felipe Larraín (currently Chile’s Finance Minister) and Patricio Meller, the “decline and full collapse of the [Allende coalition government] experiment during the years 1972-73 is a clear consequence of the ‘successful’ overexpansive policies implemented in 1971.”

Never mind that Nixon reacted to the 1970 elections determined to “smash Allende,” telling then-CIA director Richard Helms to “make the economy scream.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh details the earliest destabilization campaigns, carried out even before Allende took office:

Approval was granted for a last-minute increase of the propaganda activities designed to convince the Chilean Congress that an Allende election would mean financial chaos. Within two weeks, twenty-three journalists from at least ten countries were brought into Chile by the CIA, and they combined with CIA propaganda “assets” already in place to produce more than 700 articles and broadcasts both in and out of Chile before the congressional election – a staggering total whose ultimate influence cannot be measured.

By late September, a full-fledged bank panic had broken out in Santiago, and vast amounts of funds were being transferred abroad. Sales of durable goods, such as automobiles and household goods, fell precipitously; industrial production also dropped. Black-market activities soared as citizens sought to sell their valuables at discounted prices.

Ok that’s a case of capital flight. Venezuela had the same problem. All I can say is that it upholds Lenin’s idea that the peaceful road to socialism, while a great idea in theory, simply never works in real life because the capitalists simply sabotage the economy.

Larraín and Meller mention Nixon, Kissinger, Richard Helms, I.T.T., and/or Pepsi precisely zero times in their scholarly analysis. Whereas U.S. Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry threatened that “not a nut or bolt will be allowed to reach Chile under Allende,” doing “all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.”

Like I said, they failed badly to include the US massive economic war it waged against Chile. The same exact program was used against Venezuela, with the same results. The sanctions on Zimbabwe and Nicaragua also caused hyperinflation.

The only hyperinflation I’ve seen lately was caused by capitalists waging economic war against the state or by US sanctions. Usually both are going on at the same time. In Venezuela, the capitalists won’t stop raising prices. They love the hyperinflation because they’ve used it to play the currency black market to make a bundle. And they deliberately created it by shutting down production and hoarding goods.

At one point, Maduro put the army in charge of enforcing price controls, and the inflation stabilized for a while, but then they were withdrawn and they went back up again. However, after floating the currency along with a drop in the value of real wages and a reduction of most people’s savings, inflation was subdued. I’d hate to see these guys’ analysis of Venezuela. In fact, Krugman is already saying that Venezuela and Argentina are modern cases of this macroeconomic populism.

The authors argue instead that all state efforts to create a decent economy will fail and the only thing that will work is neoliberalism.

The authors explain that “the message emerging from the papers in this book is clear: the use of macroeconomic policy to achieve distributive goals has historically led to failure, sorrow, and frustration.” That’s why they helpfully disabuse Latin America of its “naive confidence in the ability of governments to cure all social and economic ills.”

However, neoliberalism doesn’t work either:

Second, it is worth noting that Cambridge development economist Ha-Joon Chang has analyzed the effects of these supposedly self-defeating macro policies. He finds on the contrary that “developing countries did not do badly at all during the ‘bad old days’ of protectionism and state intervention in the 1960s and 70s. In fact, their economic growth performance during the period was far superior [3.1% in per capita GDP a year for Latin America] to that achieved since the 1980s under greater opening and deregulation [1.1% a year from 1980-2009].

…And even that rate was partly due to the rapid growth of countries in the region that had explicitly rejected neoliberal policies sometime earlier in the 2000s  – Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela.” In fact, when Dornbush and Edwards published their book in 1991 denouncing “overly expansive” macro policies, Latin America and the Caribbean – largely compliant to IMF diktats at that point – had already averaged an entire decade of negative 0.3% growth rate per capita (1980-1990).

If you are going to read books about economics, I recommend Ha-Joon Chang. As you can see, neoliberalism in Latin America failed completely. Even its proponents admitted that it failed, but their attitude was the usual, “We didn’t give it time enough. Give it some more time and it will start working.” Yeah, right.

Larraín and Meller focus their attention exclusively on the macroeconomic policy errors of Allende’s Unidad Popular (UP) government. Its efforts to “increase real wages and to improve Chilean income distribution failed completely,” they contend, dryly adding that it “took eight years, up to 1981 (during the ‘peak of the boom’), for real wages to recover the level they had held in 1970 before the UP government.”

Larraín and Meller omit from this account Pinochet’s post-1973 reign of terror in which tens of thousands were imprisoned and killed and an economic policy during the dictatorship that led to virtually no growth in per capita income by 1986, 13 years after the coup.

See? Neoliberalism didn’t work either. It took until 11 years after Allende for real wages to reach the level they were under Allende. Then there was an economic crash. I believe it took until 1989 for wages to reach the level they were under Allende again. That’s just a complete failure of neoliberalism over 20 years.

Perhaps the paper’s most artful flourish is the cynical use of the impersonal, passive voice. Nixon directed a comprehensive program of economic sabotage literally bearing Secretary of State Kissinger’s signature. The U.S. funded all major anti-government strikes, the CIA penetrated all of Chile’s political parties, and it courted the military to foment a putsch.

From D and E:

Real wages dropped spectacularly, by -11.3% in 1972 and -38.6% in 1973. This last figure includes a 30% cut induced in the fourth quarter of 1973, after the military coup…[B]y the end of 1971 the signals of disequilibrium were clear for a dispassionate observer. Bottlenecks appeared in strength during 1972, and 1973 witnessed the collapse of the whole experiment. Political instability mounted, and a coup ultimately replaced the UP Government with a military junta [emphases mine].

It was all Allende’s fault. All of the economic sabotage and the economic war the US waged to make the economy scream? That did nothing at all! Seems like a very bad analysis.

Guys like D and E are still writing today:

Today, U.S. scholars carry on the dubious tradition of lambasting Latin American populism, whatever its prevailing definition. Due to South America’s general drift to the left in recent years, academics make increasingly strained attempts to “recognize” and discredit it. In an October 2011 paper entitled Decreasing Inequality Under Latin America’s ‘Social Democratic’ and ‘Populist’ Governments: Is the Difference Real?,”Juan Montecino of the Center for Economic and Policy Research highlights the “arbitrary and ill-defined nature” of this endeavor.

Montecino politely dismantles the findings of economists Darryl McLeod and Nora Lustig, who purport to show that “social democratic” regimes did better than “left-populist” ones in reducing inequality in recent years. He shows that their empirical results are reversed when one runs the same regressions using data from the Economic Commission for Latin America. The paper raises questions as to whether their categories capture “anything more than a general antipathy toward one group of governments.”

In other words, they faked the data.

Unsurprisingly, this antipathy is directed toward three of the four countries Ha-Joon Chang highlights for experiencing growth after rejecting neoliberal policies: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Their enemies now are those three countries. Simon Johnson attacks Latin American populism in the case of Argentina:

Johnson has referred to Argentina as “a country that struggles over many decades (and whose leaders frequently rail against the world) and for which episodes of reasonable prosperity and new economic models are punctuated by gut-wrenching crises.”

In the case of Argentina’s last gut-wrenching crisis in 2001, however, the “IMF’s fingerprints” were all over it, wrote macroeconomist Mark Weisbrot, CEPR’s co-director and Argentina expert, in late 2001. “It arranged massive amounts of loans – including $40 billion [in 2000] – to support the [overvalued] Argentine peso,” writes Weisbrot. Then it “made its loans conditional on a ‘zero-deficit’ policy for Argentine government.”

By doing so, the IMF was able to “convince most of the press that Argentina’s ‘profligate’ spending habits [were] the source of its troubles.” Finally, the IMF – an organization Tim Geithner recently considered essential for promoting U.S. foreign policy – implausibly claimed it had always been against the overvalued peso and that the loans were made in order to placate the Argentine government.

The IMF caused the problem with orthodox neoliberalism and then blamed the government for “profligate spending” because they ordered it to read zero-deficit, a goal which itself caused the crisis.

See? They’re making it up.

Second, Johnson seems to portray the country as wracked by serious, ongoing difficulties. But Weisbrot et al. demonstrate that since defaulting and devaluing, Argentina – widely considered ‘populist’ – expanded 94% from 2002–11 (the fastest growth in the hemisphere), reaching its pre-recession level of GDP in three years, tripling real social spending over seven years, reducing poverty and extreme poverty by two-thirds (using independent estimates of inflation), and achieving record levels of employment.

Their paper also demolishes the myth repeated by many economists – including McLeod and Lustig – that Argentina’s success was largely the effect of a serendipitous commodities boom.

See? Populism worked great in Argentina. It also worked great in Venezuela (before the economic war combined with the collapse in oil prices killed the economy), Ecuador, and Bolivia.

The devastating policies of the past in Latin America, as well as the more successful policies of vastly more independent governments over the past decade, are intimately tied up with Washington’s control over the hemisphere and the recent collapse of its influence – especially in South America. Roger Morris, a staffer at the National Security Council until mid-1970, clarified such considerations for Seymour Hersh:

“I don’t think anybody ever fully grasped that Henry [Kissinger] saw Allende as being a far more serious threat than Castro. If Latin America ever became unraveled, it never would happen with a Castro. Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America…Chile scared him.”

The devastating economics of the past in Latin America were caused by the US waging economic war on countries that practiced populist economics. This same populism has worked much better now because the influence of the US has greatly fallen in the continent.

The U.S. government has long imposed double standards on the permissibility of social reforms. While instrumental to Allende’s overthrow abroad, the Nixon administration could boast progressive domestic achievements, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, widely considered one of the most important anti-poverty programs in U.S. history.

Similarly, Lyndon Johnson enacted Great Society programs at home but sent thousands of troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 to quell an uprising demanding the restitution of the deposed social democratic president, Juan Bosch. A liberal wishing to implement land reforms, Bosch was the subject of an FBI espionage and interception operation authorized by J. Edgar Hoover in the months preceding the rebellion, as Bosch sat exiled in Puerto Rico.

See? Liberalism at home. Fascism abroad. That’s the policy prescription of the US under Democrats and liberal Republicans. Also note the FBI overthrew him. The FBI was deeply involved in the lawfare against Brazil that resulted in the false charges being filed against Lula that put him in prison. See? The FBI literally overthrew Lula in Brazil. The FBI are not just pigs; they’re the worst pigs of them all – feds. And it is a deeply political and always reactionary organization. Fuck the FBI.

Perhaps unknowingly, Johnson is simply keeping within the permissible framework of an intellectual culture that has always accommodated and justified Washington’s hypocrisy. To my knowledge, Johnson has yet to apply his support for “standing up to the banks…proposing a more responsible course of action than that preferred by the banking elite,” and “greater transparency in financial transactions” to the IMF, which has conducted most of its deliberations, meetings, and consultations in secret.

Simon Johnson is pro-IMF, like the authors of that book.

On the The New York Times website, he offhandedly dismisses Latin American populism with a reference to an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book – all in an article that challenges the U.S. elite by praising populism. This is a compelling example of the imperial double standard that keeps “pro-populist” commentators from seeing what is going on in developing countries.

The book you are praising is referred to an “outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.” I believe that is correct.

But even if the Times’ readers never learn of Latin America’s protracted struggle for self-determination against U.S. power, the region is now a breeding ground for the most constructive values associated with populism. More than a decade of successful revolts has allowed for the elections of independent left governments in most of South America and has brought enormous gains to the poor majority through greater economic sovereignty and democratic social reform. Or as Kissinger might put it, Latin America has unraveled.

See? For the last 20 years, excellent populist economic policies in Latin America have brought enormous gains for the poor majority. According to E and D, it should have been catastrophic.

Alt Left: Right and Left in Islamic and Catholic Societies

If you’re not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and cheering the people doing the oppressing.

Malcolm X

This is precisely the function of the media in a capitalist society. The Chinese media is not like this because, duh, China is not a capitalist country! Nor is the Iranian media because Iran is not a capitalist country. In fact, Iran is almost something like “Islamic Communism.” I’m not wild about Ayatollah Khomeini, but he did have a strong social justice streak.

The Revolution was populist, pro-independence, and anti-imperialist. Iran is almost based on a Muslim version of Liberation Theology or “the preferential option of the poor.” The social safety net is huge in Iran. Also, much of the economy is run by the state. It’s actually run by religious charities, often with ties to the military and the IRGC. I believe these religious charities do not operate at a profit. Small businesses are not bothered at all, as in all Muslim countries. I was reading Ayatollah Khameini’s tweets for a while on Twitter, and I could have been reading Che Guevara. Basically the same message.

Islam is just not friendly to neoliberal economics or radical individualism. It is a very collectivist religion in a very collectivist society.

Neoliberalism hasn’t caught on much of anywhere in the Muslim world other than Indonesia and the Southern Philippines, and they had to murder 1 million Communists in cold blood to get there in Indonesia and the Moros have always rejected Catholic rule in both a political and economic sense. it is notable that the Maoist NPA are also huge in Mindanao, home of the Moros.

Pakistan, too, has inherited the selfish economics and even feudalism in land tenure straight from Indian Hinduism. They even have caste, which would be considered an aberration in any decent Muslim society.

All of the Arab countries are basically socialist at least in name, and that was never a hard sell there. It’s true that 100 years ago, the Arab lands were mostly feudal in nature, with big landowners and peasants in debt bondage. They rich had co-opted the religious authorities like they always do, and the mullahs preached that Islamic feudalism was right and proper because the Prophet had said, “It is normal that some are rich and some are poor.” But it was always a hard sell, and it had a very weak foundation.

After independence, socialism was instituted in most if not all Arab countries at least in name. In particular, huge land reforms were done in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Palestine. I assume something like that was done in Algeria too. It was a very easy sell, and everyone went along with it without a hitch. The mullahs quickly changed from support for feudalism to support for socialism.

Hamas rules Gaza and I was shocked at how huge the social safety net is. The many religious charities run the safety net, which is distributed under the rubric of Islam. This is done instead of the state doling it out.

Mohammad himself didn’t have much to say about economics, but he wasn’t a neoliberal capitalist or a feudalist.

In Christian societies, the rich have utter contempt and hatred for the poor, who they regard as little more than human garbage. If you want to see this philosophy in action, look at the classism in Latin America. As all Muslims are part of the umma, and hence, as all are brothers and sisters, it is simply unconscionable that wealthy Muslims would be able to openly hate poor Muslims. You simply cannot treat your fellow Muslims like that. It’s not officially haram but it might as well be.

European Style Fascism in the Middle East

It is instructive that the only place in the Arab world where neoliberal economics and in particular Libertarianism took hold was in Lebanon, and even there, it was only among Catholic Maronites. Most Arab Christians look east to Antioch (and before that, Constantinople) to the Eastern Orthodox church, which is really just the eastern wing of Catholicism.

The Maronites, though, deride Antioch and instead look to Rome. They see themselves as European people instead of Arabs. Many deny that they are Arabs and instead refer to themselves as “Phoenicians.” It is interesting that the only real classical fascism in the Arab World  took hold in the Lebanese Maronites, where the Gameyels imported it from Europe in the 1930’s.

The Jews of Israel also developed a very European form of fascism starting with Jabotinsky and his book The Iron Wall in 1921. This man was an open fascist. He is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party. During the 1940’s, the armed Jewish rebels split into leftwingers who were almost Communists and rightwingers who were more or less fascists.

The Kahanists today look a lot like a European fascist party. And in fact, the entire Israeli rightwing around Likud, etc. looks pretty fascist in a European sense. So Israeli Jews are really Jewish fascists or fascist Jews. It has never been an easy ride for liberal and secular US Jews to support the Orthodox religious fanatics and rightwingers if not out and out fascists in the Likud, etc. in Israel. This was always completely unstable, and after that latest war, it’s finally starting to fall apart. But the seeds of destruction were already there.

But note that the Jews of Israel very much look to the West and see themselves as Europeans (which many are for all intents and purposes). They align themselves with the Judeo-Christian European society that many of them came from.

Half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi Jews from the Arab World, and they have always had a Judeo-Islamic culture. However, when they moved to Israel, this was dismantled by perhaps not entirely. They rejected it due to the association of Arabs and Islam with the enemy, which is correct.

Economics and Catholicism

This radical classism and near-feudalism in Latin America was supported by the Catholic Church, which was always a very rightwing institution because they were always in bed with the rich. There were always Left splits in Catholicism like Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker. The Catholic clergy in the US has tended to be quite leftwing.

There is a long history of “Catholic Communism” in the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the Basque Country, France, Italy, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay. The IRA was a leftwing Catholic armed group. A lot of priests were caught hiding IRA cadre. So was the ETA in the Basque Country of Spain.

Catholic Leftism never caught on in Poland and Lithuania due to hatred of Russia and the USSR. Nevertheless, both are more or less socialist countries.

Even today there is an active “Catholic Communist” movement in Cuba that is very lively. In Honduras and Colombia, Catholic priests actually led guerrilla bands. Liberation Theoloy is something like “Jesus Christ with an AK-47.” The Leftist who recently took power in Paraguay was a former Catholic priest.

The ELN was founded by a priest, Camilo Torres, and many Catholic clergy even supported the Shining Path! Edith Lagos, a 20 year old woman, was the leader of a very early Shining Path column in Peru. She was killed in 1980 and the entire town of Ayacucho, 30,0000 people, came out for her funeral which was held at midnight. The lines of mourners stretched through the whole city. All of the priests in town blessed her body, and she was given a proper Catholic funeral.

I believe that the PT or Workers Party of Brazil has a large Liberation Theology component. The Catholic clergy had an excellent relationship with the FARC in Colombia. Of course, the Catholic clergy played a big role in Venezeula, and Hugo Chavez himself was a practicing Catholic. The FMLN Salvadoran rebels were explicitly Catholic, as were the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One of the Sandinists’ top leaders, Tomas Borge, was a Catholic priest. Jean-Paul Aristide in Haiti was a Catholic priest. Catholic believers are now allowed to join the Communist Party in Cuba, and near the end of his life, Fidel Castro said he was a “cultural Catholic.”

After Vatican 2 and Liberation Theology began to spread out via the seminal documents written by Gustavo Gutierrez in Brazil, “A Theology of Liberation,” otherwise known as “exercising the preferential option for the poor,” it began to spread in Latin America. It started with local priests and especially Catholic lay workers in impoverished areas and then slowly spread. Even today, Catholic layworkers and especially seminaries are very leftwing, while the Vatican itself is not. A lot of seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality, and the gay priests and lay workers are quite open about it. It is estimated that 15% of Catholic priests are gay.

Alt Left: Russia Is An Aggressor Country – They’re Hitting Us Back!

The West has constructed a narrative that Russia is a lying, coup-mongering, murderous, terrorist, aggressive, expansionist country. The problem is that this is all projection. It is actually the West, as in NATO, that is all of these things.

Large entities have been set up to fight “Russian disinformation.” Having studied the question for a long time now, the only disinformation is coming out of the West. The Russian “disinformation” is instead the closest thing to the truth! At least in terms of international geopolitics, where the US and now the West are barely known for their honesty.

After the fall of the USSR, the terrorist organization called NATO had nothing to do. So they had to invent a threat in order to continue their unnecessary existence, which is sleazy and disgusting.

The West colonized Russia under Yeltsin and stripped the country bare using a lot of (((Russian traitors))) who sold the country off for 10 cents on the dollar.. A note about the coincidence marks. The traitors weren’t all Jews. More like a lot of them were and even there, a lot of Russian Gentiles worked with them. But they definitely worked with their (((pals))) in New York and Tel Aviv to strip Russia bare. Why? International Jewry has hated Russia forever.

I guess this was the payback. Some Russian Jews are ok. There’s a righteous Jew on Twitter called Jewish Russiaphile. He’s a Russian Jew who is unabashedly pro-Russian. But these are not common. Meanwhile a lot of the Russian “Jews” who “fled” to Israel are barely even Jewish. The Jews have paid for this conceit now by the fact that these more or less Russian Gentiles have now formed literal White Supremacist gangs in Israel. Do the Jews ever think there might be a backlash to some of their machinations?

The Jews and the Russians have been going at it forever in and around the Pale and in other places. Russian Jews are the worst Gentile haters of them all. They literally fix Bloody Marys and say they are drinking the blood of Russian Gentiles.

It’s a Hatfields and McCoys thing where everyone acknowledges there’s a blood feud but no one seems to know who started it or why. What is little acknowledged is that when the Jews moved into or more properly were herded into the Pale, they proceeded to savagely abuse the Slavic peasants there economically.

Yes, there were pogroms against Jews and they were terrible.

But those were set off by the Czarists in order to deflect criticism of the Royals. “Hate the King? No! Don’t hate the King? He’s good! Go kill those Jews over there!” Yet the Russian Jews were in bed with the Royalty if I am not mistaken. Many peasant rebellions in Medieval Europe targeted Jews because the Jews had become tax collectors for the feudal lords who abused the serfs. Come time for the villagers with torches, the lords could not be found, ensconced in castles and forts. The Jews instead were an easy target. But it was their fault in a way for lining up with the enemies of the people.

15 million Russians died under Yeltsin when Russia was reduced to a raped and plundered Western colony. The US made many promises at this time about not extending the terrorist organization called NATO to Russia’s doorstep and then proceeded to violate every one of them.

Russians were humiliated when Yeltsin turned Russia into the supplicant, abused slave of the bankers in (((New York))), (((Tel Aviv))), and Frankfurt. Granted the German banksters were Gentiles.

Russians, unlike Americans, know who their enemies are. They elected Putin because he figured that out. Under Putin, the way the Russians see it is one man is fighting back! Against the invasion of the West, that is. This is the message.

The US has also surrounded Russia with military bases, not just in the the terrorist organization called NATO but also to the East in Central Asia. As usual, we project this aggression onto the victims by claiming that Russia is expansionist and the West is just a poor victim.

Well, there are two kinds of people in geopolitics, bad and worse. Geopolitics is a dirty game and non-psychopaths need not apply.

Don’t ever think any of our sleazy Western leaders is 1% more decent or honest than Mr. Putin. In fact, he has them all outclassed.

Alexei Navalny, the “Russian oppositionist,” is a pathetic drama queen. He has 2% support in Russia – some opposition!

His fake rallies (riots) get broken up because he refuses to hold them in designated places and instead holds illegal rallies in other places where they are not allowed. When that’s not enough, his minions run out into the street and block traffic so they can get arrested and scream persecution. When the cops come to arrest them, they attack the police. Poor victims!

Russia and Belarus recently uncovered a CIA plot hatched under “liberal Democrat” Biden murder Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, and kill most of the Legislature of Belarus. That was a CIA plot. As soon as it was uncovered, how did the West respond? The Western cucks in Czechia made up something about Russia agents blowing up a depot and threw out 18 Russian diplomats. Except Czech intelligence determined at the time that it was accidental.

See that “stolen election” in Belarus? Granted the process is not fair, but I assure you that Lukashenko got 80% of the votes. There were two good exit polls done, and they both got 80%. He always gets 70-80%. The Belarus opposition are pro-Western traitor neoliberals who wish to privatize the whole place, throw half the country out of their jobs, and rip up the safety net so there’s nothing left after they’re on the streets.

Not to mention that as everywhere in East, “anti-Russian” and “Nazi” are synonyms. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Ukraine are Nazi countries. The leaders are unapologetic Nazis, and there are statues to Nazi war heroes all over these countries. Of course, the Belarus opposition are Nazis too, including the schoolteacher who ran for office that last time. Nobody likes the Belarus opposition.

Everyone knows Navalny is a traitor and a spy who works for MI6.

He deliberately stayed in Germany, breaking his consent decree in his legal case. His previous 3.5 year sentence for stealing $1 million was suspended by the evil, Navalny-hating judge! I see the judicial system in Russia is real biased against Navalny. Not.  Instead of checking in with parole like he was supposed to, he stayed in Germany. He did this to provoke a crisis and force an arrest so he can cry victim.

There is a real opposition in Russia – the Communist Party and Zhirinovsky – the patriotic opposition – and they both oppose Putin. They amount to 20% of the electorate.

I’ve talked to Russians about Navalny and the Westernizers. Their response? “Oh, you mean the traitors! We Russians don’t call them the opposition. We just call them the traitors.”

The Russia Today website is full of Russia-haters in the comments. Yet 95%+ of Russian commenters on Russia Today absolutely despise Navalny.

No one was ever poisoned, there is no Novichok in Russia, nor is it being used to poison anyone anywhere. All of those fake poisonings were done to frame Russia.

It was Ukraine that M17 shot that jet down, not Russia. They did it to frame the Russians.

There were no Russian agents blowing stuff up in Czechia. It was a lie made up to frame Russia.

There was no Russian Four Winds hack – that was done by our best pal, Israel. No country spies on us and has penetrated more of our state institutions than Israel, but no one can say a peep about it. Because of that, we lied and said Russia did the hack in order to frame it.

The US, “the air force of ISIS” helped ISIS kill two Russian generals. There is no way that ISIS had the intelligence and capability to target those generals at the distance they did.

The US and the Kurd traitors lured 200 Wagner mercenaries into a trick and a trap and killed them. Remember that case where “200 Russian mercenaries and a pro-Assad militia tried to steal an oil field from the Kurds?” First of all, that oil field belongs to Syria, not to the Kurdish traitors and US occupiers.

Second of all, there had been agreement between the Kurds and the militia and their mercenary friends for the Kurds to withdraw from the oil field and hand it over to the Assad militia. About a week later, the US suddenly ordered the Kurds to withdraw. The Assad militia and the mercenaries figured that the deal had been done and moved in to take the field according to the plan. At that point, the US screamed that “the Assad militia and the Russian mercenaries were trying to steal an oil field!” We called in bombers and bombed both parties mercilessly in the middle of the night. ~200 Russian mercenaries were killed. As you can see, they were lured into a trap so they could be killed.

The beached whale known as Mike “Fat Fuck” Pompeo gleefullly announced the next day that the US had “killed 200 Russians” who were trying to steal and oil field. Some Pentagon spokesman also made some comments along the lines of how fun it was to kill all those Russians. Think maybe the US is trying to provoke Russia by luring all those Russians into a trap, killing them, and then gloating about it while seeming to dare Russia to retaliate?

I’m not even sure that the double agent in the UK many years ago was poisoned with plutonium, not that he didn’t deserve it. A retired high ranking agent in French intelligence says MI6 poisoned him to frame Russia. I would not put much of anything based MI6 psychopaths.

One NATO false flag and provocation after another.

Russia regards extending NATO to Ukraine as an existential threat and of course they are correct. This is one more provocation being done to bait Russia into attacking Ukraine. Then we will slam the sanctions on them. In part this is a last-ditch attempt by the US to stop the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which is on the final legs of its construction in Northern Germany.

And if Russia takes the bait, many more sanctions will be piled onto Russia, including the worst sanction of all – throwing Russia out of the SWIFT system, the international system for transferring money among banks used by most countries in the world. Russia has stated that being thrown out of SWIFT would be an act of war. Let’s see what happens.

Alt Left: Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

There Is No Society

Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.

Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.

Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.

Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.

I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.

Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.

Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.

Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.

I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.

They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.

They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.

They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: Keynesianism, Social Liberalism, and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism, Social Liberalism and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism isn’t sustainable because the inevitable reactions against it will always swing neoliberal. So Keynesianism simply gives way to neoliberalism. Not to mention that they entire corporate class despises Keynesianism so they wage war against it the whole time it’s in. The corporate class wants neoliberalism and only neoliberalism all over the world. They have since the 1500’s. My brother had to read various tracts for his political science degree. One was by a businessman in Italy in the 1500’s.

He could have been Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan. He had no use for the state at all and preferred it to exist at as low a level as possible. He wanted absolutely nothing out of the state and mostly just wanted it to get the Hell out of the way and leave him alone as much as possible. He had no use for society either, as he felt it didn’t even exist. All that existed was money and the things you could buy and sell with it. So you see, capitalists haven’t changed since their birth in nascent form in Italy 500 years ago. They’ve always been the same and they’ll always be the same. It has to do with a Marxist notion called “the laws of economics.”

Alt Left: The Alternative Left Is Failing Just Like Liberal Race Realism Failed.

Bartleby TDV: I’m not sure. I’ve given up trying to decide. Whaddya think??

I think I’m just “alt-” for now. It’s like all these gender types they pull out of their asses.

I’m alt-neutral.

I just hate elites and I want to see them disappear from the planet. So we can revert to some primitive society and in about 2,000 years we’ll have a whole new crop of them, but that’s a long way off.

I don’t know. What are your views on economics? Right and left is mostly about economics. All the rest is just BS. Scott Alexander and I are Alt Left – anti-PC, anti-SJW, anti-woke, anti-Cultural Left liberals and Leftists. The others are just rightwingers, especially Mercer, Hansen, and Bloody Shovel. I’m a “conservative socialist.” A socially conservative liberal to Left socialist. I wouldn’t link to those three if you paid me. I really dislike reactionary politics. I’ve looked at your site and you are 100% down with Trumpian conservatism. Which is just fine, of course. You’re right at home on this site.

Sadly the link between culture and economics is as deep as ever. Everyone who has had it up to here with the woketards decides that they are “conservatives” and need to vote Republican. I keep telling people that they can mix and match and be left on some things and right on others, but basically 0% of the people I talk to follow my advice.

The problem of course is that PC, SJWism, the Cultural Left, Identity Politics, and Woketardism is seen by 100% of the population as “the Left.” It’s also seen as “the Democratic Party”, “liberals”, “liberalism”, the DNC, on and on. And of course in a sense it is. It seems that the very idea of a liberal-Left that is opposed to PC and SJW retardation is seen by almost everyone as simply not possible.

For instance, for a long time, the only people who ever read here are rightwingers. And here I am, practically a Communist, and my site is nothing but conservatives. Liberals and Leftists come here sometimes, but we’ve always had White Supremacists on here, and the first time they open their mouths, these guys take off. Or the first time I start spouting my social conservatism.

The idea of socially conservative liberals and Leftists simply does not compute. I’m starting to wonder if I’m the only one.

How many people mix and match? I am starting to think zero. None, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. If you’re against PC insanity, you go rightwing on everything and I do mean everything. Against mass immigration? You go full rightwing Republican on everything. Race realist? 99% of race realists are hardline reactionaries? Against the insanity and idiocy of modern feminism? You go rightwing and usually hard rightwing at that. I think that Liberal and Left anti-feminists and MRA’s basically just don’t exist at all.

The problem of course is that everyone on the Left who sees through the stupidity of ID politics gets thrown out of the Left, and boy do they throw you out hard! They also call you Republican, conservative, reactionary, and especially fascist and Nazi. I’ve been called all these things so many times that I have started to believe that this is what I actually am. I have searched all of the conservative and reactionary movements in the US and the world over and I dislike or despise almost all of them. I simply hate the very notion of conservatism itself. It’s crap. I’ve started to wonder if I was a fascist or a Third Positionist or a National Bolshevik. I can’t be any of those things. They’re all just fascists. I searched through all variations of fascism abroad including Third Positionism, Strasserism, and National Bolshevism, and while it is more appealing on economics, the rest of it is simply horrible. I despise anything that even smells like fascism. It’s a monstrous ideology. I can never support it.

The only project I might be able to get with is the Russian conservatism of Vladimir Putin. Russian conservatism is the left of the Democratic Party on most important things, although there is an element of social conservatism running through it. I dislike the autocratic nature of Putin’s rule.

Lukashenko in Belarus is similar. He is even more left than Putin but he’s also a social conservative. He’s also much more of a dictator than Putin, albeit he is quite a popular dictator, with 80% support. Both of them crack down on minority languages as they are both nationalists involved in a nation-building project, Putin’s around the Russian language and Belarus’ around the same, believe it or not.

People on the Left like me who despise the woketards get cancelled and deplatformed everywhere on Earth to the point where the only places I can post at are rightwing websites. I despise rightwing politics.

I created the Alt Left to create a safe space for liberals and Leftists who had had it up to here with the Woketard Left, but it seems it’s as much of a pipe dream now as when it started. At one point, we had 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook. I renounced most of them. Some were just warmed over Cultural Leftism, such as anti-TERF feminists, trannies, and gays.

Many others were just rightwingers. A vast number were Libertarians, Ancaps, etc. I had to go around and keep renouncing all of the new factions sparking up because it was nothing but rightwingers and reactionaries, at least on economics. Quite a few were simply Muslim-haters. These are pretty much Cultural Left on everything except Islam. And they’re all hard right on economics, 100% of them, no exceptions. Not one person on the Left will speak against Islam, and as soon as anyone does, they quickly move all the way to the Right.

A continuous problem in all Alt Left groups was continuous invasion by conservatives. We had to keep throwing them out. And a lot of even the top Alt Lefties were not very leftwing. Most were hardcore capitalists, albeit being opposed to neoliberalism and supporting Keynesianism.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

If you haven’t noticed, there’s no more social democracy or democratic socialism in Europe. Probably the only thing left is Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, and Russia. Possibly Iceland because they told the banks to go pound sand. Greece elected a Leftist government, Syriza, that quickly went full-blown neoliberal, reportedly out of necessity. What has happened to social democracy is something that any Marxist could have predicted – the incompatibility of even trying to have any sort of socialist society in the midst of a capitalist economy.

The fate of social democracy is the what has always been the fate of social liberalism in the US and its counterpart in Canada and Australia. All of these variants have never been anything but reactionary on foreign policy – smashing the slightest sign of liberalism anywhere in the world if it even dared to peek its head out. Many governments in Latin America were overthrown for the crime of raising the minimum wage.

And most of these were overthrown by “liberal” Democratic governments. Bill Clinton set the stage for the overthrow of Aristide. Aristide’s crime? He dared to raise the minimum wage. He had investments in some factories there. So did Hilary. Hilary overthrew Honduras. The crime? Raising the minimum wage.

Even FDR, the most progressive President of the 20th century, was a raving reactionary freak on foreign policy. “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

Teddy Roosevelt was progressive at home but an imperialist brute overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

The standard formula for all of these countries has always been some form of liberalism at home combined with hard right or ultra right policies that favored rightwing dictatorships, death squads, the genocide of the Left, and out and out fascism overseas. Liberal at home, reactionary abroad. And now Joe Biden, one of the most liberal Presidents in modern memory, is already treading down the same worn path.

And now the social democracies have undergone the same transformation that social liberalism, etc. has had from the start. One gets the feeling that liberalism or socialism at home in a capitalist country will always have to co-exist with ultra-right, pro-fascist politics overseas. In other words, a foreign policy of imperialism.

Most of Europe is whored to the ultra-rightwing NATO. The EU is for all intents and purposes the civilian state and NATO is the Defense Ministry of that state. Even Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are hard right countries when it comes to their NATO alliance. Finnish foreign policy has always been rightwing, a legacy of their hatred for Russia. Dutch, French, British, and Spanish foreign policy have been horribly rightwing forever now under social democratic and conservative governments both. Indeed in Europe, there is little difference between the two.

Spain strides around Latin America like a brute. Apparently they still think they rule the place as they once did.Most of this involves threats, arm-twisting, sanctions and whatnot every time countries try to assert more control over their resources, which are inevitably being exploited by Spanish corporations. Bolivia’s nationalization of oil and gas is instructive in this regard. The social democratic Spanish government was just as reactionary as the conservative one.

The French are cruel and colonialist towards their former colonies and do not allow any independent governments to form there, especially in Africa. The French and Canadians were deeply involved in the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, apparently for the crime of raising the minimum wage. In addition, France is still demanding that Haiti repay it for its losses when the slaves of Haiti were freed and the slave-holding families were massacred. France is a social democracy.

The Dutch held a phony inquest in the M17 false flag shootdown where a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down an airliner in order to blame it on Russia. The EU was also deeply involved in this plot and especially the coverup. As were the British and in particular the BBC, the official organ of the British state. The British stole $4 million in gold from Venezuela by confiscating it. British foreign policy mimics US foreign policy in every reactionary thing we do. The UK is a social democracy.

Italy led the charge against Qaddafi and helped steal billions of his gold reserves. Italian corporations also quickly tried to get on Libya’s oil. Italy is a social democracy.

100% of the EU is sanctioning Venezuela for the crime of trying to create a social democracy in America’s backyard. No socialist country would ever sanction Venezuela. Same with Nicaragua. They’re all sanctioning Nicaragua too. Nicaragua’s even less socialist than Venezuela and Norway’s probably a lot more socialist than Venezuela.

So you see, these countries may have some sort of socialism at home (increasingly threadbare) but in foreign policy, it’s straight up full-blown reaction and imperialism, support for rightwing dictatorships and out and out fascists. The reason is simple. The economies of all EU countries are based on their multinational corporations.

Multinational corporations want nothing but rightwing dictatorship, preferably fascist, when they cannot elect hard Right democratic states. These corporations will not tolerate the slightest socialism or even liberalism overseas because they all operate on a predatory model towards the Third World.

Hence the foreign policy of all of the EU “socialist” countries is all about what’s good for the corporations that run their economies. Their corporations wish to go abroad and rape, ruin, exploit, destroy, and stripmine the economies of the Third World by exploiting their resources such that the corporations get almost everything and the countries themselves barely get a nickel.

This has always been the model and it always will be the model. So the EU social democracies have the same problem of the Democratic Party – while they can be leftwing at home to some extent, they all go hard rightwing and pro-fascist and rightwing dictatorship overseas due to their fealty to the corporations that run their economies.

Alt Left: The Capitalist Mindset: The Left Has No Right to Rule

Trouser Snake: So what’s the endgame? Just access to more markets to continue the capitalist Ponzi scheme?

Pretty much. Some people never learn. And the people on Earth least likely to learn are capitalists. It’s like they’re drug addicts, hooked on a crack or heroin drug called capitalism. They’re as blinded as an addict.

And they’re incapable of being peaceful. They are actually mandated to destroy any form of socialism on Earth, and as far as the social democracies, well, they’ll get to those later. They simply refuse to compromise with the Left at all, and their view in general is that the Left has no right to rule.

It is this raw, pure Latin American model of ultra-capitalism or pure neoliberalism that is presently dominant in the US in the Republican Party. As this form of capitalism leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer at a rapid and profound pace, it also inevitably leads to a left revolutionary reaction of some sort. This is so predictable as to almost be a law of politics along the lines of some of our physical laws like gravity.

However, this basic capitalist mindset has been subdued in most places:

  • In Europe by a social contract to ward off Communism, now fading.
  • In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by similar social contracts, now possibly also fading.
  • In Africa by African nationalism, a local capitalism that is intertwined with such, a strong resistance to the exploitative, rape and ruin policies of colonialism, by the Marxist roots of some of the early post-colonial leaders and some independence struggles, by extreme poverty which lends itself to socialist movements, and possibly by what was probably a very collectivist tribal culture pre-colonization.
  • In the Middle East and North Africa by Islam in general, which is very hostile to extreme capitalism as anti-Islamic and an attack on the notion that all Muslims are brothers and are mandated to help each other, and also by Arab nationalism in particular, with its strong anti-colonial bent and roots in Marxism.
  • In Turkey by Islam, oddly enough. Erdogan is actually a social democrat along the lines of most Islamists (see the explanation under the Middle East and North Africa entry above).
  • In Russia and much of the former USSR by the Soviet experience which was much more popular with the people than you are told here, by and nationalism, in particular, Russian and Armenian nationalism, and by a longstanding collectivist culture with roots in a long-lasting feudalism and the underdog mindset of the masses that resulted.
  • In Japan, where corporations took over the role of the social democratic state as per Japanese ethics, nationalism, and in-group preference – our people are the best people on Earth, so we must show solidarity with each other and not let each other starve. Which model is presently falling apart. There is also a basic, possibly ancient, Asian collectivist mindset, which had been previously opposed by feudalism. However, it is easy for a collectivist culture to toss feudalism aside as feudalism is so anti-collectivist. Feudalism was a poor fit in Asia – note the experience in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos- similar to how it never worked well in the collectivist Arab world and was easily overthrown in Russia.
  • In India, where a long-standing anti-colonial ethic and independence struggle with socialist roots goes along with a long with long-standing leadership of the non-aligned countries.
  • In Central Asia, by Islam (see above) and in Iran by the Iranian revolution.

As you can see above, the capitalist morons in most of the world weren’t thinking straight, but then when are they ever? They think about as well as any addict of anything. In the Arab World, Russia, and Asia, they set up feudalism, the worst form of pre-capitalism, which generates such hatred that when it is overthrown, most former serfs go socialist or Communist.

Further, they tried to wedge feudalism into collectivist cultures, which never works, as they are the opposite of each other. This feudalism where it was longstanding led obviously to extreme forms of socialism or sometimes Communism because feudalism is so brutal and extreme that it leads, logically, to brutal and extreme counter-reactions.

This is along the lines of the theory that the more brutal and extreme the system, the more brutal and extreme the counter-reaction to that system is.

You could hardly find a country where ultra-feudalism was more ingrained in the modern era than Cambodia, along with extreme hatred between the urban and rural people. The reaction? The Khmer Rogue.

The vicious slaver regime in Haiti was overthrown by the Haitian Revolution, where all 25,000 Whites on the island were murdered in cold blood.

In the Chmielnicki Rebellion in Poland in the 1500’s, a vicious peasant rebellion took place in which not only were half the Jews killed for being allied with the feudal lords, but 1/3 of the population of the entire country was killed. Of course, all you hear about here in the West is those 25,000 Jews who were killed. I guess all those dead Gentiles didn’t count. Gee, I wonder why that is.

There were various peasant or anti-feudal serf revolts in the Inca Empire. From what little we learn of these revolts, the serfs rebelled, seized power, and killed all of the Inca feudal elite. Peasant rebellions are not only murderous, but they tend to be exterminationist.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Elsewhere, foolish capitalists imposed their capitalism via an ultra-exploitative colonial model which is guaranteed to generate extreme hatred, rebellion, and underdog views among the colonized (if not exterminationist anti-colonial rebellions – see the Haitian example above), which leads to inevitable independence struggles usually premised on underdog philosophies like socialism and Communism. By colonizing most of the world, capitalist morons insured a post-colonial world with socialist tendencies and hostility to highly exploitative neoliberalism.

Places in the World Where Extreme Capitalism (Hyper-Neoliberalism) Holds Out

Latin America is one of the few places in the world that capitalism is so extreme as to oppose even social democracy, and this is all due to the proximity and overwhelming presence of a colonial ethic under the presence of the US.

Of course, we have long had such a model here in the US, but its  savage nature has been masked by a ferocious war on Communism cleverly turned into a war on socialism, social democracy, and even petty liberalism. The great wealth of the country has also masked the brutal features of this system, as there was so much money that even the losers in the system were able to eek out a piece of the pie, although this aspect is fading  fast – look at the homeless swarming our streets.

Further, a system of social liberalism (not social democracy but headed down the road) was installed in the New Deal (as an anti-Communist social contract along the lines of the European social contracts) and further entrenched by the Great Society, here driven in part by powerful new anti-racism on the part of the state. These band-aids over the cruel neoliberal model in the US successfully kept the inevitable “peasant rebellion,” or left revolution to be more precise, postponed for a very long time.

Of course, as ultra-neoliberalism moved along its standard path of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (greatly increased economic inequality), an inevitable left revolution started to take form. This can be seen in the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the Democratic Party, Operation Wall Street demonstrations, and even the misdirected but Communist-led BLM and anarchist-led antifa riots this summer. Once again this violence is a form of peasant rebellion and is absolutely inevitable as wealth inequality reaches a certain point.

There are a few other places outside Latin America:

  • In the Philippines, though the new president calls himself a socialist and had good relations with the Maoist NPA guerrillas.
  • In Indonesia, which however recently elected a social democrat.
  • In Thailand, where long-standing military rule tamped down class struggle, which now rages uncontrolled in a very confusing way.
  • In South Africa, where a racist White ruling class did not want to share anything with the Black underclass, and Communism, socialism, and the Left period was associated with the Black struggle for self-rule and the guerrilla war which followed. However, the ANC government is full of former Communists and people with Marxist roots.

Alt Left: How GloboHomo Fits in With Dependency Theory, the Cultural Left, the US Empire and the Needs of US Corporations

Brian: Identity politics is a bulwark against socialism, even against mild social democracy. It works by preventing an awareness of common cause among those who aren’t near the top of society. It’s used domestically, in the U.S., to stymie any sort of labor movement, and abroad it serves to keep vassal states weak and dependent.

Yeah this is perfect. Why is the US pushing gay rights all over the world, especially in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, places where homophobia is at a high level? Why does the US push feminism and women’s rights so strongly in Afghanistan? Why is Soros pushing radical feminism and gay rights all over Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia?

And appallingly, why does Soros refuse to fund this same radical feminism in Israel, where his primary loyalty lies? Gosh, that’s straight out the Protocols! Weaken the Gentile states but keep the Jews strong so we can continue to lord it over the Gentiles, our economic and cultural competitors.

What’s the point? It’s clear the most Afghans do not like such things. Also we push the same Cultural Liberalism or Cultural Left crap.

I call it GloboHomo because of its emphasis on a strong push for gay rights in homophobic countries and the fact that the Cultural Left is part of the US Empire and the corporate-Empire-Deep State globalization project, which benefits elites, the rich, and corporations but doesn’t benefit your average person at all. Note that an essential aspect of globalization is anti-nationalism and neoliberalism.

The US has always hated nationalism because when nationalists come to power, they get tired of being exploited, raped and ravaged US colonies who get 10 cents on every dollar US corporations take out of their nations and instead advocate for a national economy where they manufacture their own things, grow crops for food instead of export, and nationalize large US corporate interests so the nation can use it’s national resources to help its own people instead of having them stolen by US corporate carpetbaggers.

The part about growing food for consumption not export is very important because the US Empire’s (also the project of the entire West) is to stop countries from making their own stuff and growing their own food. Why? Because we wish to keep them in a colonial dependency because that way we can exploit them maximally and extract the highest profit from their countries while giving them as few of the profits as possible.

The US typically makes alliance with a comprador elite, oligarchy, or ruling class along with an upper middle class sector attached to it. This class also represents most of the business interests of the nation. The US allows this top 20% to benefit from the crops for export model by owning the lands where the crops are grown and the companies which export the crops.

This allows them to benefit from not making their own stuff or growing their own food by allowing them to run the import and distribution models that import and distribute US food and manufactured products. The top 20% usually increases their income, often by quite a bit, under this model. However the  bottom 80% usually sees their incomes drop, often by a lot.

In fact, the US pushed neoliberalism all over the world, in particular in Latin America, in the 1980’s and 1990’s. These were referred to in Latin America as The Lost Decades for the negative economic growth during those times. The so-called Pink Tide that so enraged the US and led to fascist coup after fascist coup was the logical result of the disgust Latin Americans felt for The Lost Decades foisted on them by the US.

During this period when the US pushed neoliberalism, generally only the top 20% gained income while the bottom  80% lost income while seeing the costs of necessities skyrocket and having the social sector gutted.  It is estimated that this double whammy of neoliberal globalization killed millions of people in the 3rd World, mostly via lack of medical care, which was typically gutted and privatized under this model, often by World Bank and IMF dictate.

Why do we want nations to grow for export and not for internal consumption?

Because that way we can make money off the agricultural sector by profiting from the import of these foods from the nation. We don’t want them growing their own food because then they wouldn’t grow so much profit-rich crops for export and would instead grow for consumption, which US corporations can’t make a profit off of.

Also, if people grow for consumption, they would eat their own food instead of being forced to import most of their food from US farmers and food manufacturing corporations. I would also note that the US imported US manufactured food is usually not very good for you, being high in salt, sugar, simple carbohydrates and fat and low in protein and complex carbohydrates. Canned processed food usually isn’t’ particularly good for you for a variety of reasons.

Why do we not want nations to make their own stuff?

Because then they would not need to import all of their manufactured goods from US corporations!

Thing is, when nations grow their own food and make their own manufactured products it’s very difficult for the US to go in and exploit that country and make super-profits. Sure there are still a level of profits to be made – note the trade between the US and Europe – but the profits are not nearly at such a high level.

Alt Left: Why the World Bank and IMF Push Structural Adjustment on Countries That Request Loans from Them

The World Bank and the IMF (both of which are basically run by the US) forced the Third World countries that requested loans to gut and privatize their public sectors in order to get the loans. The stated reason was to lower the state’s expenditures so they would have more money to pay their loans back.

But it often came with a lot of other demands like opening up the country to foreign investment (rape, rob, and ruin exploitation) cutting the wages of workers, attacking labor unions and gutting labor protection law, lowering or eliminating the minimum wage, etc. It’s hard to see how any of these things enables the state to pay their loans back easier, especially as the attack on the incomes of the 80% majority  would lead to much lower tax revenue for the state.

I’d say the World Bank and the IMF have an ulterior motive, the same as the US – to promote neoliberalism, if need be by force, the world over because the neoliberal model is what’s best for the US oligarchy and the corporations.

Alt Left: Joe Biden’s New National Security Picks Are Very Troubling

I was afraid of this. It’s the Obama Administration Redux. Neoliberal economics + (((neoconservative foreign policy))) + Cultural Left social views. The first two are rightwing (we have two rightwing parties in the US – take your pick) and the last is leftwing. I’ve got to hand it to the Democratic Party.

They’ve managed to do what I always thought was impossible – to combine the worst of the Right with the worst of the Left. The Republicans are at least honest. I’ll give them that. They say they are a rightwing party and they combined neoliberal economics + (((neoconservative foreign policy))) + conservative social views. As you can see, they’re rightwing on everything.

Literally the only difference between these two rightwing shit parties is on culture. On economics and foreign policy, everyone agrees! Economics for Wall Street and the 1% and (((more wars for the Jews foreign policy)))!

So you have the total freedom to choose between:

Cultural Left social views

Social Conservative social views

And in fact, they both completely blow, but in totally different ways. The first is just the social part of Globohomo (it has an economic and foreign policy part too) and the second is the Christian Taliban!

Don’t you love living in America, where you have such a wide range of politicians to choose from? I’m sure glad we don’t live in a dictatorship or anything like that, where there’s only one party to choose from and all the media is state-controlled. No wait. That’s exactly what we are living in, except it has the fake trappings of democracy, complete with the usual extreme rightwing authoritarian rigged elections and the whole nine yards.

Joe Biden’s New National Security Picks Are Very Troubling

Alt Left: Wall Street Crowd to Run Biden’s Neoliberal Agenda

Vote Democrat! The Other Rightwing Party!

This is about what I expected. Biden’s nothing but a mushy Centrist. Harris is supposed to be better, possibly Center-Left. She is supposed to be a link between the DNC Centrists around Biden and the party’s base (the left wing of the Democratic Party). I’m not so sure about her though. These economic picks sound terrible. More neoliberal crap.

At least at the start of his term, Obama was a Keynesian. I’ll give him that. Remember how the righting troglodytes screamed when Obama did his stimulus? Remember how they screeched when he bailed out the automobile companies? Well, those actions are known as Keynesianism. Keynesianism is not neoliberalism as far as I can tell, but I’m not an economist.

This doesn’t look good at all. Why is the New York Times pushing liberalism though, if none is forthcoming from Biden/Harris? I don’t get it.

The Times is a corporate Democrat rag.

Corporate anything blows to Hell and back, but the corporations in Europe long ago made peace with the Left by signing a social compact which laid out social democracy. The social democracies were put in for one reason only: to stop the Communist threat. So this is one great thing that Communists did – they promoted a lot of liberal and social democratic social pacts to ward off its threat. It was a gun pointed at the head of Capital that said, “Negotiate with society or else!” And so they did.

But now the Communist threat is gone, what’s the motivation for European corporations do support the social contract? There is none. That’s why all European social democratic parties now, as far as I can tell, are rightwing parties. Social Democracy in the sense of Sweden’s Olaf Palme or France’s Francois Mitterrand is dead, gone, and buried. It’s Western imperialism on all cylinders now, backed up with the might of the North American Terrorist Association (NATO).

Wall Street Crowd to Run Biden’s Neoliberal Agenda

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
December 02, 2020

Since Biden/Harris were dubiously chosen as Dem standard bearers, establishment media across the board bombarded the US public with puff-piece reporting about them — ignoring their dark side.

A former US envoy once described Pompeo as the most “sycophantic and obsequious (figure) around Trump,” adding:

“He’s like a heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass.”

The same characterization applies to fawning/truth-defying media coverage of Biden/Harris. While inventing reasons to slam Trump, largely ignoring legitimate ones, mass media reinvented Biden/Harris, disturbing hard truths about them suppressed.

The NYT is the leading print media culprit — fake news over the real thing featured. Addressing the likely incoming Biden/Harris regime’s economic team, the self-styled newspaper of record falsely claimed its focus is on “workers and income equality (sic),” adding:

The “team…is stocked with champions of organized labor and marginalized workers (sic), signaling an early focus on efforts to speed and spread the gains of the recovery from the pandemic recession (sic).”

“(L)abor unions (will) have increased power (sic).”

“Biden’s team will be focused initially on increased federal spending to reduce unemployment (sic) and an expanded safety net to cushion households that have continued to suffer as the coronavirus persists and the recovery slows (sic).”

It’ll pursue “an economy that gives every single person across America a fair shot and an equal chance to get ahead (sic).”

Reality is worlds apart different from the above rubbish. In 1963, racist Alabama Governor George Wallace was once quoted saying: “Segregation now, segregation forever.”

Today, both right wings of US duopoly rule are allied in enforcing neoliberalism now, neoliberalism forever — a new millennium form of segregation, with attribution to Wallace’s quote.

Serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary Americans is hard-wired US policy. An earlier land of opportunity for most people is long gone. Washington’s agenda is heading toward transforming the nation into a ruler/serf society, wrapped in the American flag.

It’s led by whoever chairs the Wall Street owned and controlled Fed under Biden/Harris ahead, their choice for key regime positions, including treasury secretary — neoliberalism now/neoliberalism forever Janet Yellen nominated. As Obama/Biden Fed chairman from 2014 through the end of their tenure, she handed Wall Street trillions of dollars of near-free money for speculation.

At the same time, she kept interest rates at near-zero, harming millions of low and middle-income savers —while the nation’s privileged class benefited hugely. The Fed on her watch and her predecessor Bernanke did nothing for Main Street, nothing for jobs creation, nothing for anything socially related — nothing for ordinary people, focusing solely on benefiting privileged ones.

She at Treasury and current Fed chairman Powell will operate the same way going forward. Like other Biden/Harris economic team members, Yellen is a Wall Street tool. According to MarketWatch, “Wall Street is thrilled” by her choice, and no wonder. She’ll fulfill the Street’s wish list as always before.

Her Treasury deputy Adewale Adeyemo is a former Obama/Biden regime official, followed by serving as a senior BlackRock hedge fund adviser. He now heads the Chicago-based Obama Foundation.

Investment banker Brian Deeson was named Biden/Harris regime National Economic Council chairman.

Anti-progressive Neera Tanden was named incoming regime budget director. She’s notable for supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs, including opposition to a living wage, while supporting imperial aggression, and demeaning Julian Assange. She was quoted calling him an “agent of a pro-fascist state, Russia (sic)” — its (nonexistent actions) “a key reason of why Trump got elected (sic).”

The above-named figures are subject to Senate confirmation.

They and others named as part of the Biden/Harris economic team are super-rich defenders of corporate depredation at the expense of ordinary people everywhere. Most figures selected by Biden/Harris ill-served ordinary Americans as part of the Obama/Biden regime.

Dirty business as usual continuity defines how US government operates at the federal, state and local levels. Wall Street, the military, industrial, security media complex, other corporate favorites, and super-wealth will be well served in Washington no matter which wing of duopoly rule runs things. They’ll benefit while ordinary Americans are exploited by continuing the greatest wealth transfer scheme in world history from them to the US privileged class.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

His new book as editor and contributor is titled Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html.

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is by Tony Webster/Wikimedia Commons.

Alt Left: Sadism and Creativity in Society Are Related to Economic and Societal Structure

Another interesting post from commenter Brian. He ties societal sadism and Social Darwinism into economic changes and ties societal creativity into societal structure, in particular its degree of flexibility.

I completely agree that there is a sadistic tendency in people that is expressed toward those deemed socially inferior. I’ve seen it and, having been in foster homes for a time growing up, experienced it.

I’ve often wondered at what seems to be a mean-spiritedness of the culture in general during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and if this mean-spirited character was linked to industrialization and to the growth of severe inequalities in society, both class and race based.

Those inequalities existed before the industrial revolution, but industrialization marked a new level of complexity in social organization, and the rise of many “new men” as elites. In the transformation of a society toward a new economic system and set of social relations, old inequalities are exacerbated, and the new elites who have risen to the top seem eager to shore up their position by waging a reactionary crackdown on dissent and calls to moderate their avarice.

The Social Darwinist, let-the-undeserving-poor-rot, bootstrap mentality of the upper class was encouraged in the general population by those who had risen to the top as a way to justify their behavior, and it had the effect of drawing out the worst tendencies in human nature in society at large. It was a bully’s ideology and encouraged ordinary people to let out their inner sadism, which ordinarily – without authoritative encouragement – would have been more repressed.

This is how you get gleeful lynchings, the hanging of elephants from a giant chain, the proliferation of freak shows where people can satisfy their inner monster by laughing at folks with severe genetic deformities.

I wonder if this witches’ brew of inhumanity cooked up by the propagandists of the new robber baron class was a factor precipitating World War I. Indeed the displacements of industrialization along with repression of the working class by disconnected and haughty elites and the whole toxic culture this gave rise to poisoned Europe just as badly as it had the United States.

The periods of the cruelest treatment of ordinary people tend to coincide with episodes of great economic expansion, the rise of new men and new families to positions nearer the top of society, and the complexification of society in general.

Another example is a century earlier in Britain, around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the very beginning of the industrial revolution – or the first industrial revolution, as opposed to the second which I was referring to above – and began with the Enclosure Acts that forced peasants off the common lands so they could become the new urban class of industrial laborers.

During this time the Bloody Code reached its bloodiest extreme and more than two hundred crimes could be punished by death, even as a number of minors were executed for rather petty crimes. These were the classic Dickensian times, and they are marked by great new opportunities for moneymaking that attracted a class of people willing to subject other humans to appalling degradations for their own profit.

When we think of the medieval period, we often think of brutal tortures. But in fact such tortures, while they occurred in the medieval period, were used far more extensively in the Renaissance and early modern times than in the medieval period as was the death penalty in general.

Once again, what we find at that time is a transformation in the socioeconomic system, specifically moving away from feudalism in Western Europe and the rise of a new middle merchant class across much of Europe, starting in Italy. Perhaps the use of such punishments is meant to break the spirits of those who suffer most during such transitional periods so they are less of a threat to the elites, especially the new and very insecure/paranoid elites.

I suspect that what we see today, with the mean-spirited attitude of the neoliberal age – the expansions of the prison system going back to the 70s and 80s (the very dawn of the neoliberal age) and the electronics and digital boom – is another such period of social complexification, economic transformation, dispossession of whole sections of society and even of regions in general like the rust belt, and the rise of many new men (and women now) into the ranks of the ruling class.

For around forty years I’ve been seeing among the upper middle classes and above is an increase in callousness, selfishness towards and even dehumanization of various groups of people, from Blacks to working class (now often poor) Whites and anyone who isn’t at least upper middle class.

To address the idea that such periods help to breed out criminal genes from a population, I do not doubt this is true. These phases of societal transformation seem to yield a more docile population on the other end of them. But I think this process will eventually eliminate the spark of genius in our population and in the West in general.

It largely has eliminated this spark already. At least in the realm of the social sciences of fundamental thought like philosophy, modern European philosophy having seen its best days some two to three centuries ago. Other fields that are downstream of basic thought have been able to flourish since then, but they will stagnate, and some are stagnating already.

Going back to civilizational and race theory, the difference between White civilization and Asian seems to be that White civilization has been far more creative for centuries now, despite Asians having higher average IQ’s. The spark of genius requires a high IQ but also creativity and originality, which mostly comes from people who are off-kilter and don’t easily fit into a very conventional, static society that looks down on new ideas or unusual behavior.

You, Robert, have mentioned before that many very intelligent and interesting people work in odd jobs and have little to show for their talents. I think such people have struggled in any society, but they struggle more as society becomes more closed-minded and starts distrusting anyone who isn’t stable, conventional, and predictable; in other words, someone who fits ready social expectations.

A lot of academics are very bright, but few have that special spark of brilliance in them, and if anything, having that is a detriment for someone in academia today.

As our society stiffens we will likely become less creative, whereas in the past few centuries, we’ve seemed to be able to accept originality even if many geniuses are not exactly paragons of stability. I am not saying that Asians are without creativity or the spark of genius, just that as their populations became more controlled and regimented, they exhibited fewer instances of real inspiration.

We are moving towards greater control and the consequent heavy formalization of life which sucks the naturalness out of life. We should probably expect relative cultural stagnation, at least compared to what we’ve been experiencing for centuries in the West.

The problem with African peoples and societies is an excess of naturalness or primal behavior, which, while it is energetic and creative, lacks the mental and social channels to develop it.

Higher intelligence on the other hand takes that same primal energy the Africans have in excess and focus that energy into socially accepted interests and goals. The problem with Asian societies is there is a serious lack of primal behavior, though I suspect some genetic potential for creativity remains in their populations and could be freed up if they loosened up a bit.

As to our current period of neoliberalism in the West, I think whatever good it did in juicing the development of the new electronic and digital economy is already finished and have been since probably 2008. At this point neoliberalism’s effects on society are very detrimental and could even touch off serious convulsions across Western society if it isn’t moderated.

Continuing on this path can only benefit a small handful of elites and only if they are able to maintain control. But they are gamblers, so they will try, and they seem unlikely to concede much to the population for the sake of reconciliation.

Alt Left: And People Keep Incredulously Wondering Why I’m a Socialist and Why I Hate Rightwing and Libertarian Economics

Here.

When I say socialism, I’m not necessarily talking about the state running the whole economy. We have plenty of good evidence of the limitations of that model.

Read in that article where it says that $2.5 trillion has been stolen from the bottom 90% of earners by the top 10% of earners every year for the last 45 years. The top 10% of our country is now effectively an oligarchy. And an increasingly violent and undemocratic one, as all oligarchies are under a severe threat from the Left. You see where it says that if all that money being siphoned away from the 90% by the top 10% was instead given to the bottom 90%, your average American family would have an income of $100,000 and not $50,000?

That’s all we “evil socialists” and “evil Leftists” want. We want you, the bottom 90%, to get that money above as you did from 1945-1975 before the Theft of the Century began. We could give that $2.5 trillion to the top 10%, to the rich. Or we could instead not give it to those rich fucks and instead give it all you guys, everyone in the lower 90% of the tax bracket. We’re not even just for the poor. We are for all of the victims of the Class War of the Rich.

What in the Hell is wrong with that?

Why On Earth Are You Supporting Neoliberalism?

This is what rightwing economics is. Rightwing economics says take $2.5 trillion from the bottom 90% every year and give it to the top 10%. That’s all it’s for. That’s all it’s ever been for. Surely if you run a corporation, this economics is in your interest, but it’s not in the interest of your workers, consumers, investors, or the society at whole. It’s you and your corporation against everyone else in society.

It’s for the top 10% tax earners. Which is whom? People making over $100,000/year. So if you make over $100,000/yr or run a corporation, sure, neoliberalism or rightwing economics is in your interest.

What is the economics that the World Bank and the IMF forces on every nation in the South? Neoliberalism, the theft of money from the bottom 90% to give to the top 10%.

What is the economics of every social democracy in Europe? In terms of their  foreign policy, it’s the maintenance of neoliberalism, which is the theft of income of the bottom 90% overseas to give to the top 10% in their own European country. So all European social democrats are really just working for the top 10% in their own and especially in other countries.

A Bigoted Socialist Beats a Woke Neoliberal Any Day of the Week

No wonder everyone’s given up on them in favor of the populist Right. At least the populist Right speaks to the concerns of the ordinary people, the workers. And the populist Right in Europe is very socialist. The party of Marie Le Pen is one of the most socialist parties in France. They’re far more socialist than the fake socialist Social Democrats.

I don’t particularly care if they’re not nice to immigrants, Muslims, and Arabs. So what? I’d rather have racist socialists who support the workers than of antiracist neoliberals. I can’t eat a BLM flag. I can’t pay my rent with a critical race theory lecture. I can’t fix my car by tearing down a stupid statue. Throwing shit at cops for no good reason won’t help me pay my bills. SJWism offers me, a straight White man, just about nothing at all, other than designating me as Enemy #1.

The Democratic Party: The Worst of the Right Combined with the Worst of the Left

There’s an ideology pushed by woke SJW neoliberal entities in the form of individuals like (((Soros))) and (((Bloomberg))) and corporations like the Tech Giants. Woke SJWism + neoliberalism is literally the worst of the Right combined with the worst of the Left. What do you get when you combined the worst of the Left with the worst of the Right? The Democratic Party! The party of Woke SJW Corporate Neoliberal Democrats.

Alt Left: What the Hell Happened to Europe, Anyway?

From Moon of Alabama. By the way, I cannot recommend that site highly enough. The bottom line over there is the search for the truth. Grab your stomach if you go over there though because their (factual) revelations about this county will make you want to retch. Not recommended for patriotards. A common phrase over there is “the Outlaw US Empire,” which, sadly, is exactly what we are.

A brief history of Europe since WW2 showing how it became a slave colony of the US. NATO (North American Terrorist Organization) and the EU both massively involved. The stuff below is very complex if you don’t have the background, so go ahead and ask me any question you want if you need anything explicated.

EU tries not to lag behind US in its attempts to ‘punish’ Russia – Lavrov

As I’ve been trying to say here, this is part of a bigger overall process happening in the European Peninsula since the post-war period marked by an unbroken streak of decline in every possible facet.

This process, however, is multifaceted and is an amalgamation of many variables, historical and economic:

  1. Most important of all, Europe went from imperial to colonial status in a big bang event (WWII);
  2. Cold War cut it off from the rest of Eurasia;
  3. This status as USA-oriented (American colony) ossified beyond the Cold War in the form of the ideology of Atlanticism and social democracy (“socialism” in American terminology);
  4. Collapse of social democracy and rise of neoliberalism as a manifestation of a transition from socialization of wealth (post-war miracle) to socialization of misery (tendency of the profit rate to fall, long depression in European capitalism);
  5. Degeneration of social democracy into a demented form of “humanitarian imperialism”;
  6. 6) Cannibalization of Europe by Germany with the creation of the EU and more importantly the EZ;
  7. 7) The institutionalization of Atlanticist ideology in Germany with the creation and codification of the EU (a dialectic reverse of point 6);
  8. 8) A desperate German attempt to expand eastwards (the “3% deficit rule”, the destruction of the Ukraine, the attempt to destroy Belarus), in the vacuum of NATO expansion to the same direction, i.e. the EU as the “institutional/governmental” branch of NATO. This one also has a dialectical pair opposite also, which is the exhaustion of the American Empire.

Some things are hard to understand here. 6 and 7 for instance – the notion about a dialectic reversal. 6 describes how Germany is gobbling up or expanding its influence over all of Europe in a sense. 7 describes how Europe or NATO is gobbling up Germany and reducing it to insignificance (I think).

8 is the same. It describes how Germany is trying to expand its influence eastward in the wake of an expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, using the EU as the governmental branch and NATO as the military of this “state.” However, at the same time as Germany hurries to follow NATO in its footsteps, this new Great Game exhausts the US Empire, which is the military core of NATO that is blazing the trail for Germany in the first place (I think).

Alt Left: How We Got Here: The Origins of Identity Politics and the Modern Cultural Left

There is a ready explanation for all this nonsense.

First is the tendency of Identity Politics to become more radicalized with time.

There has long been an argument on the Left against this BS. Sanders actually came out of that tradition.

The US White Left married with the radical Blacks. After they did that they started heading down this nutty race train track along with all the other IdPol madness.

The entire Left moved away from economics and foreign policy to go down this cultural road instead. Perhaps 1989 was a trigger. The Eastern Bloc collapsed and the US Left was in disarray and didn’t know what to think or even believe. The dictatorship of he proletariat, democratic centralism, it was all up in the air now. Further, it seemed the Communist economics in the East Bloc had not kept pace with socialist social democracy economics on the rest of Europe. A lot of the US Left packed it in on economics and started to focus on cultural BS instead.

The Left now is nothing but pure IdPol. Ever see BLM or Antifa morons say one word about US foreign policy and US imperialism? Course not. Ever hear them say one word about neoliberal economics? Course not. That’s what drives me up the wall. Here is a movement ripe for radicalizing against the US ruling class program of neoliberalism at home and invite the world – invade the word neoconservatism abroad. Let’s call this combined package Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism. That’s a rightwing project any way you slice it.

But at the same time, the ruling class went full left on culture. Hence the Libertarian-type fiscal conservative-social liberal of the upper middle class in the last 40 years. Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism plus the Cultural Left. What a project! It’s literally the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right! And the upper middle class is proud of this nightmare ideology. Which is one more reason that this class, which always sides with the ruling class against the workers, is no good.

Now that the Left bailed on anti-imperialism and left economics in favor of a pure Cultural Left, what are they doing with this new ideology? Why, they are rioting about nothing at all or at worst for an outright lie. Brilliant!

But if we get police reform out of these riots, it would be good. It’s an ill wind that blows no good.

Thing is the corporations, foundations, media, etc. and both political parties are down with this Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism project because they’re businessmen and rich people, and Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism is good for them for reasons I won’t go into here but perhaps you can guess at.

This Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism project is how the rich, the corporations, and the U.S. ruling class make all their money. So they oppose Left efforts against Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism such as the 60’s revolutions with all-out ferocity. If such a movement arises, they will sic their media attack dogs on it, smash it to bits, and brainwash the sheep via their media monopoly to go along with this destruction.

The thing is that this is a perfectly safe progressive project. It doesn’t cost them one nickel, and they get groovy hip woke points for jumping on the bandwagon.

How much of the US ruling class are going to lose out on an anti-White project? 0%.

How many of them will be replaced by an unqualified Black via affirmative action? 0%.

How many of them will be replaced by an illegal alien on their jobs? 0%. Illegals are great for them – cheap labor, more customers, a guy to mow the lawn, and a nanny to watch the kid. They don’t live with illegals so they don’t have to deal with the civilizational decline that they cause. Pro-immigration is risk-free progressivism for woke points, and what do you know? It stuffs their pocketbook too! Win-win!

Does the US ruling class have to live with the consequences of Black crime and civilizational collapse? Course not. They don’t have to deal with the downside of this crazy movement so they can support it all they want. See?

Also, the US ruling class has been socially liberal and Neoliberal-Neoconservative for a long time now.

The Left won the Culture War.

But so what?

We lost the Economics and Foreign Policy (US imperialism) War. They even defeated the Vietnam War Syndrome, a bad thing because it posed a severe threat to US imperialism.

So what did we win?

Our women have become insane, manhating harridans. If you ask a woman for a date now, it’s sexual harassment and you can be fired. We overthrew Patriarchy but replaced it with something worse – Matriarchy or Female Rule (Feminist Rule) – with all the manhating, war on male sexuality, and horrific puritanism that always goes along with it.

The latter is most painful to me as a 60’s child. One of the revolutions was the Sexual Revolution. Our attitude was “do it in the streets!” Now look. If I ask a woman for her #, it’s sexual harassment and you can get the police called on you. All sexuality has been sucked out of public space by #metoo, so it feels like a sexual desert, which is apparently the way women want it! They actually like to live like this.

And at the same time as this crazy Victorianism, we also have a society drenched in porn. So my personal world is porn saturated, but if you so much as look at a woman, she might act like she’s going to call the cops. How’s that for crazy cognitive dissonance? No wonder incels exist and go on killing sprees. Societies can’t handle grotesque cognitive dissonance. It literally drives people insane and often results in serious violence.

What else did we win? Modern anti-racism – a movement with great roots that has gone insane and is worse than useless.

What else? Depraved, disgusting, and lewd gay pride parades. Great! My favorite!

“Pansexuals,” “queer” as a noun, “genderqueer” and “nonbinary” nonsense, and the insane and depraved transgender cult. It gets sicker and more perverted, weird, and stupid every year. What’s next? Transsexual bathhouses for all ages? Back then, we fought for liberation, not weirdness, sickness, perversion, and deviancy.

Further, these Cultural Left boneheads have badly divided the working class. Check out this great plan they had!

Let’s have a revolution!

Cool! Yay!

But first lets get all the non-White workers to hate the White workers!

Cool! Yay! Oppressors and oppressed!

And while we’re at it, let’s get the woman workers to hate the man workers! Oppressors and oppressed!

Cool! Yay!

Now let’s have a revolution, boys and girls!

Whoops. Whoa! What happened?

No one showed up! That’s what happened.

Why? Because we got them all to hate each other!

Brilliant! You got to hand it to these guys with these genius ideas of theirs.

What I mean is this Cultural Left project is easy for the ruling class to swallow. Many are already decadent, depraved rich people, so the sicko stuff works for them. Rich men get all the sex they want. If a rich man asks a woman for her #, does she threaten to call the cops? Course not.

Homosexuality? The ruling class is always full of gay men and all manner of decadent bisexual libertines. Works for them.

Trannies? Cut into the bottom line? Course not. Support.

The ruling class has been left on social BS and right on economics (neoliberalism) and on foreign policy (US imperialism) for a long time now. It works for them and doesn’t cost them a nickel! Hell, it even makes them bank too!

And you see the outgrowth of this ideology in this destructive BLM movement that makes the Black workers hate the White workers and vice versa.

Brilliant! Way to go, Lefties! Why didn’t I think of that?

The ruling class loves this because they benefit by dividing the workers and getting them all to hate each other so they won’t organize against the Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism bread and butter issues of the ruling class.

It also explains why BLM won’t dare touch economics or US imperialism.

See all those corporate and foundation millions flooding into BLM?

Kiss them all goodbye once BLM goes after neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy, for this is what fills the bank vaults of the corporations and ruling class.

Alt Left: The Fatal Flaws of Libertarianism

Rightwing Economics Can Only Go So Far before There’s a Left Reaction of Some Sort

We have Left revolutions constantly all over the world. Look at all the Left revolutions in Latin America recently. There were also quite a few in the Caribbean. There was recently one in Mexico.

All of these revolutions were precipitated by the Right being in power and pushing rightwing economics too far (the breaking point) which is what rightwingers always do. Sane people can only take so much rightwing economics, and as it gets more and more extreme, a typical Left reaction arises, getting more aggressive and even violent as the rightwing economics deepens. Marx laid this out exactly. It really is a law.

Libertarianism or Neoliberalism Always Only Benefits a Small Wealthy Minority, While the Poorer Majority Always Loses Money

People will just not tolerate rightwing economics very much. At some point it becomes so unfair and unequal that almost no one will put up with it. So Libertarians are pining for something that will never happen because frankly nobody wants it. Or better yet, no majority of any country will ever support. Libertarianism and any rightwing economics pushed too far automatically ends up benefiting only 20-33% of the population, while everyone else loses money.

The 1% Are Even Prepared to Screw the Upper Middle Class, Their Pets

In a lot of places, like in the US, everyone but the top 1% is losing money. I think all of the gains since 2008 have all gone to 1% of the population, and everyone else lost money. I remember Libertarian Dick Armey had a flat tax proposal. I assumed that the top 20% would benefit as is typical for Libertarianism, but I was stunned that only the top 1% would benefit according to his tax plan. So the rich will even sacrifice the upper middle class when it comes down to it. And why wouldn’t they? You think they have any more love for the upper middle class than for the rest of the lower classes?

Libertarianism Can Only Be Imposed and Sustained By Force, Hence a “Democratic Libertarianism” Cannot Exist and the Non-Aggression Principle is a Pipe-dream and a Lie

I can’t believe Libertarians even think this is sustainable. Obviously they see themselves as the 20-33% winners, but are they so dumb that they think they can pull the wool over the majority’s eyes and screw them economically and get away with it? Are they high? Can’t they see that this will never work? Can’t they figure out that, as Friedman said, neoliberalism (Libertarianism) can only be imposed by force and kept in power by a dictatorship, and therefore democratic Libertarianism based on the non-aggression principle is dead out the starting gate?

Libertarianism Is a Luxury That Can Only Be Afforded by the Rich

I guess greed blinds people. Libertarianism and neoliberalism are luxuries of the rich. Of course the rich, the upper middle classes, and the business classes support it.

The Business Class Is Always the Same, 550 Years Ago as Today

You can read texts from the Italian Renaissance by early capitalists in Italy in the 1500’s arguing the government is basically useless from the point of view of a businessman, and frankly the less government, the better. Here we are, 500-600 years later, and the business classes are saying the same thing. Plus ca change…

Alt Left: Where Rightwing Economics Pushes Too Far (Always), There Inevitably Arises A Left Revolutionary Backlash

Of course in a number of places like Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Honduras, Ecuador the revolution was overthrown by mostly illegal means, but the Left is still very powerful in all of these places and no one likes the new rulers. Everywhere in Latin America where the Right is in power, the people are wretched if not up in literal arms. Nobody wants rightwing governments down there anymore. As we have seen in recent years pace Milton Friedman, rightwing regimes in Latin America can only be imposed by force anymore. The people have been lied to too many times and no one believes the rightwingers anymore.

The places that didn’t have one like Colombia, Peru, and Chile either have an armed Left or mass riots.

They almost had one in the UK. They had one in Greece, but the Left sold out.

They had one recently in Indonesia, and there may be one in the process in the Philippines.

Thailand had an aborted revolution via the Red Shirts, but it was thwarted.

They had a revolution in Nepal, but it was thwarted by the state putting in fake Communists.

The rest of the world is already more or less socialist so there’s no need for a revolution!

The Arab World, Central Asia, Africa, and most of Europe are already socialist, so there’s nothing to change.

The “rightwing populist” leaders coming to power in Russia, Poland, and Hungary are all socialists! Over there even the Right are socialist.

Neoliberal rightwing economics is dead all over the world, though its corpse is stirring violently.

Rightwing economics is only in power in the Baltics, parts of Latin America (Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru), the Caribbean (Haiti and the Dominican Republic), and the Philippines. It is unpopular in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, and Honduras. Peru is more stable, but there are constant labor riots led by unions, and there remains an armed Left in the mountains. It is unpopular in Haiti and I don’t understand DR politics. Where the Left remains in power as in Venezuela and Nicaragua, it has 70-80% support.

Hong Kong and Singapore are the Libertarian showcases, but neither is sustainable because they cannot be replicated worldwide, as all of their wealth is dependent on massive exploitation of the poorer countries and even surrounding areas. Housing is completely unaffordable for workers in both places as in all Libertarian countries. And Hong Kong is undergoing a revolution from the Left, as it is going Communist.

India is going neoliberal but they are doing via religion, so the foolish Hindus have had the blinders put over their eyes and are supporting it like the superstitious pinheads they are. Meanwhile India remains a socialist country as stated in its own Constitution, and where that lie has become too obvious, there is a Maoist revolution in the hinterlands to set things right.

Singapore is not as Libertarian as it seems. The state owns all land and almost all of the housing is public housing. National health care exists but it is a very poor model. A pro-Chinese Communist Party leftwing opposition party with Marxist roots is very popular. So as we can see, even the showcases are undergoing revolutionary reactions. There’s really no way around this. As rightwing reaction grows extreme, and equal and  opposite leftwing reaction forms in opposition to it. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s social science, but it may as well be physics, n’est pas?

Can the whole world become Singapore and Hong Kong? Well, of course not. Singapore and Hong Kong are only rich because so much of the rest of the world is poor. The Third World makes $1/hour so the Singaporeans and Hong Kongers can drive BMW’s. Is this really so hard to figure out.

We can’t all be rich, you know? It would be like Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average. It’s like saying the whole world could become the British Empire. It’s not even possible. Or it would be like having footraces where everyone comes in tied and there are no winners or losers. How likely is that to happen? 0% likely. It’s not even statistically possible, so it fails even as a mathematical proof. Physics envy? Not so fast, now. The social sciences are not as soft as people think. Laws and theorems can exist outside of a math classroom.

Alt Left: Socialism, Communism and Neoliberalism in High and Low-IQ Societies

Clavdius Americanvs: I don’t believe socialism is necessarily better for low-IQ societies, but it definitely helps redistribute the misery so things are more bearable for the general populace.

Socialism and even Communism is always better for low-IQ countries. There’s not even any debate about it. I suppose you can say that neoliberalism functions somewhat in the West, but it doesn’t work at all in low-IQ countries. It’s just fails spectacularly, however, the top 20% of the population does make out well.

Clavdius Americanvs: I really don’t think socialism at the moment is a great idea for low-IQ countries. But it can arise if the ruling capitalist class is entrenched old money and not very permeable. Latin America used to have a race-based CASTE system for Christ’s sake! Entrenched old money isn’t really capitalist at all – it’s feudalism masquerading as a free market. I don’t believe Latin America is capable of anything else.

Well this is all neoliberal capitalism ever turns into – something that looks a lot like feudalism. Libertarians can’t figure out this law of capitalism and keep pining for this just and proper pure capitalism that never exists. Take the non-aggression principle. They can’t figure out that aggression is at the very heart of capitalism. No aggression, no capitalism.

Will capitalist countries ever allow socialist or communist countries to exist? Of course not. They try to overthrow them, often with violence, as soon as they show up. In the US, overthrowing socialist and even social democratic countries is a bipartisan affair, with even left Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders joining in with glee. Ocasio-Cortez is right. The Democratic Party is a center-right party and we don’t have a left party in the US. When was the last time? Henry Wallace? How did that work out? A party coup that put Truman in instead.

Clavdius Americanvs: I foresee any regime, even a socialist one, to eventually become feudal simply with a new ruling class not descended from the old one.

Probably not and it never happened in any Communist countries that I can think of. Many social democratic countries simply went corrupt and put the old ruling class in and continued calling themselves socialists. This happened in Venezuela, Peru, and Mexico.

Down in Latin America even the rightwing parties often call themselves socialists or have leftwing words like Labor, Liberal, Progressive, People’s, Popular, Workers, Revolutionary, etc. in their names because that’s often the only way to get elected. Rightwing parties down there even campaign on leftwing themes. All rightwing parties down there, even the death squad parties, campaign on helping the poor and alleviating poverty. Of course they never do it, but they have to say it or they won’t have a chance.

Clavdius Americanvs: The only hope is a secular rise in IQ for the countries so they can all produce more under capitalism.

I don’t think that will work either. The highest IQ countries are either Communist or “National Socialist” as in South Korea and Japan. I’m not sure what Taiwan is. Hong Kong is about ready to go Communist. Vietnam is Communist. All of Europe is nominally socialist or social democratic. It doesn’t look like even high-IQ countries want neoliberalism. Now if you talk about a market instead of “capitalism,” we can talk. After all, I am a socialist and I support a market myself.

Clavdius Americanvs: Afterwards, they can go the European route and turn into social democracies when they can afford it.

No one goes this route anymore – capitalism -> social democracy. Obviously the US is headed that way and Europe formerly did, as did Indonesia, with the Philippines heading that way slowly. And almost all poor countries nowadays are socialist or social democracies in name if not in form. No poor country wants to start out capitalist anymore. Neoliberalism is a luxury good, only affordable by the rich.

Clavdius Americanvs: Only with higher average IQ’s can entrenched ruling classes be otherthrown.

What happened in Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, Eritrea, South Yemen, and Cuba?

Clavdius Americanvs: A population needs to be smart enough to produce and become aware of its social contract with the government. I doubt most leftwing participants in Latin America or any low IQ country really understand what they are signing up for in terms of a social contract.

Of course they do. Why do you think they all vote for the Left. Even at this late date, 70% of Venezuelans say they are Chavistas. They can see with their very own eyes what they got with Chavismo. They’re not dumb. Same thing in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas have 70-80% support. Lavalas in Haiti won with 92% of the vote.

Clavdius Americanvs: Low-IQ peasants just don’t want to starve or be beaten by armed thugs of their aristocratic overlords. They are somewhat aware of what they can get, but have no clue as to what they are giving up.

What they are giving up never worked for them anyway and probably never will.

Alt Left: Does Neoliberalism Even Work In High-IQ Societies?

Clavdius Americanvs: As for why right-wing Alpha societies turn feudal? IQ must be factored in. Low-IQ countries that go the right-wing capitalist way simply don’t have enough high-IQ types to make it in the free market. So the bulk of the population Alpha or not ends up starving, or a serf, or both. The few high-IQ Alpha males and their relatives are the victors in the winner-take-all game of capitalism.

Well they did this the world over in Latin America, Southeast Asia including the Philippines and Indonesia, Taiwan, and South Korea. They did it in some African countries like Rhodesia and South Africa, and Morocco. It doesn’t work. You have to impose it by a rightwing dictatorship because otherwise no one votes for it. Neoliberalism has never even been imposed on most of Africa or the Arab World because literally nobody wants it. It’s hardly even been tried in Europe either.

If it works so great in high-IQ countries, why do the Europeans,  Russians, and Chinese all reject it?

Even the Japanese and South Koreans don’t have neoliberalism. The Socialist Party has literally been in power for much of the time in postwar Japan, and the Communist Party is surprisingly large.

Even in South Korea, South Korea was only created after 300,000 armed Communists were exterminated in that country from 1945-1950. When North Korea conquered almost all of South Korea during the Korean War, armed South Korean communist guerrillas sprung up immediately in every conquered zone. They were already there and waiting for the North Koreans.

After the South Korean government took back all this territory, they rampaged around the country, seeking out and killing many of the people who had taken up arms and their supporters. Again over 300,000 were killed. There was also a Communist uprising on Jeju Island around this time that was put down viciously. Obviously Communism was quite popular in South Korea from 1945-53.

Alt Left: Individualistic Societies Tend to Be Beta Because Most of the Men are Class-cucked

RL: “Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). ”

Clavdius Americanvs: The U.S. Military, really all modern standing militaries, are effectively Alpha-dominated Communist centrally-planned societies. I’ll mull over why.

If you notice, the only societies these days that have sustainable at all rightwing economics tend to be pretty Beta. Singapore is one of the only neoliberal societies on Earth, and the men live with their parents til they’re 40 because they can’t afford to move out. If they can’t afford to move out, they can’t get married, so you have a city-state full of Chinese incels who are sitting there and taking it like a bunch of Beta cuckboys.

The US is Beta.

The UK is Beta.

Canada is Beta.

Individualist societies are probably Beta because they’re class-cucked. Only a Beta would let himself get cucked like that. An Alpha wouldn’t stand for any kind of cucking. You try it and he’ll kick your ass.

Alt Left: Behaviorally Alpha Societies Tend to Be Socialist and Good for Workers, the Poor and Men in General

Transformer: Do you think Southern Euro behavior Alphas are not such great societies for working poor people like in Latin America, do you agree? I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.

https://www.aei.org/articles/from-popular-sovereignty-to-the-reality-of-state-paternalism/

https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Regimes-Latin-America-Dictators/dp/0742537390

https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-archives/industrialization-and-authoritarianism-in-latin-america/

In Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa, and even traditional Southeast Asian and Asian cultures, there are not a lot of problems for working poor people. Al of these societies are very much pro-worker, pro-poor,

Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa: All of these societies are collectivist, not individualist, and they are very pro-worker, pro-poor, pro-common man populist. In addition, almost all societies over there are socialist in name or in deed.

Feudalism was always an uncomfortable fit in the Arab World and it took a lot of mangling of Islam to try to justify it. As soon as the Arab World went free, it all went socialist right away. Despite tremendous efforts by Western neoliberal dipshits to try to shove neoliberalism down Arab throats, it refuses to take hold. Almost no one wants it. The fact that neoliberalism is grotesquely anti-Islamic is probably the main reason. Furthermore, neoliberalism is very hard to impose on a collectivist culture, though it is possible as in Latin America and the Philippines.

Men in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand are traditionally very Alpha. Most of Southeast Asia has been socialist for 50 years now. Radical capitalism was an aberration for SE Asia because all of SE Asia has always been a very collectivist culture. Check out Fire in the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald about how the collectivist nature of Vietnamese society made the Viet Cong almost impossible to defeat.

Very unequal Thailand is a recent aberration but it’s been run by military rule and juntas for most of recent history. Communist guerrillas were extremely succesful in Thailand during the Vietnam War. The Pentagon said there were just a few guerrillas but people who went over there to study them found that they were everywhere, especially in the North.

For some reason they faded away but recently class war has returned to Thailand with a vengeance with the wars between Yellow Shirts (rightwing middle class) and red shirts (workers). Of course the Yellow Shirts are winning because the army supports them, but still, rightwing individualist economics is an aberration in collectivist Thailand.

In China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia the men seem to be quite Alpha. The Philippines and Indonesia have retained Latin America-style systems with extreme inequality and authoritarianism

Japan and Korea were probably barely feudal. Obviously they were never individualist and even their capitalism is very collectivist and uses a lot of state involvement in the economy all the way down to actual planning of the economy.

China was under rightwing economics (feudalism) for much of its history. Communism was an easy sell in China because it was always an extremely collectivist culture.

In addition, capitalism never took hold, as feudalism was the only form of rightwing economics the Chinese knew. The feudalism was so bad that many to most Chinese peasants were effectively slaves and quite a few actually were slaves. 88% of Chinese young people say they are Marxists. 87% of Chinese support the Communist Party. That’s because the CPP is a natural fit for Chinese collectivism.

The Philippines was a colony forever, and after independence, somehow feudalism developed. The Philippines is a collectivist culture that has developed a very Latin American-style economic system probably due to being colonized by Spaniards. Everywhere the Spanish colonized, they wrecked. However, they have also had armed Communist rebellions almost non-stop from 1945-on. The most recent president, Duterte, says he is a socialist.

Indonesia was another country that went hard rightwing, in this case classical fascist, after independence, however not before murdering 1 million Communists as the Communists were the most popular movement in the country. Obviously Communism hasn’t been popular since and in fact it is illegal to have that political opinion. However, the last couple of presidents did refer to themselves as social democrats.

Both the Philippines and Indonesia are horribly class-cucked. In addition, both are subject to a reactionary merchant ruling class in the form of overseas Chinese, a feudal-type people who retained the pre-Communist feudal culture of China when they left long ago. Not having been subject to a revolution, they are a feudal type ruling class that mirrors the Latin American ruling class in many ways.

Feudalism can absolutely arise in a collectivist culture whereas US style rightwing individualist neoliberal economics has a difficult time getting a foothold.

So societies where all the man are Alphas are often very good for poor and working class men and I would argue that they are good for men period for obvious reasons.

I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.

Why would societies where all men are Alphas end up paternalistic? Why would authoritarian societies be bad for poor and working class people and for men? Southern and Eastern Europe have traditions of authoritarianism and very pro-worker populist governments.

North Africa and the Middle East is still very authoritarian, and it is very good for poor and working class people and for men. Russia is somewhat authoritarian and has been authoritarian for much of its history. For the last hundred years, Russian society has been very good for poor and working class people and for men. All of these places have traditions of relatively equal societies and strong redistributionist economics.

Paternalistic governments help their people. Rightwing governments in Latin America tend to be anything but paternalistic.

It is true that some societies where most men are Alphas have evolved a rightwing authoritarian, often semi-feudal system, however, many other such societies have not done so. Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). But the rightwing authoritarian societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha actually look more feudal than US-style neoliberal, although they sometimes preach the latter.

Alt Left: US-Style Individualistic (Laissez Faire Neoliberal or Neoclassical) Economics Tends to Fail Most Everywhere Outside the US Because Everyone Hates It

The only country in Latin America where an actual US-style neoliberal system took hold along with the typical class-cucked citizenry that goes along with it is Chile, and the neoliberalism had to be put in at gunpoint by a vicious dictatorship that murdered 15,000 Chileans after a CIA coup overthrew the Democratically elected Marxist government of Salvador Allende.

Neoliberal scholars such as Milton Friedman said that neoliberalism in these places would always have to be enforced at gunpoint by a rightwing dictatorship because otherwise a majority would never vote for it. The admission that a majority would never vote for such a system ought to be a profound tell – how good could this system be if no majority in these parts of the world would ever vote for it?

After Pinochet left, the neoliberal culture continued, but really it only infected the upper 1/3 of the population who benefited from Pinochetism, while the lower 2/3 hated it.

Chile to this day remains one of the most unequal countries on Earth with class conflict and hatred so thick that it breaks out into street violence all the time. In recent months the country has been shaken by leftwing insurrectionist riots against the rightwing government, a logical outcome, but it was already like this somewhat for 30 years after Pinochet left. Chile is a place like the Philippines where the classes hate each other so much that they pretty much want each other dead, literally. The class hate is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Neoliberalism also caught on somewhat in the UK under Thatcher and later Conservative governments, probably the closest to a US rightwing style government on Earth. Even long after Thatcher left, she caused such cultural change that the top 1/3 of the population went over to neoliberalism.

The bottom 2/3 of course did not (see Chile above – a 1/3 benefit, 2/3 are harmed equation is typical of neoliberalism), and Thatcher was burned in effigy amidst violent riots in the poorer urban areas when she died.

Thatcher was also an extreme anti-environmentalist, and it is not yet known if the Earth accepted or rejected her body when it was placed inside of its body. One wondered the same thing about Reagan, the vicious anti-environmentalist. When he died, I wondered, “Will the Earth even accept his body when it is interred?”

Neoliberalism caught on in Ireland, where it did the usual damage. It’s not known why the population opted for this.

It caught on in the Baltics because they hate Russia and Communism so much that they are almost psychotic. Of course, like all such people, the Baltics tend to be quite fascist. In an extreme reaction against anything slightly smelling of Communism, including the mildest forms of socialism, the Baltics went to extreme neoliberalism in a knee-jerk, unthinking way.

The more neoliberal a country was the more it got ruined by the 2008 economic crash (and the more socialist it was – like China – the more it was protected), and the Baltics were devastated by the crash. Latvia was hit worst of all. 1/3 of the population fled its ruined economy, including almost all of the educated and skilled classes. Latvia remains in neoliberal ruins to this day.

Russia went neoliberal under Yeltsin, who opened fire on the nation’s Parliament when it defied him, murdering 600 people, including many legislators. In 1996, the Communist Party actually won the election, but Yeltsin stole it with the help of the US and suitcases literally packed with cash.

Russia was stripped bare and sold for 10 cents on the dollar to the worst capitalists, mostly of a (((certain type))) with the help of bankers in Germany and in the the US, where a (((certain type of people))) also delighted in the looting of their ancient enemy (see (((Jeffrey Sachs))) and (((the Chicago Boys))), back for another round after the Chile debacle), 15 million people died premature deaths. and the nation’s paternity stolen by a (((venal capitalist ruling class))) that was indistinguishable from (((Organized Crime))).

The huge reaction against the neoliberal rape of the land was the main thing that brought the nationalist Putin into power to try to repair the damage and heal the rape victim.

Neoliberalism has been imposed in Europe and many other parts of the world via austerity via bankers and the IMF and the World Bank, but austerity was hated everywhere it was put in – in Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, and even in Africa – and it caused mass riots and even the overthrow of quite a few governments everywhere it was imposed. It was the violent reaction to this austerity that directly led to the Pink Tide in Latin America that US bipartisan foreign policy has now rolled back.

Alt Left: Conservatism (Neoliberalism) Tends Towards Fascism Almost as a Mathematical Law of Political Science

Conservatism tends to always dissolve into fascism. Show me anywhere on Earth where conservatism, especially conservative, neoliberal economics has been sustainable? It’s not. If it were sustainable it would not have to go fascist but neoliberalism and its monstrous 3rd World cousin is never sustainable? Why? Because despite conservative lies, neoliberalism is generally shit for the lower 80% of the population. Under neoliberalism, the top 20% get richer, usually a lot richer and the bottom 80% lose money. And this setup never changes.

Neoliberalism always causes a crisis or a crash sooner of later (see the 2008 Crash, caused 100% by neoliberalism). It was in fact a Neoliberal Crash, like most economic crashes. This 2020 Crash in the US has been caused by the Coronavirus, but US neoliberalism has made it so much worse.

Furthermore, since neoliberalism is without fail horrible for the bottom 80% of the population by its nature, it always engenders a Left backlash.

Except in places that have already had some sort of a revolution and social contract has been reached, neoliberalism will often put up a huge fight against any threat from the Left at all. The less the regime tolerates the Left, the more radical and extreme the Left gets because extreme conservatism tends to cause extreme Leftism via a law of nature, sort of like a scale that must be balanced or better yet, the Balance of Nature itself.

Pretty soon you’ve got Latin America or even Southern Europe, where the Left is socialist or Communist and the Right is fascist, with little in between. This tends to be the case especially in Catholic countries because Catholic countries tend towards collectivism and tend to despise individualism, which is itself only a product of Protestantism. See Weber on that. He’s immaculate.

In  a collectivist society, all political movements are collectivist. Left collectivism is always socialism or Communism. Right collectivism is always fascism. So in these Catholic societies you tend to end up with Socialists/Communists versus Fascists, in other words, a chronically violent tinderbox in which both Left and Right will tend to get more authoritarian because that’s the only option left to you in a place like that.

Democracy’s not sustainable in an environment like that. In a place like that, democracy just means a lot of unrest, often violent, and eventually the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of your government, lawfully elected or not. Most governments don’t want to get violently overthrown, so in order not to do so, they have to become less democratic.

Fascism is properly seen as a rightwing revolutionary movement of capitalism that rises due to a threat from the Left. Fascism is a palingenetic popular dictatorship against the Left. Therefore, there cannot be any Left fascism. If it’s on the Left, it’s not fascism. Period. And fascism, being a popular dictatorship against the Left, is necessarily not particularly socialist or great for workers. Why would it be? Why would a popular dictatorship against the Left institute leftwing policies?

Alt Left: All Capitalist States Are Crony Capitalist States by Their Very Nature

Claudius (referring to this post): If the State hadn’t gotten involved would the Capitalists ever been able to take the land from the farmers?

LOL more Libertarianism. You are describing a state that could never exist. Now you see why capitalists actually love and need the state so much.

The US government owned all that land. What exactly were they supposed to do with it? It was the state’s land. The state made the decision to give a lot of it away to homesteaders mostly because this benefited the settler-colonial project, which was ultimately a capitalist project. This wasn’t working after a while, so they gave the land to the railroads for the above reason.

All capitalism is crony capitalism, that’s the thing. This Libertarian state with no crony capitalism has never existed and can never exist. Under capitalism, capitalists capture the state because they do need a state after all.

Who the Hell fenced off the Commons? Employees of the King. Who forcibly threw the peasants off their land? The army and police of the King, who did it for the capitalists. Actually the decisions were made in Parliament. There were many actual discussions about how they need to fence off the Commons to develop capitalism. As usual, the Parliament was run by the representatives of the rich. So they passed laws to do what the rich want.

In every capitalist society, capitalists capture the state. They do this because they need the state for a variety of things, mostly army and police.

Do you understand why the US rich and corporations love the military and US military adventurism so much? Because the US military is the private army of every billionaire and every large corporation in the US. The shmuck losers who put on that uniform to go fight for “democracy” are really fighting and dying for Jeff Bezos, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Monsanto. All those soldiers who died in recent wars died for people like that. This is the case in almost every single war the US has ever fought.

Claudius: How does an Alt Left or Right regime prevent the State from become over regulatory, authoritarian, and crony Capitalist corrupt?

Any Alt Right regime I would assume would automatically go crony capitalist because the entire Alt Right as far as I can tell are neoliberals to Libertarians. There is no left economics on the Alt Right. People keep saying there is, but I never se it. On the other hand, there is a large socialist faction over at Stormfront. They’re as awful as the rest of them, but at least they’re socialists. I’d rather make alliance with socialist Stormfronter Nazis than with anyone put up by the Democratic Party.

The only thing good in  the Democratic Party is The Squad, and they are a tiny group. Even Sanders is reactionary on US foreign policy, as the Democratic Party has been since Day One.

Well, we would be on the Left, so we would not be captured by the rich and the corporations. We would not allow ourselves to be. We would pass campaign finance reform to ensure that.

Nevertheless the Alt Left under capitalism would run the risk as usual of being captured by the rich and the large corporations, both of which would continue to exist. It’s possible that they could be bought off this way. It wouldn’t be the first time, and this is exactly what has happened to most social democrats, especially in Europe. But once we got captured by capital and become crony capitalist, we would not be Alt Left anymore. Yet this is very much a risk. Left parties go rightwing all the time. It’s nothing new.

Trash’s Journeys to Return of Kings and Unz

Trashman Returns: Roosh V readers and even Roosh himself read this site.

What? Roosh V and even Roosh himself read my site?

Trashman Returns: But I was often called a “cuck” and “a shill”.

You’re not a cuck.

Trashman Returns: I moved on to an Alt Right site. But here I was called a Leftwing Libertarian-and I’m not Libertarian.

Unz. You’re not a Libertarian. I actually think you are Alternative Left! Maybe the liberal version and not the Leftist one.

Trashman Returns: When I pointed out the harm of neoliberal markets I was accused of being a shill and cuck and all the usual tedious Gen Z tags.

You’re a cuck if you’re against turbo-capitalism? How many times does capitalism have fall on its face before people wise up? Some people never learn.

Trashman Returns: Back came the response from one Unz Poster “Do you realize how f***ing gay that sounds, boss?”

Oh, you were on Unz. So many terrible rightwingers on there. We certainly don’t think being against neoliberalism is gay! We are conservative liberals and leftists, if that makes any sense. We are the Conservative Left! Rather conservative on social issues, but more left on economics and most everything else. In between the Cultural Left and the Republican social conservatives on social stuff.

Trashman Returns: Meanwhile, on RETURN OF KINGS, commentator’s wanted to tell me how “Alpha” they were and what a “Soyboy” I was.

Toxic masculinity. I hate that phrase, but that’s Roosh’s sites, sorry. Hell that’s all PUA sites. I am trying to get away from that here and create a PUA site for ordinary guys.

You’re not a soyboy? You’re for the men, right? Bros before hos! You’re against the manhating Feminist Enemy and you are with your brothers in solidarity against them. Ok, you’re not a soy or a cuck then. The soys and cucks are the male feminists and other fags who have taken up arms against their brothers by lining up with the feminists who wish our destruction.

PS I’m not against gay men here. Gay men are for the men! I usually call straight men gay. Almost all straight men nowadays are male feminists fags. The male feminists who are working against the men to ruin our jobs and careers and put most of us in jail or prison (the goal of modern feminism) – those are the guys that I call cucks, soyboys, fags, wussies, girlymen, etc. I just call them that to humiliate them and attack their masculinity for lining up with the enemy against their brothers. I do this to shame them away from their gay anti-male tactics. Also, if you’re with the women and against the men, you’re not much of a man. You’re a pathetic wuss, a girlyman.

No real man is for the women and against the men. If that’s you, then you’re a fag.

People like Jason think I am against feminine men but I’m really not. I don’t care how masculine or feminine any man is. Hell, a lot of people used to think I was gay! And I’m a pretty soft guy myself and it’s caused me problems with women my whole damned life. I don’t care how masculine you are! You want to be a wimp, knock yourself out, man! I think straight effeminate men are bizarre. Why don’t you just go gay if you’re going to act like that? I’m not against effeminate gay men either. Cats meow, dogs bark, and gay men are effeminate. I dislike effeminate behavior in men, but I understand that it’s normal for gay men to be this way.

Rules on Support for Capitalism, Neoliberalism, and a Market on This Site

Miguel in the previous post is a capitalist fanboy, and I don’t allow that on here with him or anyone else. You are allowed to praise “the market” but not capitalism or neoliberalism.You can praise the market as an element of a socialist country, as part of a mixed economy, or as a regulated market with Keynesianism and a safety net. That’s about as far right as I will go.

In my opinion, the market or private sector is a good tool for the development of the productive forces, provided they are patriotic. I also would ideally like to see markets under the control of the state like in  China. I am a Market Socialist after all.

Alt Left: Libertarianism and the Alt Left: Prospects for an Alliance?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Peronismo definitely won’t fly in Libertarian circles. Argentina is used as a case study for a failed nationalized protectionist economy.

That’s probably not even true. They did great during the Peron years.

I think that the Trump years in general and this COVID-19 response in particular, both of which have been characterized by neoliberal or Libertarian policy and a Libertarian response to a crisis, respectively, has proven the abject failure of the neoliberal or Libertarian model. As if it had not been proven failed by the 2008 crash, which was caused wholly by this model.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: To unify all the nomadic tribes of the Alternative Steppe, three things are need. First, a rejection of central economic planning would have to be declared by right and left wingers. Second, constitutional or legislative limitations on the power of government to regulate. Essentially, castrate the FDA, FCC, FAA etc.* and legalize drugs

I absolutely will not go for either of those. Central planning is working great in China. Even South Korea, Japan, and Germany engage in central planning.

And we will never go along with gutting regulations. Alt Leftists are regulators. We are really Big Government types in a lot of ways.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: And third, a solution to the immigration problem.

There is no solution to this problem.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The social-economic model, even if never explicitly stated as such, would be capitalism for corporations, socialism for individuals, and tyranny at the border, which is the inverse of what we have now. Warren Buffett agrees.

It’s the capitalism for corporations part that we are going to object to. That’s the whole problem right there.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The Democrats will stay hopelessly in shambles for the next few elections until minority GDP and population both over take that of whites.

I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Deregulation is hard for leftists to accept because of the strong tendency to falsely conflate wealth redistribution with government regulation.

It is in fact that only thing that redistributes income at all. Absent that you just have never-ending growth of inequality until you pretty much have feudalism. Neoliberalism (or Libertarian economics) has failed everywhere it’s been tried. It’s only success stories are when it’s mixed with socialism. Most of the world rejects neoliberal economics. The US is a holdout. There aren’t many others.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I suggest aptitude AND loyalty testing for immigrants to keep the stupids or anti-westerns out.

That’s fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: No explicit racism, but it would effectively bring in only Christian Caucasians from Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, liberal East Asians and light-skinned Hispanics.

We would object to this part. Of course we want mostly high-quality immigrants, but they don’t have to be any particular race. High-quality immigrants of any race should be just fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Currently, strong regulation of consumer goods & services exists because, ex post fact, individuals can’t afford to sue companies for the damages their products may have caused. As IQ’s, automation, access to on-line information, and personal income increase worldwide, people could rely less on byzantine jurisprudence.

I don’t understand any of this.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: But as I see the tsunami of technology and globalization approaching to totally demolish the justification for our current system, I can’t help but take preparations for the utopia. We must agree on which anarchist utopia to usher in, lest our system turn into a Blade Runner dystopia.

The future will not be any type of anarchism. In fact the future will see a greater role for the state.